The technicalities of technical groups

// February 27th, 2011 // 1 Comment » // GE11

Image via Wikipedia

It would seem to me that the ULA, SF and FF will be able to form technical groups meaning 3 responding to the government, and perhaps a group made up of former FFers (Healy-Rea,Fleming, Mattie Mcgrath, Joe Behan (if he squeezes back in), Grealish, ) and others. And maybe the right and populist independents might sort out something.

All of which will have the effect of watering down FF’s reactions. Also, I’m not sure of the protocol but just who is the official leader of the opposition is it the leader of the largest party or the person who gets the next highest vote for Taoiseach? Cos that could be Gerry Adams.

Do FG really need 40 pts for a majority?

// February 14th, 2011 // No Comments » // GE11

Image via Wikipedia

Every year in  the premiership a number of smaller teams set themselves the not inconsiderable task* of avoiding relegation with the hard number of 40pts as the target to be achieved. Some rare seasons you might need more than this, more often than not less will suffice but the hard target of 40pts has come to be engrained as the point of safety in the minds of players, managers and supporters like.

In Ireland the widely held belief is that you need a minimum of 40% of the 1st preference before you can even start beginning to think about an overall majority. But this is not a hard number, the number needed to get an overall majority has actually dropped considerably over the last few decades. There was a time when FF with 47/48% couldn’t get a majority due to the voting behaviour of the people and the toxicity of Charlie Haughey and the FF tribe to others. This changed over time as Bertie made the party much less transfer repellent, combined with more careful candidate selection. Yet this change could be about to work in the opposition direction also.

This election will be unusual for any number of reasons including most significantly of all, but to date unreported on, the likely elimination of front runner FF candidates who might in one scenario lock in more 1st preference votes than ever before thus lowering the number of votes need to win the last and 2nd last seat in many constituencies. This in turn could mean FG winning 80 seats from less than 40% of the 1st preference vote. Alternatively if some the outgoing FF TDs who didn’t lock in loads of 1st preferences were to trend more towards FG than we might have expected given the parties enmity down the years then this too might lower the final effective quota needed to win the last 2 seats. Why might those voting for FF transfer to FG, well, if the thesis were true that FF and FG draw a lot of support from the more conservative elements in Irish society then who do you think they would transfer to (if they transfer at all) in a choice between FG, Labour or SF?

Locked in votes would reduce what I term the final effective quota. The final effective quota differs from the quota in that if you exceed the quota then you are automatically elected but if you end up ahead of the last uneliminated candidate then you are deemed elected without exceeding the quota. Take Limerick in 2007 for example, the quota was 8230 but the last candidate was elected on 6966 making what appears the final effective quota just under 7,000 considerably lower the actual quota. In truth the final effect quota is not what the final candidate got but what they needed to get which is more than 5776, even less than the actual quota. All the last candidate needed to get was 5777 almost 2,500  vote less than the quota.

If there are more votes lost to non-transfers than usual then this effective final quota will be lower and thus seats could be won without getting remotely close to the quota. So in this election, we could see many more candidates than we might have expected getting elected without exceeding the quota.

* as a Palace fan avoiding relegation is practically my battle for a champions league place. We went down one year after finishing 4th from bottom because the Premier League was doing sizing from 22 to 20 teams. We also made it to the final 4 of the League and FA cups. So I’m not being sarcastic when I say that task is not inconsiderable.

A gender kink in political reform proposals

// February 9th, 2011 // No Comments » // GE11

Image via Wikipedia

There is a recurring desire expressed to see more sittings of the Oireachtas moving to 4 days or even 5 days in part as a means to facilitate more family hours so that there would be less late sittings.

However, this creates another problem, as these same family friendly hours actually only suit those whose families are close enough for them to see them in the evening, i.e. Dublin based TDs or those within commuting distance as other TDs from further afield are actually away from their families during the week. So either the TDs from outside of Dublin move their children, dogs, cats, spouses to Dublin and have them attend school, chase cats and work there or they leave them at home and they only see them at weekends.

But that’s not family friendly at all and it will be to their electoral disadvantage as moving the family and those the family home to Dublin will leave those TDs open to a challenge from a more locally based candidate and the cycle would begin again. So a solution to a problem that we are told has a great impact on getting women, especially those with young child involved in politics it would seem that the likely effect of moving to more shorter sitting days would be to deny female TDs the longevity needed to become ministers, party leaders or ultimately Taoiseach because they either have to leave their children for longer periods of time or leave themselves more vulnerable to electoral defeat.

Of course, a solution to this might be to question why we need the Dail chamber aspect of being a parliamentarian requires you to be in Dublin at all. Might we start to reconsider the assembly nature of Dail process entirely? After all, it’s not like anyone is in the chamber genuinely listening to what others have to say so why do they need to be so close proximity at all? Would it be more properly family friendly to have a virtual chamber?

Did FF think their political reform proposals through at all?

// February 7th, 2011 // 2 Comments » // GE11

Image by Getty Images via @daylife

Having a substitute in the Dail as suggested in the political reform segment of the FF manifesto would hardly free up a minister’s time at all, it’s not like voting in the Dail is causing them that many headaches for them as it is. They are already allocated up to half a dozen civil servants to handle their constituency work at the taxpayers expense. This is done without letting on to the constituent who is lead to believe it’s the minister who is writing and signing all those letters until that letter turns out to be for a murder or child molester in which case we’re then told it was their staff wrote it.

And what happens when the minister seeks to run for re-election or is dropped from the cabinet? Do they kick out the sub? and what do they campaign on? – People of Ballysomewhere “Vote for me, my sub did all the local work.” Or is it intended that you’d be a minister in a government and if you fall out of favour with the party leader that your political career over? Talk about giving a means to quell dissent against the leader.

Think about that for a moment, anyone who is a minister would serve entirely at the pleasure of the Taoiseach, once appointed they would be open to being dismissed and have no seat to return to, not means to challenge the leader of the day. There is a strong argument to made for this power if we were to elected the Taoiseach directly as the person in that office would have  strong direct mandate from the people. Yet to continue to have the Dail elect the Taoiseach who then appoints ministers, none of whom will be able to challenge him for fear of losing their jobs, would mean that for example Michael Martin would not have been able to challenge Brian Cowen nor Albert Reynolds challenge Charles Haughey. Once gone as minister they would be gone from parliament and without an income would be gone from public life.

These set of proposals is even more half baked than I thought they might be, and FF are still persisting, and being allowed to do so by the press, with inventing terms that make no sense like single seat PR *(it’s called the Alternative Vote and as LibDems in the UK will tell you it’s not really all that proportionate)  and unilateral renegotiation.

The lunacy of an agreed FG/Lab program for government

// February 2nd, 2011 // 2 Comments » // 2011, GE11

Image via Wikipedia

It has come up repeatedly in press commentary over the last few weeks and was a feature  again last night on Vincent Browne that FG and Labour should published an agreed program for government before the election takes place. We know that Vincent isn’t the greatest with numbers so I’ll be really slow with this.

If FG get 60 seats and Labour 30 then that’s a 2:1 ratio or if FG and Labour both got 50 seats then that’s a 1:1 ratio or a 50/50 split.

The ratio of the parties would affect and reflect more than the simple make up of the cabinet. It would reflect the level of public support that each party’s manifesto had gotten and thus the legitimate negotiating strength for each position. That is why for the parties to negotiate now in advance of the people giving their verdict on the proposals of each party would be sure lunacy, as it presupposes or rather completely ignores what the opinion of the public would be. The election isn’t just about who is Taoiseach or how many bums each party gets to seat around the cabinet table, but it is about whose ideas the public favour more.

Major Irish Political party unveils new details about party policy

// January 25th, 2011 // No Comments » // 2011, GE11

The Party has in response to much media comment about their lack of detail unveiled new details about it’s new Transport policy.

The party has revealed that the policy when released will be Mauve coloured with a covering exclusively provided by Moleskine, lightly scented with a hint of  lilac and the reliving of a child’s summer in Tuscany evoking memories of open top cars and sunlight dancing on upturned faces as the wind fingers at pace through their hair. The text will be bold in places but otherwise well behaved and quite plain. In adherence to the party’s commitment to diversity the text will range in size from 40 pt to 2 pt*. Fonts to be used are not 100% written in stone, but Calibri, Arial and Times New Roman will feature prominently.

The party can confirm that there will be no paragraphs of a length more than 4 sentences and with excessive usage of bullet points throughout. Several pages will consist of nothing but images of the party leader and party members pretending to be ordinary members of the public. As this is a transport policy there will be further pages devoted to images of trains, buses and cars with some bridges and roads featured too.

The policy has been described as very forward looking by those who have read it (including family members of those who wrote it and who had to be heavily prompted in their responses when doing so) with a sense of the determination of Central American strong man in its follow through.

Pressed by reporters as to the content of the policy document the party said that its contents would be profound and far reaching and affecting every aspect of transport experience. There will be extensive recourse to references to studies of similar sounding but unrelated academic studies of mice travelling on buses.

Asked what the policy would do the answer was that the policy would be transformational and make the lives of everyone it touched better. At this point the gathered media proceeded to tear their eyebrows off. All in all it was deemed the most successful policy launch that day by any party.

* (a footnote at the base of the last page indicating that all commitments are subject to the prevailing economic climate being favourable to the showering of gold coins on the populous)

Why is Michael Martin fighting a battle he reckons he can’t win?

// January 18th, 2011 // No Comments » // 2011

People are looking at the talk around the FF confidence motion and wondering why is Michael Martin doing this now, and why is it him that is leading it?

The main reason I suspect is that the heave is designed to allow particular FF TDs who are standing in the next election to nail themselves down in the minds of the electorate as the official FF opposition to Brian Cowen and the government’s harsher measures and thus ensure that it is they and not their running mates that will be the people returned to the Dail at election time. I had noted previously that the makeup of the FF parliamentary party could be so changed in the aftermath of the election such that the prospects of one leader ship contender might increase while those of another decreased. Martin didn’t go for a heave long before now because in his view Lenihan would win any outright vote with the current parliamentary party.

However, by moving this close to the election and with the opinions and pronouncements of the likes of Michael Kennedy or Michael Moynihan fresh in their minds many FF inclined voters might cast their vote for those TD rather than their constituency mates. Thus altering the balance of support within the next FF parliamentary party.

This heave is but the first major engagement of the sure to be bloody battle of Mount st. as the supporters of various generals who would be the king over the water in the next Dail try to shift things one way or another in the interests of their favourite. And it won’t be the last engagement before election day either.

What changed in FF in the last week?

// January 17th, 2011 // No Comments » // 2011

People are asking what changed in FF to prompt the challenge to Brian Cowen, was it Anglo was it his answers in the Dail, was it the new info about who else was there? It wasn’t. It was as I noted on Political Reform on Saturday, the fact that many TDs with the election looming had actually gone out on the doors in seriousness for the first time in years. And they started with areas they knew had always been good for them.

FF activities of the last while mirror nothing as much as the frankly deluded manner in which FG approached the 2002 election. The party was completely blind as to the reality they were being presented with by the polls and carried on as it was business as usual when in fact the changed economic environment in a time of plenty meant that the usual rules didn’t apply.

It appears that only in the last week or so has it appeared that reality has dawned on them. Perhaps this is because with the starting of a countdown last November by the Greens to the calling of the election, some of their senior people like Batt O’Keeffe and their supporters have actually had to go out on the doors for the first time in earnest in many years and the reaction is far, far worse than they ever imagined it might be. With people who they knew well and had voted for them personally for years telling them bluntly that they would not do so this time out. They each thought as individuals that while the party might have lost support that they would personally be ok, the mentality that lead people to think that Alan Dukes or Nora Owen couldn’t possibly lose their seats or that DSE couldn’t possibly not elect a FG TD.

So now we appear to have FF TDs seeking to be either for or against Cowen heading into the election with the hope that the public will give them the benefit of the doubt in the polling booth and that enough of them survive for there to be a FF party to rebuild. It is a risky strategy as it is possible that such divisions will harm the intra-party transfers that FF will need to safe seats. Too divided a local ticket and they might as well be running for different and opposing parties.

Decent, honest and honourable – it isn’t enough.

// January 14th, 2011 // 5 Comments » // 2011

In recent days I’ve read on p.ie and elsewhere and heard on the airwaves about people who are decent, honest and honourable and for this set of reasons should be public representatives or hold high office.

One of the most impressive moments of the 2008 for me wasn’t any part of the razzamatazz but I guess surprisingly a contribution from Sen. Joe Biden in the Vice Presidential debate with Gov. Sarah Palin. Yeah, I’m that much of an anorak I watched it and even paid attention to what was said.

It’s about 2 minutes 45 seconds  into this clip of the later stages of the debate* in which the nominees were asked about bi-partisan ship. It highlighted for me a problem with modern politics in general and with an interesting Irish quirk to it. The problem is that too often people on the left and the right tend to question the motivation of their opponents. To listen to members of the left you’d swear that those on the right were oppose to people having good paying jobs and good schools and access to decent health care. And you’d swear blind after listening to some of the right that those on the left were planning to lock us all up for thinking a thought that diverged from the acceptable norm or buying for extra lessons for our kids after school.

The real focus in political shouldn’t be arguments over the motives we imagine for ourselves that others must have but their judgement and the substance of their argument that they make for the policy position they are supporting. It’s part of the key difference between those who are politics for personal ambition and advancement and those of us who want to see changes in matters of policy and substance.

The Irish quirk is that we have become so used to the widespread myth that all politicians are inherently dishonest, indecent and dishonourable that the mere fact someone comes forward who it is suggested is decent, honest and honourable even if they are from the same party as the incumbent that this is is a sufficient reason to vote for them. To give them a go this time. It’s not!

Instead, those traits and others like them should be a necessary** condition but not a sufficient one for voting for someone. We should be able as adults to presume unless it is shown otherwise that all those who put themselves forward for election are decent, honest and honourable. Those who crow loudest about being decent, honest and honourable are implying that all others in the field aren’t. And the same goes for the I’m local, I’m ordinary, I’m just one of you, schtick we often hear from candidates.

I don’t think Brian Cowen or Brian Lenihan or the rest of the members of the government are somehow inherently dishonest, indecent or dishonourable. I do think they is balls out wrong with the approach they’ve adopted with dealing with the various problems we’ve been faced with and they were plain wrong in how they dealt with the economy prior to the crisis which in turn made a bad situation into an awful one. Like kids that played with matches and burned and badly damaged the family home, it’s not that they did it out of shear badness but rather out of lack of cop-on.

*The full text is below but it reads much more dryly than it come across on tv at the time.

Sen. Biden “I have been able to work across the aisle on some of the most controversial issues and change my party’s mind, as well as Republicans’, because I learned a lesson from Mike Mansfield.

Mike Mansfield, a former leader of the Senate, said to me one day — he — I made a criticism of Jesse Helms. He said, “What would you do if I told you Jesse Helms and Dot Helms had adopted a child who had braces and was in real need?” I said, “I’d feel like a jerk.”

He said, “Joe, understand one thing. Everyone’s sent here for a reason, because there’s something in them that their folks like. Don’t question their motive.”

I have never since that moment in my first year questioned the motive of another member of the Congress or Senate with whom I’ve disagreed. I’ve questioned their judgment.

I think that’s why I have the respect I have and have been able to work as well as I’ve been able to have worked in the United States Senate. That’s the fundamental change Barack Obama and I will be bring to this party, not questioning other people’s motives.”

** I’m channelling my inner engineer with recourse to a standard maths phrase of a condition “being necessary but not sufficient”. In other words, it’s presence doesn’t prove a thing but it’s absence does disprove something.

The general election of 2014

// January 14th, 2011 // 2 Comments » // 2011

It is the height of arrogant presumption of someone to take the result of the next election as read but it is also prudent that someone within an political party need to think beyond the next election towards the next generation. And it should be recognised that there are times when a party’s day in the sun has passed, when it is ripe for toppling from the political mainstream and all it requires is the right push at the right time. This is what happened to the UK’s Liberal party in the 1920s where the Tories adroitly usher them out and the Labour in as their main opposition. Such a prospect was unimaginable at the end of the first World War that at the beginning of the next war that the Liberal party would be a rump in parliament not to return to government until the dawn of a new century.

I’ve previously noted that a problem exists for FF is that who within the party at a point of central control will have the stature or influence to make the hard calls especially on supporting candidates for the future that will save the party from slow oblivion. Let’s face it, it’s not going to be the likes of  Jerry Beades that does it. The same question for different reasons has to be asked within FG as to who is thinking both in terms of longer term political goals (policy objectives) and strategy to ensure that FG will be able to play a dominant part in the political discussion of the coming decades.

Here are two (perhaps extreme) suggestions I would make (based on conversations I’ve had with others), one is that after the general election and once the new Taoiseach has been chosen by the Dail that the new government should immediately amend the necessary legislation and extend the Dail term to 7 years subject to its re-approval by the Oireachtas again 4 years hence (those not tying the Labour party into a deal for 7 years where they are dependent on the FG Taoiseach’s calling of the general election that they can’t revoke, and with the commitment that the full 7 years will not availed of. This is in part to signal that the work of national recovery will be hard and politically costly but that it will work in the medium term and the government needs the space for. It is an odd feature of public policy that good and effective policy takes much longer to show results than the political system generally allows, so that governments are frequently rewarded or punished for the work of others.

FF and the rest of the opposition will be doubtlessly outraged at this move but the new government can simply reply that we are in extraordinary times (which the current government has repeatedly claimed) and that the new government needs and deserves the time to fix the problems caused by a decade and half of mistakes and missed opportunities. With what may be an overwhelming majority this change is the new government’s for the asking. Thus everyone will believe that the next election will be 4/5 years hence or perhaps longer if FG and Labour are agreeable.

But then the coup de grace on FF will be that the government should having stabilised the economic situation and with the economy growing once again, even if unemploment will still be high, hold the next general election on the same day as the local and European elections of 2014 seeking a new mandate and with the commitment to revoke the 7 year term provision. FF will simply be unable to field enough new competent or credible candidates. It will be that much hard for new FF candidates to emerge who can run for both Dail and council at the same time. Couple this with the passage of Seanad reforms such that the Seanad is elected on the day as the Dail will also deprive FF of a route back to power.

FF will most likely return to the Dail with much the same 30/40 TDs they could have post 2011 and without the gains in new cllrs they wanted in order to rebuild the party at local level and in areas where they are weakest. So FF would be facing another full term in opposition along with the knowledge that they would most likely not be the dominant party in any government they might potentially be part of thereafter. This is likely to cause a crisis of confidence within what was once a self styled political movement and not a mere party, and was the natural path to power for the ambitious person of the political centre.

Then at some stage after this 2014 election, FG should think what it really wants in its outline for the 2nd program for government that would govern the 2nd half of that government period of 2017 and beyond. If Labour are unwilling to sign up to this program than the FG Taoiseach should make it clear that she is prepared to make the same offer to what remains of the FF parliamentary party. And at that point, our little tale of the future must end…