Head over to our T
Irish Political Landscape – a policy free zone?
Read more about: Uncategorized 
It’s been needling me since I read it in last Saturday’s Irish Times:
“Whatever they say in public, most of them (i.e. Opposition TDs) have no illusions about the fact that they will be required to make deeply unpopular decisions when they achieve office.
“The two parties are unlikely to spell out in their election manifestos what precisely they intend to do when in office.
“While Fianna Fáil will naturally try to flush them out, the lesson of the British general election is that the electorate doesn’t really expect Opposition parties to give them the bad news and is even likely to punish them if they do. …..Hopefully, they both have a good idea of what they intend to do when they achieve power….”
From the piece it appears that senior sources within Fine Gael have been whispering in Stephen Collins’ ear and the message is: “Forget that old policy rubbish, it’s bare knuckle fight time for us from here on in.’
The impression is confirmed by Pat Leahy’s piece in the Sunday Business Post.
“….Senior party sources suggest that Fine Gael’s approach will be ‘‘more aggressive’’ in the coming months,” Leahy writes.
“Many in the party believe that Labour has prospered by a series of strong attacks on the government – and on the Taoiseach in particular – while Fine Gael has been busy developing worthy policies. In truth, some of those policies need a lot of work yet. But as politics moves to a pre-election, highly partisan footing, that work will take a back seat. Time for ground hurling, Fine Gael believes.”
So we’re supposed to vote Fine Gael and Labour into office with in excess of 100 seats – based on current opinion polls – and as such with an unassailable majority, in the ‘hope’ that they will know what they’re going to do when they get there, without ever having dropped a hint of it to the long suffering Irish public?
Fine Gael strategists are well aware that the strength of their Dail representation after the next general election, and thus the number of Cabinet positions they will have to cede to Labour, depends on how well either party fares in Dublin. That ill-fated heave against Enda Kenny earlier this year was motivated by a perception, borne out in private as well as public polls, that Fine Gael were losing out to Labour in Dublin because Dublin voters will not vote for Enda Kenny as Taoiseach.
The effects of the recession too have been most felt in Dublin where most of the country’s economic activity, and public servants, are concentrated. Labour has capitalized on this public anger and frustration making anger itself the core of its political appeal.
So the strategy wonks in Fine Gael decide; “If it works for Labour, then surely it will work for us?”
Eh, no. It won’t. The ‘anger is a policy’ ground has already been captured by the Labour Party. All Labour have to do now is to start spelling out some kind of coherent vision for Irish Society and a couple of policy ideas that sound plausible. What will Fine Gael do then? Run after them playing catch-up again?
If this is what they’re at, it’s boneheaded politics.
“Quick and decisive action on the major issues facing the country will be required to stabilise financial markets and give some hope to the people that there is light at the end of the tunnel,” Collin’s Saturday column concludes.
Sorry, that ‘light at the end of the tunnel’ is more like the flash emerging from the barrel of the electorate’s gun with the bullet aimed directly for between the eyes. And that’s exactly what any political party that refuses to play straight with the people about what they will do in office, who it will affect, how much it will cost, and its likelihood of success or failure as a policy, will richly deserve.
There are some assumptions that Labour will articulate a vision and spell out policies. They may not do so.
Sensible business based policies which might help our structural deficit problem such as recreating small government, small public service administrations and privatisation of semistates, power, roads etc would all be unpalatable to their voter base not to mention trade unions.Best for Labour not to mention policy areas where a left-palate version of the arithmetic will simply be too weak.
If Labour stick to FF bashing and bank bashing with Anglo-closure as a flagship policy it will be enough for them to capture Dublin and an extra seat here and there. Many FF voters will agree with them on the Anglo issue anyway, especially as Joan is becoming more financially credible and now has more strings to her bow than the old Galway tent anti-narrative cliches.
FG are under more pressure to prove that they are a credible alternative and therefore have to show weighty depth of policy which leaves them open to criticism as any stance can be argued against.
@veronica,
I should add that I think FG have enough policy now and could also frighten voters by saying too much more. I also think labour are prepared for a role as a minor coalition partner whereas FG are only prepared for a role as a senior coalition partner. I wonder what the speculations about the dynamics of the next govt are?
Des,
The core Labour vote jas hovered around about 10-12% for the past 15 years or so. The addition of Democratic Left did little to change it over three electoral cycles. In 1992, Dick Spring did not simply rely on his sterling Dail performances – and he had outshone John Bruton consistently in the previous Dail – he had also decisively routed his old enemies within the party and ‘put manners’ on the Labour Left faction elements who remained in it (including the likes of Joan Burton) who had learned that their future political careers rested on loyalty to Spring.
Going into the 1992 election, Labour was a united party for the first time in decades. They also had a policy platform that was remarkably similar to Fianna Fail’s, except for Labour’s promises to promote ethics in Irish politics and its agenda for social liberalistion. Spring presented himself to the public as a possible candidate for Taoiseach. This novel idea of a Labour Taoiseach appealed to ‘swing voters’, especially among the middle classes, who were also impressed with Labour’s agenda for ethics in politics and its commitment to long overdue social reforms. Labour’s declared ambition to make itself the second largest party and displace FG from that position, becoming a real ‘third force’ in Irish politics, proved a further attraction. Before the election, Labour were getting 13% of the vote in Dublin in the polls. In the election, they polled 28% of the first preferences in Dublin and most of that swing came from the middle class, from a pre-election 8% middle class support base for Labour to 22% during the campaign.
Labour will be facing into this election with a support base in Dublin of about 30%. A fair chunk of that 30% is, I believe, ‘soft’. The worry for FG, I also believe, is that if they cannot make inroads into that level of Labour support before the next election, then they don’t stand much chance of doing it during the actual campaign. But rather than take on Labour by challenging their policies – on the banks, Labour, in effect, are advocating a national default – FG strategists appear to be engineering a copy-cat response.
In 1992, the economic trajectory was pointing upwards. We live in very different times. Yes, I see your point about FG not wanting to ‘frighten’ the voters, or alienate their potential coaltion partner. Or why Labour might feel that all they have to do is keep shovelling out the same old (or variations on the same old)conspiracy theories and populist shibboleths that have distinguished their contributions to economic and fiscal policy debates thus far in this crisis. Kicking the two Brians up and down the street won’t be good enough.
People have a right to expect that parties will tell them what cuts the new government will make in social welfare, pensions and health and education supports; what new taxes they will impose and on what timescale. What policies and areas will they ‘ring fence’ from any further cuts? Further, what are the implications of their respective solutions to the continuing crisis in our banks? Will they go for what amounts to a national default, as implied by Joan Burton’s preference for a short wind down period for Anglo, and what are the risks attendant on that strategy? Will they renege on the Croke Park deal and cut public service salaries again? Unless the options and their likely consequences are spelled out in clear and unequivocal terms by all parties, then it doesn’t really matter what sort of personal dynamic prevails within the next coalition government, people will be entitled to feel that they have, yet again, been seriously misled by the parties concerned and the whole political system will fall even further into disrepute.
I think that what Fine Gael need to do is have a “vision thing” as Bush senior called it that ties together the various policies already announced and which would stand in marked contrast to Labour’s notion that somehow the recovery can be painless, that only a tiny cohort of evil bankers and ministers made poor decisions and that everything will be rosy in the garden is we would only start borrowing for stimulus instead of borrowing to plug the hole in the banks.
The problem for FG is that if they are more concrete and specific about which cuts they would implement while Labour are let away with running with a “all we need is fairness and equality” platform then FG are find it hard to gain many more seats and will probably stall at the 60 seat mark while Labour go well north of 40 seats.
I believe that the next election needs to be about something more than survival.
Dan,
Yes Dan. But are FG capable, in their current state, of coming up with a ‘vision’ prescription? God knows, there are lots of people out there who would go for it!
Correct me if I’m wrong, but looking at it all from the sidelines I’m afraid FG will go into the next election as a divided party and that the electorate will twig that (if you don’t sound authentic on the doorstep people grab onto that very quickly!) and that their overall vote will be splintered as a result. In Dublin ‘s 13 constituencies – not sure I’ve got the number right, but that’s what I think it is – such an approach to the election would be disastrous for FG.
I’d also be interested in your views on Des’s question – what the dynamics of a future coalition may be like?
Veronica, I accept the core point of the post but take issue with the claim that the effects of the recession are most felt in Dublin. Without getting into the row about who has seen the most in pay cuts, public servants still have jobs and pensions (now secured by Croke Park) while it’s the countryside that has the ghost estates and where the daily litany of closures represent a much bigger hit to a small town than a more diversified place like Dublin. Also, the health cuts are a much bigger issue outside Dublin since HSE is using patient volumes as criteria for which hospital services to axe. How to turn this into votes, I don’t know. But I think it’s a rationale for FG being risk averse in Dublin since if there is an IMF/EU program over the next few months (as I believe there will), they won’t be in Clonmel looking for cuts. They’ll be in Dublin (Croke Park in particular). But talking about that now would be political suicide.
Just on P O’Neill point about Dublin feeling it most. I think he has a point, the big headline numbers that the media report are in Dublin (and Limerick with the Dell closure) but in rural areas the collapse in construction work both of the ghost estate type and the one-off housing has left people with nothing. There are no other options in small town Ireland.
As for whether “FG (are) capable, in their current state, of coming up with a ‘vision’ prescription? God knows, there are lots of people out there who would go for it!” I think FG has the capability within it to do so but whether those who would do so will be let is the problem. I think the leadership contest was between those who thought we can coast to over 60 seats (our own seats being safe) and do a deal with Labour and hurrah we’re in government! and those who reckoned we could and should aim to go well over 70 seats (taking risks with candidate selection and putting seating TDs under pressure by doing so) with the purpose of not alone overtaking FF but putting them so far back that they would be at least 2 terms out of office. That would also server to strengthen the hand of the party in negotiations with Labour if Labour + FF didn’t add up next time or even the time after. But caution won the day in that contest. I’m not surprised it did but I am disappointed it did.
As for the point about the coalition dynamics, I think the problem will be that for some in FG just being in government is enough for them. They will be reasonably content to let the headline grabbing policy origination come from Labour. Which I think would be a mistake.
I also think that a big factor needs to be that Labour has realistic expectations that are matched by the actual result of the election. If Labour think they can get 45 seats and only get 33 (still a huge jump) they will be disappointed and if they get 36 but could have gotten 43 if only they’d run more or simply other candidates then the same disappointment will arise even though for different reasons. That can affect the negotiating stance.
And that can find into ministries, there appears to be an odd presumption
that because FG will need Labour to get a majority that this means FG must start by conceding Finance, the office Tanaiste, with an even split on the big departments with FG making up their numbers in the small departments. If the seat numbers staked up as say 60/30 then FG need to be prepared to walk away if the cabinet split isn’t very close to 2:1 and Tanaiste is an office in itself if Labour want it then they can’t have finance. And when it comes to policy, FG need to avoid being railroaded into ideas that where we have common ground with Labour that it is viewed as FG policy and that the remainder of policy would be split 50/50. I would also nearly make it a requirement of Labour entering government that they sever their ties with the unions. If the unions are represented in social partnership they don’t need to be represented in cabinet as well.
The big problem with the government dynamic would be that if the numbers add up for Labour + FF, that Labour might cross the floor and do a deal with them (if they have sufficiently managed to put the Ahern/Cowen years behind them). Of course that would require an general election but it could still happen at any point and that’s what would be hanging over FG.
A partnership where one party has options while the other doesn’t and where that party keeps reminding the loner of that fact doesn’t make for a good relationship.
Dan,
For several of the Labour seniors, in every sense of the word, this is their last chance to enjoy the perks of office before they collect their bus passes. They’re just as desperate to get their hands on the levers of power as you’ve suggested are some of their colleagues in FG. Incidentally, our new government will likely have one of the oldest age profiles in the EU.
They will be eager but if they have two options FG or FF while FG have only one then the pressure within FG will be that bit greater.
It’s depressing that the subject of conversation is the division of the spoils–there are NO spoils to divide.I just now recall Liam Cosgrave saying in 1977 “there is no national cake to divide , we have to pay back what we borrowed” and we know what happened him. Will political cute hoorism and slick poker playing win out , are there enough politicians of integrity to do the right thing, what would be their reward at the following election, would the electorate just once reward service to the nation.Would the pol commentators continue their facile banal commentaries–(there are about two independant minded intellegent commentators)or are all their opinions formed in a few bars around Leinster House.My policies—cut the cost of govt, abolish all state cars, cut all perks and alowances, reduce advisers and constituency secretaries, etc,etc. It would be tough on FG and Lab having been victims of stroke politics for so long but no one can justify dumping special needs assistants and ministers retaining up to 14 constituency workers.
Dan,
It’s an interesting point of dicussion, how a ‘junior’ Coalition partner has more options available to it than the majority party? That may mean that both FF and FG will be fighting the election campaign with a ‘whatever you do, don’t upset the Labour Party’ caveat, whilst Labour can happily take lumps out of them both. But in the end, it’s up to FF and FG if they choose to play it that way. I have a feeling though, that if FF lose as many seats as they are predicted to lose, they will want to retreat to the opposition benches to regroup, reorganise and revitalise their party. (Rumour has it that they’re pretty broke, financially as well as in spirit!). They need a spell in opposition, though of course they can’t admit that, even to themselves at this point. FG’s position vis a vis any deal with Labour is a lot stronger, I think, than they may envisage.
Betty,
The pol. corrs are just reporting what they’re being told by their sources and it’s important that the public should know, at this stage, that come the election campaign the next set of would-be leaders are not going to be straight with the people about what they will do when they form a government after the election. If this was 1992, and things were looking up for the country, I’d shrug it off as ‘just politics’. But to me, anyway, it’s alarming that any responsible party with an expectation of being in government would think this is acceptable in the present circumstances. Maybe if your prescription to strip them of all their current perks was immediately implemented reality might begin to intrude?
Betty, I don’t think this conversation is about the division of the spoils but rather what the practical dynamics of an FG/Lab government might be and how that might affect that government’s ability to deliver on the policy platforms of both parties. And to suggest that it is the sole topic of conversation is unfair and inaccurate.
Dan,
I can understand Betty’s frustration, but you are right: the political dynamics of the next administration is a topic of vital interest. The relationship between the Taoiseach and his Minister for Finance will be crucial to the success of any new government. They will need to support one another unequivocally and share a unity of purpose. The position and judgement of the Minister for Finance will have to be respected and supported by the entire Cabinet, because whoever is in charge of that portfolio will have to make unpopular decisions and see them through for quite a few years yet to come.
Up to last June, the assumption was that Richard Bruton would fill that role; a prospect that I think most people who think about these things felt comfortable with given his track record in this area and his undoubted capacity to handle the brief. I’m afraid I’m less inspired by the performance of Michael Noonan, to date anyway. For example, his rush to the microphone to describe the Anglo plan as a ‘fudge’ before the ink was hardly dry on the announcement was ill-considered, the sort of knee jerk reaction that doesn’t augur well in the judgement stakes.
Say FG were to concede Finance to the Labour Party? In the 2007 general election, it was well-known that the popular Labour leader, Pat Rabbitte, would have Finance for the asking if the FG/Labour alliance won the election. In the event, Rabbitte as Minister for Finance didn’t inspire any great rush of public enthusiasm, most certainly not in business circles! Further, any Labour Minister for Finance, other than the Party leader, might quickly find himself/herself subject to the Taoiseach and Labour Tanaiste intervening to override important policy decisions.
As things stand, the electorate are being asked to buy a pig in a poke.
I think it is a a bit uncertain to work on the basis that the current spokespersons for the various parties would be the presumptive nominees for their portfolio. After all, if the other party gets that portfolio then the spokesperson won’t disappear but rather will bump the next least high profile or able spokesperson down the list. So if Labour got the Environment gig then Phil Hogan isn’t blocked out completely but will look to get something else that FG might have. It’s like two groups playing musical chairs with different tunes and half the necessary number of chairs.
Also, I don’t think that Michael Noonan would be FG’s first pick for Finance. I can see him as European Commissioner at some point.
Kenny simply doesn’t have what it takes to convince people he’s the man to lead the country. It wouldn’t surprise me if Fianna Fail win the next election. A FF/Labour coalition would be a likely outcome.
Prof Niamh Brennan at the weekend blamed the opposition for the excesses of the celtic tiger. According to her the opposition ,during the economic boom drove the govt to “even greater heights of extreme, heating up the model so that it eventually broke”". Reminds me of Adam’s defence in the Garden of Eden—-”it was the woman made me do it”I can’t imagine Michael McDowell or C McCreevey or B Cowan being driven into unwise action by anything the opposition said.
Betty,
There’s a lot of simplistic nonsense written and spoken by people who really should, and do, know better. The fact is that when economic times are good, governments come under pressure from voters for higher public spending and lower taxation. Parliamentary oppositions echo the voters’ demands and relentlessly criticise governments for being cheap and mean and not spending enough on this, that or the other highly deserving group in society either through lowering the burden of taxation or conferring specific benefits ( higher social welfare payments and pensions, ‘free’ services to specific groups like free medical cards for all over-seventies etc.) The result is that governments operate pro-cyclical policies and introduce spending measures to placate pressure groups and particular constituencies within the electorate who might otherwise cause them harm at the next election.
This doesn’t just happen in Ireland – it happens across the board in western style democracies. Imagine what would happen to a government, with a very healthy exchequer balance, if it turned around and said it was making cuts in public expenditure? How long would they last in office even? As it happens, if you look at the 2007 election promisses, the Mullingar Accord parties were promising higher levels of public spending to the electorate than the then FF/PD Coalition. But certainly none of the political parties were offering any tough prescriptions or promising to reverse the pattern of explosive growth in public spending of the previous five years.
One of the measures to bring a halt to this tendency of governments towards profligate pro-cyclical spending policies is the institution of a fiscal council and/or a legal framework that will oblige governments to set aside a certain percentage of exchequer returns annually, to create a ‘pot’ for rainy days, so to speak. Our national pensions fund is an example of this in practice (and we’re lucky to have had it to draw on in this crisis). Countries that had a fiscal council framework already in place have suffered less from the current international recession than countries, like our’s, that didn’t. From research by economists, it appears that the more checks and balances exist within the fiscal framework, the better for the country in the longer term. Our current ‘Budget Day’ annual political beanfest is regarded as completely out of date and ridiculous and simply can’t endure much longer.
You all make valid points but they are futile! All of the parties are stuffed with institutionalised politicians from the ranks of Teachers, Publicans, Solicitors, Auctioneers and so forth who have no knowledge or grasp of how to change this country. How can a €100k expenses politician have the empathy or desire to actually fight for Joe Soap?? They’ll protect themselves first and foremost and utter soundbites then to pacify us morons in society. Our country has been hi-jacked by a self serving political junta since 1922 and only us Irish Citizens, not our Government, can rectify the damage. Mass civil disobedience is required: refuse to pay your tax, refuse to pay your mortgage, refuse to go to work: bring the country down to a level where finally the ordinary citizen will be so aggrieved that they take action; bring down the political system and tell the Bond Markets to take a hike over Anglo; Joe Citizen is not bailing their private debts out, we will honour sovereign debt but not that foisted upon us by a sleeveen corrupt beholden Fianna Fail. It may be idealistic, it may be drastic and it may be foolhardy but is the country that we have today what Brian Boru, Wokfe Tone, Padraic Pearse and James Connolly gave the ultimate sacrifice for? We should all be ashamed of ourselves that we’ve allowed the type of political parties and gombeen politicians that we have developed. As I write this, at 3am, I am working on a legal challenge under articles of our constitution that will allow us, as a citizenry, to call this corrupt government to account for it’s gross, negligent mishandling of our country. My kids will not be paying for their stupidity, arrogance, hubris, incompetence or ineptitude and neither should yours. Forget your debating the trials and tribulations of FF, FF, Labour, Greens, SF etc. Set your minds to ridding yourselves completely of these parasites, throw of your shackles and actually do something to dislodge the vampire that is our political system from our blood! The power is ours, not theirs; remember that no matter how tough life gets! Thank you and oiche mhaith!