ie-politics

The PDs, Fine Gael and the 'Horserace'

I've just been watching watching an interview with Michael McDowell on The Political Party on TV3 where he claimed that the party could win at least 15 to 20 seats at the next election.  He managed to keep a straight face.  He also went on about the "slump coalition" of Fine Gael, Labour and the Greens that "would bring the country to its knees again".  Back in March, Mary Harney confidently remarked  that her party would be "as happy in a Fine Gael-led government as a Fianna Fáil-led government".  The party's position is a lot more precarious than that evinced by such bullish statements. 

That the PDs have survived 20 years as a distinctive political entity says much about the changing nature of the electorate, in particular the decline of voter identification with the traditional 'civil war' parties.  The PDs have fashioned a political identity for itself that is much influenced by the liberal parties of continental Europe and adds to the spectrum of ideological choice available to the Irish voter.  But the party's origins are bound up with the growth of faction in the Fianna Fáil party since 1966, the year Seán Lemass retired as leader and was succeeded by Jack Lynch.  It was the long term campaign and eventual success in subverting Lynch's leadership by the Haughey faction that eventually lead to the break away Progressive Democrats (incidentally,  Frank Dunlop's  unjustly ignored Yes, Taoiseach is very good on all of this).

The durability of the PDs depended on a number of factors, not the least of which was Haughey's pragmatism in securing them as coalition partners after the inconclusive 1989 election even though they lost a clutch of seats won in their successful first election two years previously.  If the latter election established them as a parliamentary force, it was going into government, even with much depleted numbers, that ensured they would not disappear rapidly after an initial surge in the way that parties like Clann na Poblachta had done in the past.  Holding office matters to the survival of the PDs - a point made today in the Sunday Independent by John Drennan in a typical piece of 'horserace' analysis.

So why is their position today somewhat precarious?  it is partly because Fianna Fáil are likely to lose quite a few seats and that may mean that they will not have enough seats to form a minimum winning coalition with the PDs.  But it's also due to the recovery of Fine Gael, something much remarked upon in the weekend's coverage of the Fine Gael special conference in Cork.  Many Fine Gael voters defected to the PDs in the last few elections and they may return to the fold.  At the very least there will be more competition for a particular segment in the electoral marketplace.  Also the fact that factionalism in the Fianna Fáil party has disappeared under the leadership of Bertie Ahern means that the PDs are less likely to appeal to certain disgruntled FF voters.  So the PDs can't fight the next election under the banner of "single party government- no thanks!" but will have to try the more cumbersome slogan of "make sure it's the PDs in government and not Labour/Greens/Sinn Féin". 

If you're in a hole...

Stop digging obviously.  In his first interview since the revelations about his bogus degree, Barry McSweeney continues to defend the basic integrity of his doctorate.  He tells the Irish Times that he "values the contents of the PhD and that is why I use the PhD". He said he had no idea doubts existed about PWU. "I have acted in good faith in doing this PhD. I was totally unaware of a problem related to Pacific Western University at any time and up until this media circus started," he stated.  He told the paper that despite "being under the hammer for the past five weeks, I am still enthusiastic about the work I have done".  It's difficult to avoid the conclusion that he's either lying or stupid. 

He also says that he made no secret of the source of his PhD when the post of Chief Scientific Adviser came up :

"It was clear on my CV when I applied to the EU and was clear on my CV here. I got my job because of my almost unique experience in running a research policy organisation of 2,500 people. I am a manager and a strategist. That is why I was hired. No PhD was required for the job. It is not academic powers you need for a job like this, it was management."

But surely the job of Chief Scientific Adviser isn't a manager's job.  Or a strategist's.  To take the Ronseal approach, I would expect the Chief Scientific Adviser to advise the government on matters of science.  Such a person ought to be in a position to evaluate, present or summarise different opinions within the scientific community.  He would have to be able to sift through evidence and argument and any advice offered to the government would have to be based on sound methodological principles.  On the whole I'd prefer someone like that to have a real PhD.

New moves on lone parents

Seamus Brennan continues to spread his enlightened approach to his brief by dropping the odd hint to journalists.  In today's Irish Independent he announced in an interview that the lone parent allowance is to be scrapped in favour of a more "family friendly" allowance.  The gist of the proposal is that that the income thresholds will be raised thus providing recipients of the payment with greater incentives to find paid employment and that the recipient will not lose the payment if she is found to be cohabiting.  The latter is "bad social policy" according to the Minister.  Its replacement is likely to be a payment targeted at all families with children if they have low incomes regardless of the living arrangements of their parents.

So shared parenting in a family context would receive proper state backing.  There is a congruence of interests being catered for here.  Traditional catholics, like the Independent's social affairs correspondent, the intelligent and articulate David Quinn, can welcome the pro-family consequences of such a policy shift.  Doubtless employer organisations will also welcome the fact that more women will have incentives to enter the labour market.  Combined with a new childcare package and expected hikes in child benefit, it will give the government a more 'compassionate' face by the time the next election rolls around.

The Biological cunning of Fianna Fáil

Back in August I predicted that the arguments over scrapping the Groceries Order would, as I somewhat grandiosely put it, expose "potential ideological faultlines" between the government parties.  There was a reasonable basis to this assumption; after all elements within FF were adamant in their opposition and the PDs were for it as good free market liberals.  I wrongly predicted that the vested interests that had colonised parts of FF would bring about a classic fudge.  Micheál Martin also seemed to be leaning in that direction.

But that was before Eddie.  Now the Groceries Order is history and there wasn't a murmur from the FF back benches.  Suddenly putting consumers first was seen to be the key to recovery at the polls.  Being unencumbered by ideological baggage and not being rigidly attached to particular vested interests help Fianna Fáil to be able to re-invent itself from time to time and this is one of the reasons why the party is so electorally successful. 

An apposite remark once made by the astute British political journalist Edward Pearce came to mind.  Pearce reminded his readers that the Tory Party was always known as "the stupid party" but nevertheless they were "biologically cunning".  I believe this remark applies, a fortiori, to Fianna Fáil.

Let's Have a Press Council

The above title consciously echoes Vincent Browne's call in his column in today's Irish Times that the time is right for one to be created.  He rightly rubbishes the idea that this would somehow imperil democracy and argues for a body that would be neither the creature of government nor of the industry itself. It would be an independent body composed of representatives of civil society.

He goes further than the rather cautious position adopted by the Democracy Commission in its recent report as he explicitly calls for the press council to have powers to "impose massive fines and, where appropriate, suspension of publication (or of transmissions, in the case of broadcasting media organisations). And the benefit (or one of the benefits) of this being a statutory press council is that its operations could/would be overseen by the courts, thereby ensuring compliance with the requirements of constitutional justice and constitutional rights". 

Press representatives are full of cant about how freedom of the press is indispensable in a democracy.  In theory it certainly is but the reality is a handful of conglomerates who control the industry and are motivated by profit seeking above all else.  As far as the mainstream media is concerned there is little accessibility to citizens at large and little diversity of points of view. 

There is plenty of cant about 'the public interest'.  But market share and profits are paramount and in this highly competitive arena the providers of media content are all offering similar product.  There is a comforting notion put forward by economists that in a truly free market system each supplier would try to create and develop a market segment that would be different from its competitors.  This doesn't seem to happen as far as most of our newspapers, TV and radio stations are concerned. 

Browne's column evokes the spirit of H.L Mencken's famous dictum that "freedom of the press is limited to those who own one".  It's just as well Tony O'Reilly never wanted to emulate Silvio Berlusconi.  And in the light of the disgraceful treatment of the circumstances of Liam Lawlor's death, perhaps Mark Twain's scepticism is apt; "it is a free press...There are laws to protect the freedom of the press's speech, but none that are worth anything to protect the people from the press".

McSweeney's "contempt for serious education"

There was a very interesting interview with Professor Margaret Soltan on The Right Hook on NewsTalk 106FM.  She knows a thing or two about diploma mills.  Referring to the particular case of the Government's Chief Scientific Barry McSweeney, she talks about "corruption" of the process, McSweeney's "contempt ... for serious education" and describes diploma mills as "criminal enterprises".  Have a listen here.  I really don't know why this fellow persists in trying to justify his position.  It's almost embarrassing at this stage. 

Broadband policy rollout

So who is right?  The Labour Party wants to split Eircom in two in order to create a separate network division to ensure that broadband penetration catches up with other developed countries and argues that a break-up of the firm's operations would mean the "endless blockages" in broadband delivery would be addressed.  Eircom says that that physical local-loop unbundling is not the main reason for the State's broadband deficit. The company says the Republic suffers from a lack of competing networks for broadband delivery.

The party's detailed 80 page policy document can be downloaded here and I've not had time to read it yet.  But Tommy Broughan's speech launching the document gives us a reasonable picture.  It rightly criticise the Government for having no coherent strategy and addresses market, institutional and regulatory failings that all contributed to the dismal picture. 

The Government originally thought that cable operators would provide most of the broadband access and operators like NTL and Chorus were given exclusivity contracts that were never delivered, mainly due to seriously underestimating the costs involved.  Even in principle that strategy was flawed as cable operators would be likely to act as gatekeepers and dictate content, as has happened in the US.  It is vital to maintain the principle of open access or open network provision.  It was this situation that lead to the development of the Internet in the first place and allowed all manner of innovation and content provision to flourish. 

One could argue that the provision of a broadband network is a natural monopoly and competition in such cases can be inefficient and wasteful.  What is required is one network using whatever combination of available technology - wired, wireless, electricity cables.  The nature of the technology does not effect the nature of the network as all it does is process digital data.  The policy should be one network, many providers.  The network should be regulated in order that the providers be as free as possible to compete and innovate in terms of content and price. 

This is why I'm a bit dubious about Broughan's reference to measures to encourage "inter-platform competition".  There may be a bit of conceptual muddle between content and service provision.  In fairness, I'd better have a close read of the actual document.  I must also point out that I had the benefit of discussing these issues earlier  today with my friend and colleague, Tom Weymes, co-author of a fine article in the Irish Communications Review in 2003 (article available here).  It's a little dated but its summary of different regulatory regimes, as well as its critique of earlier policy and regulatory failures in terms of the development of the Internet in Ireland, provides excellent background and context in order to consider what should be done next.

Labour calls for radical local government reform

Hot on the heels of last week's report by the Democracy Commission, Eamon Gilmore, Labour Party spokesman on the Environment and Local Government has said that Ireland is a less democratic country than it was 10 years ago.  His basic point is that huge chunks of our public services have been removed from democratic accountability.

His examples of this include the lack of democratic control over the health services, following the abolition of the Health Boards; the privatisation of many essential services such as telecommunications, waste collection and, increasingly, water; the transfer of powers and functions from Ministers who are answerable in the Dáil to various state agencies and independent bodies that are not.

It is the recent trends in local government that Gilmore directs most of his criticisms.  He sees local councillors "stripped of their powers" at the expense of County Managers and Directors of Service and he claims that the public are being effectively shut out of the planning process in respect of major infrastructural projects.  Gilmore contends that "much of this trend has been encouraged by a new political fashion according to which decision-making should be removed from local politicians and put in the hands of 'independent professionals'".

Gilmore then outlines Labour's reform proposals and given that he could be the Minster for the Environment after the next general election, it's worth paying them some attention:

• The devolution of significant areas of public services to local authorities, with consequential reallocation of resources and personnel;
• The re-mapping of Local Authority areas to reflect and represent settlements and communities as they have developed;
• The re-balancing of the respective powers of councillors and County Managers, to ensure that council development is accountable to the elected members and not the other way around;
• The ending of the power of the Minister for the Environment to abolish a Local Authority, replacing it with a requirement for fresh elections when an elected council does not adopt its annual budget;
• The direct election of city and county mayors;
• The introduction of new procedures on public consultation which will be aimed at problem resolution.

What should we make of both the proposals and the analysis on which they're based?  First of all let me declare that I'm not exactly impartial or disinterested as I work for a local authority.  There's also not much that is new in terms of particular proposals.  The problem is that the policies are presented in a press statement rather than in a policy document.  Therefore the evidence and argument that one should rightly expect simply isn't here.  For instance, the assertion that councillors have been stripped of their powers is is oversimplified and misleading.  Councillors have more potential than they ever had to formulate polices by what are known as SPCs.  The problem is that they rarely have the inclination. 

Gilmore is right about the emergence of a democratic deficit in Irish democracy and is on solid ground when he describes the many activities that have been moved outside the bounds of direct parliamentary scrutiny and accountability.  The specific proposals on local government are weaker - not because they are wrong in principle but there's no convincing demonstration of how we could move things on to a different dynamic, especially regarding the relationship between elected members and senior officials.  The key question to address is how to go beyond the politics of local brokerage.  I don't see any evidence of councillors chomping at the bit to influence the direction of policy and being frustrated by the managers.  Councillors are still inclined to see their role as almost exclusively representational and this is a function of the wider national political culture.

The Death of Private Sector Trade Unionism

Perhaps 'death' is a bit melodramatic.  Terminal decline might be a more suitable description.  Two columnists in the Sunday papers refer to last Thursday's trade union organised demo in Molesworth Street, just opposite the front gates of Leinster House.  Alan Ruddock in the Sunday Times is deeply unsympathetic and talks a great deal of hyperbolic nonsense:

Blustering and posturing are to be expected ahead of any round of negotiations, but this time the issues are far more serious than just rates of pay or the extent of any tax cut. Begg and the unions are trying to dictate the future direction of this country and are hoping to browbeat a weak government into submission. Begg does not believe that the current levels of economic growth are sustainable, because he does not believe that Ireland can cope with the immigration that will be required to sustain it. From what I can work out, he thinks it should be possible to reach a point where the Irish economy grows at a slower pace, maintains high levels of employment and pays high wages to secure, presumably Irish, workers.

Ruddock's over-emphasis of trade union influence is ridiculous.  It is just the opposite.  Trade Union leaders are quite aware of the growing irrelevance of trade unions as far as the more dynamic sectors of the economy are concerned - high tech multinationals and the indigenous services sector.  This is why despite all the public hesitation, most union leaders will ultimately back a return to partnership and be damn glad of a seat at the top table.

In the Sunday Tribune Michael Clifford makes the point that only one in four low-skilled workers is a member of a trade union and "an uphill battle awaits those who are interested in maintaining decent standards of living among private-sector employees in low-skilled jobs".  Clifford turns his attention to the public sector unions that were out in force on Thursday: "the partnership process has served them well; it is in their interests that it continues". 

The usual points are made about the privileges of the public sector workers and there's no doubt that they (I should say we, as I am among their ranks) are insulated from the chronic insecurity that exists in much of the workplace.  With a postal strike about to get under way, the threatened action of the Communication Workers Union will be seen as an abuse of power.  You cannot say that postal workers are "exploited" in the way that many workers clearly are in the private sector.

The banality continues...

The Boom of Anger has a good post on the recent performance of Gerry Adams attempting to defend his party's economic policies on RTE's Primetime.  I missed the original showing screening and the links to the interview and the lead-in piece are both available in her post.  Adams performance is poor and he gets a fairly rigorous grilling from Mark Little.  It's not that Little's questions are all that searching or sophisticated.  In fact they were predictable enough but Adams should have done better in anticipating  the likely line of questioning and prepared some better rebuttals. 

The more embedded in 'normal' politics that Sinn Féin becomes, the less likely Adams and the other leaders are to get away with waffle.  There was always a certain tolerance of Adams' verbal casuistry and use of weasel words during the period when he was portrayed as playing a delicate balancing act within the republican movement - delivering the Ceasefire and the Good Friday Agreement while keeping the hardliners on board.  It was recognised that there were limits in terms of what could be said by the leaders of Sinn Féin.  Now, particularly because the party's economic policies are so much outside the consensus, what he says and how he says it will be picked over ruthlessly by political foes and commentators alike.

Update
I've just noticed a piece in the Irish Examiner summarising a report of the Economist Intelligence Unit whose main purpose is to analyse whether Sinn Féin and the IRA are evolving to “become fully democratic or whether its use of democratic means is merely tactical and designed to achieve undemocratic ends”.  The report suggests that disarmament is purely tactical which will no doubt lead to accusations from Sinn Féin of establishment black propaganda.