Tomorrow is the big day, where the next Dáil will be elected in Ireland. I had hoped to write more about the actual campaign, but sadly real life got in the way. So instead, here's the election boiled down to one badly-written post:
Trends and Strategy
Fine Gael, the centre-right party, looks set to win almost 40% of the vote, which could get them a single-party majority in the Dáil - something which hasn't happened in Ireland for decades. They'd a good campaign, deciding to hide their leader, famous for his poor media performance, while presenting a good team to fight the election battle on the airwaves. There were 4 leadership debates (and Enda Kenny only took part in three of them, which caused a bit of a fuss), where Enda simply had to not say anything incredibly daft and Fine Gael wouldn't be harmed.
Labour had a terrible campaign. The popularity of their leader, Eamon Gilmore, tempted them to run a presidential campaign with the slogan "Gilmore for Taoiseach" (Labour have never led a government in Ireland before). Given that Labour is the third party of Irish politics, it would have been hard to conduct a cabinet election since they had a more limited gene pool to draw on from their last Dáil cohort, which might explain the lack of a Plan B when the presidential campaign failed. Their finance spokesperson, Joan Burton, was disappointing on TV - the now famous outburst on Tonight with Vincent Browne damaged her image, and the strategy of selling a vision meant that in debates with her competitors she rarely got around to the detail (time limits and impatient presenters made sure of that): not a good position in a generally policy-dominated election. The "vision" point goes for all Labour performances: the party seemed more concerned about its brand than the policy. This changed after the first week and a half, with Gilmore doing well in the debates and trying to insert more substance, and Labour's poll ratings consolidated, but I wonder how much it will add anything to Labour's vote.
It should be said that Labour haven't had a good campaign in the light of their ambitions, but they will increase their vote and their seats. With a different strategy they could have done better yet.
Fianna Fáil probably had as good an election as they could have. In the last leadership debate, Micheál Martin was on the attack, and probably turned people off by talking over the other leaders, but it made clear that FF needs to consolidate its core vote. It seems to be around the 14-16% mark, which means that it's disasterous, but there was little that could be done about that after its record in government.
Sinn Féin and the ULA seemed to have done well for themselves with their messages of withdrawing from the IMF-EU bailout and insistuting a socialist economy with nationalised banks respectively. They will still be small parties, but it shows a fragmentation of the left, and it probably attracted support away from Labour.
The Greens look like they might be wiped out. I agree with Jason O'Mahony that this would be a pity, since they actually tried to achieve - and did achieve - some of their manifesto promises. that's not to say that they don't deserve punishment, but a wipe-out is a bit disproportionate in my opinion.
There are a record number of independents running this year, and around 17 could get elected (how votes split and transfer may decide this). There are still very localist independent who only care about constituency matters, but there are a new breed of independents who are campaigning on national issues, either from the left or the right. The phrase most often uttered by these independents is: "I will work with like-minded independents", to which my brain can't help muttering "what, you mean like in a party?". One of the tensions in democracy is between having independent-minded representatives, and the need to build broad coalitions to enact change. the party system has many faults, but I'm not convinced that independents will improve things much.
A European election?
Europe was a big issue in this election, but only in the limited sense of discussing what could be won from a renegotiation. There was no proper debate about what would need to be done about the entire Eurozone, though there was a brief mention (I counted 1 time during the campaign!) of Eurobonds being a good thing for Ireland. The level of tax harmonisation or budgetary convergence that might be negotiable in return for this and renegotiation of the bail out deal wasn't discussed, except to restate over and over that the coporation tax would not be for sale. In many ways it's natural that parties don't want to give away their negotiating position beforehand. However, these changes will require a referendum in Ireland, and perhaps in other Member States - we need to start speaking in a language of what is just for everyone in the Eurozone, and not simply "if it's good for us, it's good for everyone, because then we can pay some of the money back". The shape of the Eurozone will stay with us after we recover (however that happens, and however long it takes), so there should have been a more open discussion about this.
The Next Dáil
It's pretty clear from the poll trends that FG will near a majority on its own, and could form a government with the support of some independents. I'd like to see Labour stay out of government and lead the opposition. That would be a massive change in Irish politics as it would help solidify an opening left-right divide and end the old civil war political divide. Being in opposition and having that bigger gene pool (because Labour has done well in the election in that it will increase its seats, just not reach the huge ambitions it set itself in leading the next government) to construct a better alternative/shadow cabinet government. It could have big consequences for FF, who might not recover to lead a government in the forseeable future, and become the third party of Irish politics. Irish politics will be fluid in the future, so much depends on Labour's position over whether or not the civil war divide returns...
Showing posts with label Fianna Fáil. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fianna Fáil. Show all posts
Thursday, 24 February 2011
Thursday, 27 January 2011
The Politics of Debate
The former foreign minister, Micheál Martin, has won the contest to become the leader of Fianna Fáil, and immediately called for a series of leaders debates between himself, Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny, and Labour leader Eamonn Gilmore. He's asked for one at the start and at the end of the election campaign, as well as one in Irish. He is also calling for other head-to-head debates. So far Gilmore has accepted, while Kenny has sounded more cautious about Martin defining the structure of the debates.
With Fianna Fáil still well under 20% in the polls, Martin will naturally want to highlight his approach to both distance FF under him and under Cowen, and at the same time stick to the original message that Fianna Fáil is taking the tough but necessary decisions. Current Fianna Fáil strategy is to point out the differences between FG and Labour, since they will most likely form a coalition after the election. To some extent FG and Labour are happy enough with this: they tried a pact in the last election and failed, and their strategy this time is to run separate campaigns.
In some ways, this line of reasoning should be turned against FF: who would they form a coalition with? The Green Party are facing a likely wipeout - and in any case, FF will be a shadow of its former self in the next Dáil. Martin has spoken about not letting the election turn into a "coronation" of a Fine Gael-Labour coalition, but the sense I get from the question-and-answer session after Martin's leadership press conference is that the focus is on damage limitation, and therefore not on government. This in itself would suggest that the election will be a coronation of sorts, and as long as nobody even thinks to ask the question: well, who would you form a coalition with?, it will remain that way.
The politics of the debates is revealing, though it highlights something that has long been common knowledge in Ireland. FG's leader, Enda Kenny, is not a good speaker in the Dáil, and isn't seen as a strong leader. Gilmore, however, is, and its his leadership that was credited with the now-waning climb in the polls by Labour - called the "Gilmore Gale". The enthusaism of Gilmore and Martin for debates is clearly rooted in their desire to capitalise on this. Labour have never held the position of Taoiseach before, and they will want to revive the call "Gilmore for Taoiseach" in a meaningful sense - I wouldn't be surprised if Gilmore tries to use Martin's charges of irreconcilable differences between Labour and FG against Kenny by suggesting that a FF-FG coalition is a possibility. Such an outcome would be political suicide for Kenny and FG, but the ploy may attract some votes to Labour as a more anti-FF party (though I doubt the effect would be great).
The debates may just inject more fluidity into the polls and excitement into the Irish election.
With Fianna Fáil still well under 20% in the polls, Martin will naturally want to highlight his approach to both distance FF under him and under Cowen, and at the same time stick to the original message that Fianna Fáil is taking the tough but necessary decisions. Current Fianna Fáil strategy is to point out the differences between FG and Labour, since they will most likely form a coalition after the election. To some extent FG and Labour are happy enough with this: they tried a pact in the last election and failed, and their strategy this time is to run separate campaigns.
In some ways, this line of reasoning should be turned against FF: who would they form a coalition with? The Green Party are facing a likely wipeout - and in any case, FF will be a shadow of its former self in the next Dáil. Martin has spoken about not letting the election turn into a "coronation" of a Fine Gael-Labour coalition, but the sense I get from the question-and-answer session after Martin's leadership press conference is that the focus is on damage limitation, and therefore not on government. This in itself would suggest that the election will be a coronation of sorts, and as long as nobody even thinks to ask the question: well, who would you form a coalition with?, it will remain that way.
The politics of the debates is revealing, though it highlights something that has long been common knowledge in Ireland. FG's leader, Enda Kenny, is not a good speaker in the Dáil, and isn't seen as a strong leader. Gilmore, however, is, and its his leadership that was credited with the now-waning climb in the polls by Labour - called the "Gilmore Gale". The enthusaism of Gilmore and Martin for debates is clearly rooted in their desire to capitalise on this. Labour have never held the position of Taoiseach before, and they will want to revive the call "Gilmore for Taoiseach" in a meaningful sense - I wouldn't be surprised if Gilmore tries to use Martin's charges of irreconcilable differences between Labour and FG against Kenny by suggesting that a FF-FG coalition is a possibility. Such an outcome would be political suicide for Kenny and FG, but the ploy may attract some votes to Labour as a more anti-FF party (though I doubt the effect would be great).
The debates may just inject more fluidity into the polls and excitement into the Irish election.
Monday, 24 January 2011
Irish Government in Flux
The situation in Ireland is changing quite rapidly: after the motion of confidence and the resignation of Brian Cowen as leader of Fianna Fáil but not as Taoiseach, the coalition Green Party yesterday pulled out of government.
John Gromley, the Green Party leader, said that their patience had run out:
Now there is a minority Fianna Fáil government in place at the constitutional minimum limit of 7 ministers (as Stephen Spillane has pointed out), which will only remain in place until the passage of the Finance Bill. The Finance Bill is an implementing bill which will set out in more detail some of the budgetary legislation passed last year. Some elements of the Bill were only published on Friday, and usually there is a long process of scrutiny before it is passed, but the opposition are demanding that the Bill be passed by this Friday, and then an election called, or they will proceed with their various no confidence motions (there is one of no confidence in the Taoiseach, and another in the whole government).
Brian Lenihan, the Finance Minister and a contender for the FF leadership, has stated that the Bill cannot be passed so quickly, though some have suggested that the parts of the Bill had been published before Friday could be voted on and passed, while the more recent parts could be deleted and left until after the election.
This week will be another eventful one. A new FF leader should be elected by Wednesday, there may or may not be a motion of confidence before the Dáil on Tuesday, and whatever is agreed by Friday, the government is bound to be in trouble. I had thought about explaining who is running for the leadership for the FF party – there are 4 contenders – but there doesn’t seem to be much point, quite frankly. Fianna Fáil won’t be leading a government any time soon, and whoever is elected as leader will be defending the general approach of the current government to the crisis, even if admitting some mistakes. Still, the 4 candidates are: Micheál Martin, Mary Hanafin, Éamon Ó Cúiv (a grandson of party founder Eamon de Valera), and Brian Lenihan. Martin and Lenihan are the two main rivals for the post.
Meanwhile, it seems that Berlin will announce its vision for the future of the Eurozone. I suspect that this will have a greater impact on Ireland’s economic and political future than the farce taking place in Leinster House. It’s a pity that the parties are focused on purely national budgetary policy, and don’t seem to be forming stronger Eurozone policies.
John Gromley, the Green Party leader, said that their patience had run out:
“In his statement, Gormley soon focused on why the relationship had fractured irreparably. It was grindingly obvious, given all that had happened in the preceding days: “Our patience has reached an end. There’s a lack of communication and a breakdown in trust. We have decided that we can no longer continue in Government.”
From their perspective, the crucial moment had come when Cowen had decided to press ahead with a reshuffle without consulting the partners. “What cut us to the quick was that Cowen thought he could bypass convention and somehow override our concerns by forcing resignations and creating vacancies,” said one. “That was not on.””
Now there is a minority Fianna Fáil government in place at the constitutional minimum limit of 7 ministers (as Stephen Spillane has pointed out), which will only remain in place until the passage of the Finance Bill. The Finance Bill is an implementing bill which will set out in more detail some of the budgetary legislation passed last year. Some elements of the Bill were only published on Friday, and usually there is a long process of scrutiny before it is passed, but the opposition are demanding that the Bill be passed by this Friday, and then an election called, or they will proceed with their various no confidence motions (there is one of no confidence in the Taoiseach, and another in the whole government).
Brian Lenihan, the Finance Minister and a contender for the FF leadership, has stated that the Bill cannot be passed so quickly, though some have suggested that the parts of the Bill had been published before Friday could be voted on and passed, while the more recent parts could be deleted and left until after the election.
This week will be another eventful one. A new FF leader should be elected by Wednesday, there may or may not be a motion of confidence before the Dáil on Tuesday, and whatever is agreed by Friday, the government is bound to be in trouble. I had thought about explaining who is running for the leadership for the FF party – there are 4 contenders – but there doesn’t seem to be much point, quite frankly. Fianna Fáil won’t be leading a government any time soon, and whoever is elected as leader will be defending the general approach of the current government to the crisis, even if admitting some mistakes. Still, the 4 candidates are: Micheál Martin, Mary Hanafin, Éamon Ó Cúiv (a grandson of party founder Eamon de Valera), and Brian Lenihan. Martin and Lenihan are the two main rivals for the post.
Meanwhile, it seems that Berlin will announce its vision for the future of the Eurozone. I suspect that this will have a greater impact on Ireland’s economic and political future than the farce taking place in Leinster House. It’s a pity that the parties are focused on purely national budgetary policy, and don’t seem to be forming stronger Eurozone policies.
Saturday, 22 January 2011
More Fianna Fáil drama
At 2 o'clock Irish time, Brian Cowen, announced his resignation as the leader of Fianna Fáil, but not as Taoiseach (Prime Minister). This comes at the end of a week which saw Cowen win a motion of confidence from the parliamentary party, the resignation of six ministers from the government, and his failure to appoint new ministers (due to the opposition of his coalition partners, the Green Party).
Cowen said that this would give the party a chance to elect a new leader to contest the election while he focused on getting the finance bill through the Dáil. The decision was taken after consulting his family, and on his own political judgment - it seems that he didn't consult senior ministers (though he did say that he spoke to ministers, but there was no question of his leadership). He told the leader of the Green Party, John Gormley, "as a matter of courtesy" about the decision 15-20 minutes before the press conference. While his resignation is a party matter, it will affect how the government (and coalition) is perceived. I wonder if this is tit-for-tat after the Greens forced an early election on Fianna Fáil and refused to permit a reshuffle of the cabinet.
The big question now, is will this arrangement work? The election will take place on March 11th: is this enough time for Fianna Fáil to elect a new leader, and present itself as renewed? In many ways it doesn't matter, because the electorate has largely made up its mind, but it doesn't give Cowen's successor much time to even try to do anything about it. The successor will also be tainted by the election defeat, even if only as someone slightly responsible. In terms of successors, the timing of the decision should be good news for Micheál Martin, the former foreign minister who resigned to openly vote against Cowen in the motion of confidence. Other possible leaders, Hanafin and (Brian) Lenihan, repectively voted against but didn't resign, and publically supported Cowen while encouraging others to vote against him, which was very damaging for both of them. So Martin's party political capital will have less time to decline, while other challengers have a tough job in rebuilding their political credibility.
And how easy will it be for Fianna Fáil to campaign with a party leader who isn't Taoiseach - when in Ireland it's an unwritten rule that the party leader of the biggest party in government becomes Taoiseach? Micheál Martin had proposed the idea that the party leader would be different from the Taoiseach if Cowen had been ousted (which makes a certain amount of sense: why change Taoiseach so close to the election?), but critics rightly pointed out that it would be hard, if not nigh-on impossible, for Fianna Fáil to sell the idea that Cowen was too bad a leader to lead the party, but it's ok for him to lead the country for a while longer. To a certain extent Cowen's resignation takes some of the contradictions out of this. By resigning, the choice is Cowen's own, and the arrangement can be portrayed as purely practical. But on the other hand, it will still be a Fianna Fáil party that has time and again refused to topple Cowen that will go before the electorate.
Fianna Fáil: the party who needed Cowen to go so badly that even he knew it, but which couldn't do it itself.
Cowen said that this would give the party a chance to elect a new leader to contest the election while he focused on getting the finance bill through the Dáil. The decision was taken after consulting his family, and on his own political judgment - it seems that he didn't consult senior ministers (though he did say that he spoke to ministers, but there was no question of his leadership). He told the leader of the Green Party, John Gormley, "as a matter of courtesy" about the decision 15-20 minutes before the press conference. While his resignation is a party matter, it will affect how the government (and coalition) is perceived. I wonder if this is tit-for-tat after the Greens forced an early election on Fianna Fáil and refused to permit a reshuffle of the cabinet.
The big question now, is will this arrangement work? The election will take place on March 11th: is this enough time for Fianna Fáil to elect a new leader, and present itself as renewed? In many ways it doesn't matter, because the electorate has largely made up its mind, but it doesn't give Cowen's successor much time to even try to do anything about it. The successor will also be tainted by the election defeat, even if only as someone slightly responsible. In terms of successors, the timing of the decision should be good news for Micheál Martin, the former foreign minister who resigned to openly vote against Cowen in the motion of confidence. Other possible leaders, Hanafin and (Brian) Lenihan, repectively voted against but didn't resign, and publically supported Cowen while encouraging others to vote against him, which was very damaging for both of them. So Martin's party political capital will have less time to decline, while other challengers have a tough job in rebuilding their political credibility.
And how easy will it be for Fianna Fáil to campaign with a party leader who isn't Taoiseach - when in Ireland it's an unwritten rule that the party leader of the biggest party in government becomes Taoiseach? Micheál Martin had proposed the idea that the party leader would be different from the Taoiseach if Cowen had been ousted (which makes a certain amount of sense: why change Taoiseach so close to the election?), but critics rightly pointed out that it would be hard, if not nigh-on impossible, for Fianna Fáil to sell the idea that Cowen was too bad a leader to lead the party, but it's ok for him to lead the country for a while longer. To a certain extent Cowen's resignation takes some of the contradictions out of this. By resigning, the choice is Cowen's own, and the arrangement can be portrayed as purely practical. But on the other hand, it will still be a Fianna Fáil party that has time and again refused to topple Cowen that will go before the electorate.
Fianna Fáil: the party who needed Cowen to go so badly that even he knew it, but which couldn't do it itself.
Thursday, 20 January 2011
Fighting the Polite Fight
The last week has been interesting in Irish politics – something that’s hardly a comfort for those who wish that Irish politics would settle down a bit. Last week the Taoiseach (Prime Minister), Brian Cowen, was plagued by questions over the fact that he had been golfing during the long summer Dáil recess with Seán FitzPatrick, the head of Anglo-Irish bank a few weeks before the infamous bank guarantee that fixed bank debts to the state debt. Anglo-Irish turned out to be the bank with the worst lending record, and the bank has had tens of billions of Euros pumped into it, making it the symbol of Ireland’s economic woes.
Cowen spent a few days consulting the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party on his position as party leader, and a confidence vote was called for Tuesday this week. On Sunday the Foreign Minister, Micheál Martin, offered his resignation and declared that he would vote against Cowen. On Tuesday, after a secret vote (it was Tweeted that the result was 2 to 1 for Cowen), Cowen was declared the winner. Martin’s resignation was finally accepted, but despite his loss, it is Martin who has gained the most from the last week. Two other Fianna Fáil ministers – Brian Lenihan and Mary Hanafin – with some leadership designs did not come out of the attempted heave well, with Lenihan declaring support for Cowen before other minister and TDs (MPs) publically complained that Lenihan was encouraging others to vote against Cowen. Hanafin refused to declare her support either way, but has now admitted that she voted against Cowen. Factor in her refusal to resign, and she has greatly damaged her profile within the party.
All in all, this attempted heave comes much too late to matter: Fianna Fáil are now at 14% in the polls, which is the same as Sinn Féin, so there can be no question of the party leading any government any time soon. The question now is will Fianna Fáil even be the main opposition party (suggestions by Labour that Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil might go into coalition are extremely unlikely considering the Civil War divide between them and how toxic they have become). The certain defeat and Fianna Fáil’s electoral toxicity means that there will be a wipeout in any case, and changing a leader won’t help. This might have saved Cowen this week, but after the election, there will have to be a new leader, and Micheál Martin has just made himself the front runner.
Much has been made by the party of the civilised nature of the heave, in comparison to the great turmoil of the party in the Haughy era, and the leadership challenge in the main opposition party, Fine Gael, last year. But in many ways the whole thing has been very much a side-show, with Irish Times journalist Miriam Lord, characterising it as a fight between:
It also hasn’t stemmed the government’s problems. With Martin out of the cabinet a reshuffle was needed, and many ministers who won’t be running in the next election have bowed out – making a current total of 6 ministers that the Taoiseach had to find replacements for. It was always going to be a difficult task: Fianna Fáil backbenchers are more likely to get elected if they distance themselves from the government, and the Green Party did not be participate in the reshuffle. So Cowen has quickly reassigned the ministeral portfolios among the remaining Fianna Fáil ministers.
One good thing has emerged, however – we now have an election date: 11th March. It cannot come soon enough.
Cowen spent a few days consulting the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party on his position as party leader, and a confidence vote was called for Tuesday this week. On Sunday the Foreign Minister, Micheál Martin, offered his resignation and declared that he would vote against Cowen. On Tuesday, after a secret vote (it was Tweeted that the result was 2 to 1 for Cowen), Cowen was declared the winner. Martin’s resignation was finally accepted, but despite his loss, it is Martin who has gained the most from the last week. Two other Fianna Fáil ministers – Brian Lenihan and Mary Hanafin – with some leadership designs did not come out of the attempted heave well, with Lenihan declaring support for Cowen before other minister and TDs (MPs) publically complained that Lenihan was encouraging others to vote against Cowen. Hanafin refused to declare her support either way, but has now admitted that she voted against Cowen. Factor in her refusal to resign, and she has greatly damaged her profile within the party.
All in all, this attempted heave comes much too late to matter: Fianna Fáil are now at 14% in the polls, which is the same as Sinn Féin, so there can be no question of the party leading any government any time soon. The question now is will Fianna Fáil even be the main opposition party (suggestions by Labour that Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil might go into coalition are extremely unlikely considering the Civil War divide between them and how toxic they have become). The certain defeat and Fianna Fáil’s electoral toxicity means that there will be a wipeout in any case, and changing a leader won’t help. This might have saved Cowen this week, but after the election, there will have to be a new leader, and Micheál Martin has just made himself the front runner.
Much has been made by the party of the civilised nature of the heave, in comparison to the great turmoil of the party in the Haughy era, and the leadership challenge in the main opposition party, Fine Gael, last year. But in many ways the whole thing has been very much a side-show, with Irish Times journalist Miriam Lord, characterising it as a fight between:
“Cowen, the dead duck; Martin the lame duck; Hanafin the gutless duck; and Lenihan, the superior duck who shot himself in the foot.”.
It also hasn’t stemmed the government’s problems. With Martin out of the cabinet a reshuffle was needed, and many ministers who won’t be running in the next election have bowed out – making a current total of 6 ministers that the Taoiseach had to find replacements for. It was always going to be a difficult task: Fianna Fáil backbenchers are more likely to get elected if they distance themselves from the government, and the Green Party did not be participate in the reshuffle. So Cowen has quickly reassigned the ministeral portfolios among the remaining Fianna Fáil ministers.
One good thing has emerged, however – we now have an election date: 11th March. It cannot come soon enough.
Friday, 7 January 2011
Ireland: Election 2011
2011 is going to be a big year in Irish politics. Fianna Fáil, the ruling centre/centre-right party (currently in coalition with the Greens and some independents) which has been the governing party in Ireland for most of its history since independence, is consistently low in the polls (14%, equal with Sinn Féin in the latest one), and appears on course for the worst result in its electoral history. The next government, which is likely to be a Fine Gael-Labour coalition (a Grand coalition), will have to steer Ireland through the recession, and implement the IMF-EU Bail-Out agreement.
However, the two parties have different approaches to the crisis (though there is common ground). Enda Kenny, the FG leader, is widely considered to be lacking in charisma, though he has shown some killer instinct when facing down a major challenge to his leadership last year. Eamonn Gilmore, the Labour leader, is the most popular leader in the country according to opinion polls, but the upswing in Labour support in the polls has waned recently (which is damaging to their hopes of an electoral breakthrough to become one of the 2 main parties). FG is thought to have the most researched and well thought-out policies (it accepts the same targets that have been set by FF, and would adjust the budget by €6 billion this year, front loading the spending cuts), while Labour, despite churning out policies recently, is open to charges that they haven't been properly considered or thought-out (Labour's adjustment would be €4.5 billion this year, putting off more pain for later).
Both talk about some renegotiation of the bail-out deal, and both talk about the need for some investment in the economy (a sign that simple austerity has been devalued over the last 2 years). If any renegotiation is to take place, it will have to include a political vision and platform beyond Ireland - they would, after all, have to convince other EU Member States to renegotiate. At the same time, there is likely to be more crisis in the Eurozone this year, and different ideas of fiscal union will remain relevant. It's important that we know exactly what each party's stance on the Eurozone is, not just for Ireland's short term advantage, but for the effective running of the currency zone well into the future.
Debates about political and constitutional reform are very prominent and appear to be high up on the various parties' agenda, so if these plans are realised, then it could be a further great shift in the landscape of Irish politics.
In October, there will also be a presidential election - the first in 14 years.* It's a ceremonial office, but it could turn out to be a hard-fought race.
So I've decided that I'll try to cover some aspects of the elections - especially the European aspects. Doubtless there'll be plenty of blogs in the Irish blogosphere doing a better job than me (I'll still be writing about EU politics!), but politics in the Eurozone will be more important than ever this year, and the Irish elections are a good way to look at some of the arguments through both the national and European lenses. The post tag I'll use is "Ireland 2011".
* The presidential term is 7 years, and as nobody could get enough support to be nominated to run against Mary McAleese after her first term, she was automatically re-elected. Between Mary McAleese and Mary Robinson, Ireland has had a female head of state for the last 20 years.
However, the two parties have different approaches to the crisis (though there is common ground). Enda Kenny, the FG leader, is widely considered to be lacking in charisma, though he has shown some killer instinct when facing down a major challenge to his leadership last year. Eamonn Gilmore, the Labour leader, is the most popular leader in the country according to opinion polls, but the upswing in Labour support in the polls has waned recently (which is damaging to their hopes of an electoral breakthrough to become one of the 2 main parties). FG is thought to have the most researched and well thought-out policies (it accepts the same targets that have been set by FF, and would adjust the budget by €6 billion this year, front loading the spending cuts), while Labour, despite churning out policies recently, is open to charges that they haven't been properly considered or thought-out (Labour's adjustment would be €4.5 billion this year, putting off more pain for later).
Both talk about some renegotiation of the bail-out deal, and both talk about the need for some investment in the economy (a sign that simple austerity has been devalued over the last 2 years). If any renegotiation is to take place, it will have to include a political vision and platform beyond Ireland - they would, after all, have to convince other EU Member States to renegotiate. At the same time, there is likely to be more crisis in the Eurozone this year, and different ideas of fiscal union will remain relevant. It's important that we know exactly what each party's stance on the Eurozone is, not just for Ireland's short term advantage, but for the effective running of the currency zone well into the future.
Debates about political and constitutional reform are very prominent and appear to be high up on the various parties' agenda, so if these plans are realised, then it could be a further great shift in the landscape of Irish politics.
In October, there will also be a presidential election - the first in 14 years.* It's a ceremonial office, but it could turn out to be a hard-fought race.
So I've decided that I'll try to cover some aspects of the elections - especially the European aspects. Doubtless there'll be plenty of blogs in the Irish blogosphere doing a better job than me (I'll still be writing about EU politics!), but politics in the Eurozone will be more important than ever this year, and the Irish elections are a good way to look at some of the arguments through both the national and European lenses. The post tag I'll use is "Ireland 2011".
* The presidential term is 7 years, and as nobody could get enough support to be nominated to run against Mary McAleese after her first term, she was automatically re-elected. Between Mary McAleese and Mary Robinson, Ireland has had a female head of state for the last 20 years.
Monday, 11 May 2009
Dublin EP Elections on TV3's Nightly News
Vincent Browne hosted a debate between some of the candidates in the race for 3 Dublin EP seats. (People Korp's site flagged this up).
Only one of them was a sitting MEP (Proinsias de Rossa - Labour/PES), but the programme was interesting none the less, with a Green candidate (and current Sentator - one of eleven who had been appointed by Bertie when he was still Taoiseach) Deirdre de Burca and a former Green Patrica McKenna (who lost her EP seat in the last election and campaign against the Lisbon Treaty in the referendum) arguing over their independence from the government should they win a seat. Caroline Simons, the Dublin Libertas candidate was also there, and gave a lamentable performance when Browne tried to pin her down on policy.
The debate raised 3 issues: the independence of MEPs from their parties when they're in government, MEPs expenses, Libertas' lack of policies.
De Burca and McKenna battled over the issue of independence. McKenna has just left the Green Party (she is at odds with the party's decision to go into government with Fianna Fáil) and is standing as an independent, and claims that she will be better placed to press for Ireland to properly implement environmental directives and fight for environmental and social policies when a Green candidate would be pressured into following the government line. De Burca rubbished this, but I think that all national party executives exert pressure on their EP contingent - especially when they're in government. I don't know how the Green party is in this area, but, as Jon Worth has explained, national party executives have divided the PES and effectively wrecked moves to run a socialist candidate for the Commission Presidency.
De Rossa and De Burca also highlighted the importance of political groups within the EP, and De Burca said she encourages people to check out the groups. It's good to hear candidates trying to communicate the politics of the EP, and De Burca deserves credit for calling on voters to support the left leaning parties to ensure an EP that will be strong on Green and social issues. It's not exactly a strong European campaign, but it's good to hear that some candidates are trying to communicate what votes can mean for the make up and policies of the parliament.
Simons was torn to shreds by Browne. It took a lot of waffle and increasingly impaticent interjections from Browne for Simons to give an example of what kind of powers the EU should return to member states - she settled on labelling: she believes it burdens businesses with too much cost. Browne wasn't impressed, and De Rossa easily asserted the value of labelling rules for consumer protection and the free movement of goods. It was a very poor choice by Simons - there are undoubtedly arguments for and against regulation in many areas, but it's a different argument to at what level the power to regulate should be vested.
Later, Simons went on the attack over the actions of the ECJ. She didn't do well here either - after raising the issue, Browne pressed for an example, which she had to admit she hadn't prepared and couldn't think of one off the top of her head. This is very damaging - after all, Simons is supposed to be a solicitor, and I imagine she was choosen as a candidate to lend credibility to Libertas' claims in areas of EU law. Not that's she's been very good on the subject before - as her performance in front of the Sub-Committee for Ireland's Future in Europe shows.
She did a bit better attacking De Rossa over expenses, but the blows didn't really land. De Rossa wasn't great at explaining his position over expenses, but he defused the issue by asserting that he's put information on his expenses on his website (here). It was still quite shocking to find out that he received €300,000 in expenses. It raises a lot of questions of the worth/need for this level of expenses. (The video showing this is the second half here).
Only one of them was a sitting MEP (Proinsias de Rossa - Labour/PES), but the programme was interesting none the less, with a Green candidate (and current Sentator - one of eleven who had been appointed by Bertie when he was still Taoiseach) Deirdre de Burca and a former Green Patrica McKenna (who lost her EP seat in the last election and campaign against the Lisbon Treaty in the referendum) arguing over their independence from the government should they win a seat. Caroline Simons, the Dublin Libertas candidate was also there, and gave a lamentable performance when Browne tried to pin her down on policy.
The debate raised 3 issues: the independence of MEPs from their parties when they're in government, MEPs expenses, Libertas' lack of policies.
De Burca and McKenna battled over the issue of independence. McKenna has just left the Green Party (she is at odds with the party's decision to go into government with Fianna Fáil) and is standing as an independent, and claims that she will be better placed to press for Ireland to properly implement environmental directives and fight for environmental and social policies when a Green candidate would be pressured into following the government line. De Burca rubbished this, but I think that all national party executives exert pressure on their EP contingent - especially when they're in government. I don't know how the Green party is in this area, but, as Jon Worth has explained, national party executives have divided the PES and effectively wrecked moves to run a socialist candidate for the Commission Presidency.
De Rossa and De Burca also highlighted the importance of political groups within the EP, and De Burca said she encourages people to check out the groups. It's good to hear candidates trying to communicate the politics of the EP, and De Burca deserves credit for calling on voters to support the left leaning parties to ensure an EP that will be strong on Green and social issues. It's not exactly a strong European campaign, but it's good to hear that some candidates are trying to communicate what votes can mean for the make up and policies of the parliament.
Simons was torn to shreds by Browne. It took a lot of waffle and increasingly impaticent interjections from Browne for Simons to give an example of what kind of powers the EU should return to member states - she settled on labelling: she believes it burdens businesses with too much cost. Browne wasn't impressed, and De Rossa easily asserted the value of labelling rules for consumer protection and the free movement of goods. It was a very poor choice by Simons - there are undoubtedly arguments for and against regulation in many areas, but it's a different argument to at what level the power to regulate should be vested.
Later, Simons went on the attack over the actions of the ECJ. She didn't do well here either - after raising the issue, Browne pressed for an example, which she had to admit she hadn't prepared and couldn't think of one off the top of her head. This is very damaging - after all, Simons is supposed to be a solicitor, and I imagine she was choosen as a candidate to lend credibility to Libertas' claims in areas of EU law. Not that's she's been very good on the subject before - as her performance in front of the Sub-Committee for Ireland's Future in Europe shows.
She did a bit better attacking De Rossa over expenses, but the blows didn't really land. De Rossa wasn't great at explaining his position over expenses, but he defused the issue by asserting that he's put information on his expenses on his website (here). It was still quite shocking to find out that he received €300,000 in expenses. It raises a lot of questions of the worth/need for this level of expenses. (The video showing this is the second half here).
Tuesday, 21 April 2009
Fianna Fáil MEP not to contest election
The FF MEP for Ireland North West, Seán Ó Neachtain will not contest the election as expected. He said that he was not going to run for the European Parliament for health reasons. This will put FF in a awkward position in the North West as they don't have anyone with the same profile/electoral base, and it is current FF policy not to risk putting a serving TD (MP) in the race for fear of losing the by-election and whittling down the government's majority.
The Irish Times has reported that this will boost Declan Ganley's chances of getting elected - he is running in the same constituency.
The Irish Times has reported that this will boost Declan Ganley's chances of getting elected - he is running in the same constituency.
Friday, 20 March 2009
Cowen Throws his weight behind the move to ELDR
While Brian Crowley, Fianna Fáil MEP and current co-leader of the UEN group, tried to reverse the decision of the FF party at their recent Ardfheis to join the Liberal grouping of ELDR in the EP, it seems that there's no backing out this time. Brian Cowen, FF president and Irish Taoiseach, has thrown his weight behind the decision - Cowen's position may have been weakened by the economic crisis, and his government's bumbling (and at times frankly incompetent) response to it, but I'd say that there's no chance of Crowley getting his way now.
Not only did Cowen hold private talks with ALDE head Graham Watson, but he appeared in a Liberal press conference alongside leading liberal-aligned politicians from the national political arena of other member states.
I wonder what the outcome for Crowley will be within the FF party at the end of all of this? He should be safe electorally since he's the biggest vote-winner for FF in European elections, but will he loose more than a co-presidency of a EP group?
Not only did Cowen hold private talks with ALDE head Graham Watson, but he appeared in a Liberal press conference alongside leading liberal-aligned politicians from the national political arena of other member states.
I wonder what the outcome for Crowley will be within the FF party at the end of all of this? He should be safe electorally since he's the biggest vote-winner for FF in European elections, but will he loose more than a co-presidency of a EP group?
Monday, 9 March 2009
Transitional Troubles?
Could Brian Crowley, leader of Fianna Fáil in the EP and co-leader of the UEN, derail the planned move of FF to the Liberal EP group? It is widely believed that he was the force behind the failure of the last attempt to leave the UEN. He claims that:
What policy exactly? The UEN doesn't stand for much, if anything - it's a random collection of parties grouped together to benefit from the group perks (you could say this of the other groups, but it goes more so for the UEN than it does for the big 3). Perhaps someone could point out these policy gains he has achieved? I think the reason for his support for UEN can simply be cut down to: "because I'm the leader".
As for his preference for Lisbon II to be held ASAP, I would be strongly against. The Irish public may accept Lisbon when it comes with the guarantees, but you need to show you've the guarantees in the bag first. Also, it'd be a bad idea turning Lisbon into a bigger issue in the run up to the EP elections because it would give Libertas a platform without making them do the leg-work in an election which will be dominated by the economy.
Fine Gael MEP Colm Burke is also advocating a sooner referendum.
"I think the UEN has worked well for Ireland and for Fianna Fáil, we've been able to deliver policy at a European level, partly because I'm the leader"
What policy exactly? The UEN doesn't stand for much, if anything - it's a random collection of parties grouped together to benefit from the group perks (you could say this of the other groups, but it goes more so for the UEN than it does for the big 3). Perhaps someone could point out these policy gains he has achieved? I think the reason for his support for UEN can simply be cut down to: "because I'm the leader".
As for his preference for Lisbon II to be held ASAP, I would be strongly against. The Irish public may accept Lisbon when it comes with the guarantees, but you need to show you've the guarantees in the bag first. Also, it'd be a bad idea turning Lisbon into a bigger issue in the run up to the EP elections because it would give Libertas a platform without making them do the leg-work in an election which will be dominated by the economy.
Fine Gael MEP Colm Burke is also advocating a sooner referendum.
Friday, 6 March 2009
Ireland-EU News Round-up
There have been several Europe-related developments in Ireland recently, so here's what I've noticed over the last few days:
Story 1: The Greens want Ireland to pull out of the EDA, apparently to placate their membership, as the Greens didn't get enough party support to campaign on the pro-Lisbon side in the June Referendum (I think they required 2/3 of party members to vote for a pro-Lisbon campaign strategy). Ireland's membership of the EDA was a stumbling block, it seems (I didn't hear about this at the time, but I may have missed it). Cowen has been reported as wanting some sort of compromise.
The EDA is supposed to make it cheaper for European governments to buy good quality military hardware. If you want to make the argument that it's good for arms dealers, so therefore it's bad, then that's up to you. Personally, I support the EDA - I find it hard to believe that the idea of getting the same defense at a lower cost (or better defense at the same cost) could be a bad thing. Since the Greens seem to be pushing this because they realise that it would be bad for Ireland to pull out of the ESDP, it looks like they just want to pull out of something, just to be seen to be doing something.
Story 2: Libertas are involved in yet more membership shenanigans, with the revelation that they may have offered an eurosceptic Swedish party almost €1 million for its support and some sort of joint platform in the European elections. No response to these allegations on their website yet; can they not get someone to run their website properly or deal with Libertas' online presence if they have as much support as they claim? It will be interesting to see how they respond - I can't see any way they have of turning this into a Brussels conspiracy. (Picked up here and here and here by Peoplekorps (apparently talks about the €1 million did take place...) and reported here by the Irish Times).
Story 3: Well, more of a continuation of one I've already written about. The Liberals in the EP are going to accept Fianna Fáil's application to join their group, and will assist them with money in the second Lisbon referendum if they need it. I'm not too happy with Watson's alarmist comments about the referendum being an in-or-out decision for Ireland. It's this kind of talk that comes across as scaremongering, which should be left to Libertas.
There's an interesting article about Ireland and Germany by the Irish Times here. I wonder if I can find Our Farm on the internet?
Story 1: The Greens want Ireland to pull out of the EDA, apparently to placate their membership, as the Greens didn't get enough party support to campaign on the pro-Lisbon side in the June Referendum (I think they required 2/3 of party members to vote for a pro-Lisbon campaign strategy). Ireland's membership of the EDA was a stumbling block, it seems (I didn't hear about this at the time, but I may have missed it). Cowen has been reported as wanting some sort of compromise.
The EDA is supposed to make it cheaper for European governments to buy good quality military hardware. If you want to make the argument that it's good for arms dealers, so therefore it's bad, then that's up to you. Personally, I support the EDA - I find it hard to believe that the idea of getting the same defense at a lower cost (or better defense at the same cost) could be a bad thing. Since the Greens seem to be pushing this because they realise that it would be bad for Ireland to pull out of the ESDP, it looks like they just want to pull out of something, just to be seen to be doing something.
Story 2: Libertas are involved in yet more membership shenanigans, with the revelation that they may have offered an eurosceptic Swedish party almost €1 million for its support and some sort of joint platform in the European elections. No response to these allegations on their website yet; can they not get someone to run their website properly or deal with Libertas' online presence if they have as much support as they claim? It will be interesting to see how they respond - I can't see any way they have of turning this into a Brussels conspiracy. (Picked up here and here and here by Peoplekorps (apparently talks about the €1 million did take place...) and reported here by the Irish Times).
Story 3: Well, more of a continuation of one I've already written about. The Liberals in the EP are going to accept Fianna Fáil's application to join their group, and will assist them with money in the second Lisbon referendum if they need it. I'm not too happy with Watson's alarmist comments about the referendum being an in-or-out decision for Ireland. It's this kind of talk that comes across as scaremongering, which should be left to Libertas.
There's an interesting article about Ireland and Germany by the Irish Times here. I wonder if I can find Our Farm on the internet?
Saturday, 28 February 2009
Fianna Fáil go Liberal
The Fianna Fáil party in Ireland (the senior party in the governing coalition) is going to join the Liberal group in the European Parliament, after delegates voted in the party's Ardfheis (party conference) to accept the move. Provided that the Liberals accept them of course. It is unlikely to be much of a boost to the Liberals in the coming election, though as support for the party has collapsed in Ireland recently. Though since the party did so badly at the last European elections, there may not be a massive drop in the size of its delegation to the EP.
There are also plans to tighten rules about campaign funding for groups engaged in referendum campaigns. The move is clearly targeted at Libertas, whose funding has been a source of controversy and speculation ever since Lisbon I.
There are also plans to tighten rules about campaign funding for groups engaged in referendum campaigns. The move is clearly targeted at Libertas, whose funding has been a source of controversy and speculation ever since Lisbon I.
Friday, 13 February 2009
Labour overtakes Fianna Fáil in polls
Wow. This is big news - it's never happened before. Unlike most European countries, where the centre left party is one of the big two, in Ireland Labour is the third party. This is a bit like saying that the LibDems have overtaken Labour in the UK polls!
And Eamon Gilmore is now the most popular party leader by quite a margin. I knew Labour was making an inroads, but this is quite impressive.
So is Ireland shifting to the Left? It's a strange thought for a country whose two big parties have been centre-right and centre-ish since independence. In the '90s Labour support/electoral success increased too, known as the "Spring tide" after the leader of Labour at the time, Dick Spring. However it was short lived, and Labour was still in third place at the time. But now that Labour's overtaken Fianna Fáil in the polls...
Is is sustainable? This says that Labour's support is based more in the older demographic, perhaps because older people will find it harder to recover than younger people. But if it establishes itself as the second party, then it could possibly end up with a more durable support base that comes from being a possible senior government party. It will be interesting to see how Labour does at the European elections.
And Eamon Gilmore is now the most popular party leader by quite a margin. I knew Labour was making an inroads, but this is quite impressive.
So is Ireland shifting to the Left? It's a strange thought for a country whose two big parties have been centre-right and centre-ish since independence. In the '90s Labour support/electoral success increased too, known as the "Spring tide" after the leader of Labour at the time, Dick Spring. However it was short lived, and Labour was still in third place at the time. But now that Labour's overtaken Fianna Fáil in the polls...
Is is sustainable? This says that Labour's support is based more in the older demographic, perhaps because older people will find it harder to recover than younger people. But if it establishes itself as the second party, then it could possibly end up with a more durable support base that comes from being a possible senior government party. It will be interesting to see how Labour does at the European elections.
Monday, 12 January 2009
Ireland and Lisbon
It has been reported that there is a poll showing a majority in favour of Lisbon:
"The Sunday Independent / Quantum Research survey carried out last Friday showed that 55 per cent of the 500 people asked would support the treaty while 37 per cent said they would oppose it and 15 per cent said they were undecided."
However, as the article also points out, confidence in the government and the Taoiseach has collasped (and with good reason in my opinion).
While Fianna Fáil have been the senior partner in the government for more than a decade now, leading to the natural political reaction of blaming them for the state of the economy (and it is in a state, with reports that the government will have to borrow €45 million a day to sustain its budget this year), I think the collapse in support for the government has little to do with Lisbon (not that this was implied in the article). Most of the backlash began in September when budgetary proposals threatened to slash public spending in very uncomfortable ways (the issue of means-teasting free medical care for over 70s (Ireland isn't famous for it's "welfare state" in the first place) led to particularly bitter protests). The poor leadership of the government since hasn't improved matters, and probably indicates a collapse of confidence in itself, never mind on the side of the voters.
So the big question is can the referendum be won dispite this. The Irish public are very... sensitive, or rebellious if you want to put a more glamourous spin on it (and I make this generalization as an Irishman), so there are a lot of things for us to take "offence" at. (I will try to post later about the Irish Referendum in detail). The organisation and effectiveness of the No side (which is very good) in making the appeal to this side of the public will probably be the deciding factor. Though never underestimate the incompetence of the Yes side...
In other news, Declan Ganley has failed to find a local to wear the Libertas badge in the Czech Republic, at least so far. The Free Citizen's Party has been set up by Petr Mach to campaign on an anti-Lisbon platform. Ganley has declared that he is pro-EU, while Mach is eurosceptic, so that's ok then.
Of course, I know nothing about how their talks were carried out, but that they were talking about Mach running on a Libertas platform come election time gives me the impression that the "vetting" stage should have already taken place. So if it's important that Libertas is both "pro-europe" as well as anti-Lisbon, then it has clearly only become important recently.
Mind you, vetting isn't really needed when all they have to do is get elected, and then... well, nothing. Libertas sets itself up explicitly as a protest vote (and supposedly a very specific one at that), nothing more.
Besides all the arguments based on democracy,* why should taxpayers pay people not to do their jobs for 5 years?
*Including, but not limited to: Shouldn't the people have a voice during the 5 year term of the EP? Does it not damage the democratic legitimacy and effectiveness of the EP if its members are sent there without any policy platform? For a party which claims to want the EU to be reformed to have more democracy, is it not counter-productive to say the least to stand on a platform which will dent the effectiveness of the only directly elected institution in the EU?
"The Sunday Independent / Quantum Research survey carried out last Friday showed that 55 per cent of the 500 people asked would support the treaty while 37 per cent said they would oppose it and 15 per cent said they were undecided."
However, as the article also points out, confidence in the government and the Taoiseach has collasped (and with good reason in my opinion).
While Fianna Fáil have been the senior partner in the government for more than a decade now, leading to the natural political reaction of blaming them for the state of the economy (and it is in a state, with reports that the government will have to borrow €45 million a day to sustain its budget this year), I think the collapse in support for the government has little to do with Lisbon (not that this was implied in the article). Most of the backlash began in September when budgetary proposals threatened to slash public spending in very uncomfortable ways (the issue of means-teasting free medical care for over 70s (Ireland isn't famous for it's "welfare state" in the first place) led to particularly bitter protests). The poor leadership of the government since hasn't improved matters, and probably indicates a collapse of confidence in itself, never mind on the side of the voters.
So the big question is can the referendum be won dispite this. The Irish public are very... sensitive, or rebellious if you want to put a more glamourous spin on it (and I make this generalization as an Irishman), so there are a lot of things for us to take "offence" at. (I will try to post later about the Irish Referendum in detail). The organisation and effectiveness of the No side (which is very good) in making the appeal to this side of the public will probably be the deciding factor. Though never underestimate the incompetence of the Yes side...
In other news, Declan Ganley has failed to find a local to wear the Libertas badge in the Czech Republic, at least so far. The Free Citizen's Party has been set up by Petr Mach to campaign on an anti-Lisbon platform. Ganley has declared that he is pro-EU, while Mach is eurosceptic, so that's ok then.
Of course, I know nothing about how their talks were carried out, but that they were talking about Mach running on a Libertas platform come election time gives me the impression that the "vetting" stage should have already taken place. So if it's important that Libertas is both "pro-europe" as well as anti-Lisbon, then it has clearly only become important recently.
Mind you, vetting isn't really needed when all they have to do is get elected, and then... well, nothing. Libertas sets itself up explicitly as a protest vote (and supposedly a very specific one at that), nothing more.
Besides all the arguments based on democracy,* why should taxpayers pay people not to do their jobs for 5 years?
*Including, but not limited to: Shouldn't the people have a voice during the 5 year term of the EP? Does it not damage the democratic legitimacy and effectiveness of the EP if its members are sent there without any policy platform? For a party which claims to want the EU to be reformed to have more democracy, is it not counter-productive to say the least to stand on a platform which will dent the effectiveness of the only directly elected institution in the EU?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)