Irish politics would be more interesting if it were actually about politics.

Wouldn't it be nice if we had someplace dedicated to discussing politics?

Wouldn't it be nice if we had someplace dedicated to discussing politics?

I am associated with politics. My family, my work colleagues, my friends, people who read my blog all ask me about politics when they see me. Occasionally, some say to me “You know, you should run again!” That’s when I sigh, and tell them the great truth about Irish politics that people who have never been involved don’t know: People who are interested in politics rarely go into Irish politics.

Imagine the country appointed a new manager of the national football team. Imagine he was asked his (we still haven’t reached a her yet) opinion about who he thought was the greatest footballer of the last twenty years. Supposing he replied ” Don’t know. I’m not really into football.”

That’s Irish politics for you, right there. In the US, UK, in France, debates are had about the values that drive politicians. Republicans are against President Obama’s healthcare policies because it clashes with their values of individual freedom. In Britain, the Tories want to cut spending because they believe a big state restricts individual freedom. I don’t agree with either of these stances, but I can see where they come from, and more to the point, it is possible to read and watch politicians in those countries argue and debate the values that inform the actual details of their policies.

When was the last time our two largest parties actually debated their reasons to exist, what it was that they stand for? If you put the FF and FG parliamentary parties in two seperate rooms, and ask them to come up with the values they subscribe to, would there be any that weren’t interchangable? Labour is only marginally better. It does have values, but they seemed to have been last revised in the 1970s. Just watch the way Joan Burton spits out the word “profit”. The one party that has actually revised its values is Sinn Fein, and seems to be still doing it. Yes, history has forced that upon them, in that shooting protestants has fallen out of fashion, but as a party it is engaged in an internal debate about what, post armed struggle, it is for.

In fairness to the parties, it is not entirely their fault. I once discussed with a candidate why his election literature was so bland and meaningless, and he made the point that actually telling voters where he stood would alienate voters, as opposed to win them, because he felt that Irish voters vote against ideas. It’s a fair point. In the US, gunowners support the Republicans, and pro-choice activists support the Democrats because those parties support their values. Yet in Ireland trades union members vote Fianna Fail, and big business never supported the PDs. Is it any wonder that we as voters are constantly disappointed by our politicians? They haven’t a clue what we really want, because we don’t know ourselves. Most American voters class themselves, as conservatives, moderates, or liberals. Imagine asking an Irish voter to classify herself? Could she? Probably not, because, unlike Americans, whom we dismiss as being dumb, we don’t actually put any thought into our political convictions, and we’re suffering for it now.       

Great DVDs you should see: Conspiracy

“Conspiracy” is like one of those great “Twelve Angry Men” style movies of the 1950s and conspiracy11960s, in that it’s a talky drama set in a single room for most of the movie, and yet manages to be absolutely fascinating because of the sheer quality of the script and the acting. Made jointly by HBO and the BBC, the story is set around the Wannsee conference of 1942, where the Nazis made the decisions about how to technically achieve the “final solution” against the Jews. The script is based on a copy of the minutes captured after the war, and what really stuns about the movie is the tip-toeing around the subject by its participants, who know what they are doing but are concerned how history will judge them and, bizarrely, whether what they are doing is actually legal under German law.

Great performances from Kenneth Branagh, the always watchable Stanley Tucci and Colin Firth in particular, and a masterclass in taking a complex subject and making it both dramatic and accessible. 

 

Go on, admit it: It would be very, very funny if First Past The Post F**ked over the Tories.

Bizarrely, going against their own stated values, the Tories really don’t like proportional representation. I have never understood their logic. After all, they have railed against the state being too powerful, and if there is one thing PR does, it restricts the ability of a government to ride roughshod over the majority. They talk, in forboding tones, about the dangers of weak government. Yet throughout their history, the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany have both had constitutionally weak governments where the executive has been limited by no majority in parliament, and it has worked fine. Germany is richer than Britain, and the US overtook the UK despite its “weak” government. After Thatcher and Blair, Britain could do with a bit of weak government.  

It seems possible (I still think unlikely) that, because FPTP could let the Tories pile up huge majorities in their safe seats whilst Labour’s vote is more widely spread, that the Tories could get more votes, yet Labour would end up with more seats. It would be unfair, but very hard to feel sympathy for a party that has lauded FPTP for so long.  

Perhaps I’m wrong (It wouldn’t be the first time) but…

Are some public sector unions now refusing a deal which may restore money that they have already been paid for reforms to work practices which they never actually changed?

In other words, they are complaining that they have had pay which they received for work they didn’t do taken off them? Wasn’t that what benchmarking was for? Increased pay in return for reform? And now they are objecting to that pay being linked to doing the thing they were paid the money for in the first place?

Of course, the biggest cop out is the straw man put up by some in the unions, that they are being punished for a crisis that they did not create. This is only partially true. They didn’t create the banking crisis, of course. But they did negotiate benchmarking, which sent public sector pay to a level we can no longer physically afford. So they are at least partially responsible for us having a wages bill we can no longer afford, surely? 

Interesting article about immigration and the welfare state.

Iain Duncan Smith, the former Tory leader, has turned into quite an interesting figure, in that he has found his niche as a social justice campaigner. This article, by The Spectator’s Fraser Nelson, raises some interesting points about the modern welfare state. What really caught my eye was the fact that Duncan Smith has evolved beyond the typical Tory “Everyone on welfare is a scrounger” call to a position which confronts some ugly truths about a state sponsored underclass. And it’s not just a Tory thing: Labour MP Chris Mullin, in his excellent “A View from the Foothills” points out the same thing. There is a generation of liberals who still believe (rightly) that the measure of a civilised society is how you care for people at the bottom of the pile, but are beginning to feel that paying them off to remain in their ghettos is not the answer. The fact that I cannot think of a serious Irish politician who would start a debate on an issue like this makes me realise why I’m becoming more interested in politics outside of Ireland these days.    

Hero of the Revolution: Matthew Elderfield

He is "The Regulator"“If only,” Irish people wail, looking over the burnt out wreckage of the banking system, ” we had people involved in public life who just enforced the law, and weren’t twisting and turning according to who’s well-politically-connected millionaire mates. If only we had people who just did their job.” Yet as soon as one man steps up to the plate, and does so, we’re outraged. But what’s extraordinary is the Irish way that one well organised vested interest (Quinn workers) are permitted to completely override the interests of another group (Quinn customers). Of course Quinn workers have a right to defend their jobs. But the regulator has an obligation to protect customers. That’s the law, and if all those FF, FG and Sinn Fein politicians don’t want the regulator to protect the interests of insurance policy holders, then let them say so, rather than try to undermine the office that they voted to create.  

I for one am glad that we have someone like Matthew Elderfield willing to do no more or no less then what the law requires him to do. If  we had had more people like him in the past regulating the banking sector, we would not be in quite the mess we are now. The fact that a Bermudian banking official actually doing his job is now regarded as revolutionary just underlines how bizarre Irish morality has become.

Sinn Fein Press Release.

Sinn Fein demands that the regulatory authorities take a hardline/understanding tone with the banks/large employers in our constituencies. There must be no compromise/compromise on the issue of financial regulation.

The Financial Regulator in particular must demand the exact enforcement of the law/listen to whatever guff is told to him. Sinn Fein is committed to the principles of socialism/the same stuff FF/FG do in their constituencies and will always stand against/in support of certain billionaires, depending on what constituencies they live in.

Sinn Fein: On this issue, we’re just Fianna Fail with a wider selection of knitwear.

How David Norris could be elected President.

President Norris?

President Norris?

It’s not that far fetched, you know. I’m not saying it’s easy, and there is a substantial chunk of the country who will never vote for “one of dem fellas”, but hear me out.

First, getting a nomination. Norris needs 20 Oireachtas signatures, or four county councils to nominate him. Could he get a majority on the four Dublin county councils? I don’t know. But the 20 Oireachtas members is a more interesting matter. Firstly, there are the 9 members of the Green Party. They’re crucial, and it would be an easy way for them to publicly give two fingers to FF by supporting Norris and showing that they haven’t forgotten their progressive roots. It all depends on their willingness to recognise that it is not their job (or a vote winner) to keep FF happy. Then there are the university senators, and a number of TDs from south Dublin cosntituencies. Why would they vote for him, you ask, quite fairly. Ah, I say, there’s the thing: The beauty of this is that, unlike most things in Irish politics, where TDs and senators shake their fists in the air and “call” for things, this is something they have complete power to do. If Ivana Bacik, or Ciaran Cuffe, or Joe O’Toole refuses to sign his nomination papers, they are nominal liberals actively taking a stand to prevent a gay candidate running in the election. They have the power, and Norris should not be afraid to point that out to their liberal voters, and call them if they fail to step up. After all, can you imagine if Ivana Bacik had refused to sign Mary Robinson’s papers? Don’t forget, there is a get out of jail card for them here. He’s not asking for their endorsement, just help to get his name on the ballot. Why on Earth would self avowed liberals be against letting the Irish people make the final call in an election?  

If he can cobble together the 20 signatures, there’s the campaign itself. The thing about Irish presidential elections is that they are A) all about personality, and B) Irish voters ask themselves a question when they elect a president. Will this person make a show of us abroad, particularly in front of the Brits? That’s the Norris trump card that he needs to play in the election. Yes, he is gay, but no need to make a big deal about that. He has the liberal vote anyway, and the foriegn media will make the “Is Ireland about to elect the World’s first elected gay head of state?” story, which will go down nicely in the UK media which we pay attention to. In fact, if the crazies in the UK or the US kick off, that’ll do him no harm. The key to a Norris victory is the other side of what he offers, the witty, urbane, well-educated, snappily-dressed side. We want him to stand beside the Brits and make them feel a bit common and a bit stupid. Will the other candidates offer that? If he can offer that to the Irish people, it’s game on.    

An interesting book you should read: Leadership

A good read if you're interested in municipal government. That's not a joke, by the way.
A good read if you’re interested in municipal government. That’s not a joke, by the way.

Americans do this kind of book well, and “Leadership” by Rudy Giuliani is worth dipping into, especially as Dublin approaches it’s first ever directly elected Mayor. I listened to it on audiobook (I travel a lot with work) and it is an interesting overview as to how he ran the city, and then dealt with the Sept 11 crisis.

What works about the book is actually the parts that are not about 9/11, but how he dealt with the day to day problems of running the capital of the world, and there are interesting ideas that the future mayor of Dublin could look at. When he strays into international politics, on the other hand, his opinions jar, particularly his absolute support for Israel right or wrong. I’m pro-Israel myself, and even I found it hard to digest. His attitude actually mirrors the attitude of the hardline anti-Israeli lobby in Ireland: Like them, he doesn’t really give much of a damn about the other side.