John Gormley is in danger of becoming Jim Hacker.
John Gormley has finally discovered the ultimate irony of sucessive governments neutering of local government with the carry-on over the Poolbeg incinerator. Just picture the scene: The minister for local government, responsible for appointing the city manager of Dublin, to enforce govt policy against the elected members of the city council, is now engaged in a legal battle with that self same city manager because he is trying to implement a policy against the wishes of the council for whom he has been given specific powers by the minister’s office to overrule.
In fairness, it’s not Gormley’s fault. Fianna Fail, Fine Gael and Labour have all conspired to keep the status quo because A) They don’t trust their own councillors to make good decisions, and B) In a very Irish way, their own councillors oppose been given the powers because they then will be blamed for (the cheek!) using them. That’s not Gormley’s fault.
However, if the upcoming Dublin Mayor does not have the power to bend the county managers to his democratic will, that will be John Gormley’s fault, and he could find himself being humiliated by a newly elected Dublin Mayor demanding more powers, and JG finding himself in the surreal situation of defending the overcentralised political system he went into politics to change. Shades of minister Jim Hacker rejecting a petition started by a young MP named, eh, Jim Hacker?
An Occasional Guide to Irish Politics: The Party Loyalist.
You can hear him in a quiet room, mouth hanging open, air rushing in and out as his dull eyes stare blankly into an imaginary distance. Occasionally, the waft of stale urine will emanate from him. For him, the party is everything, and the affixation or removal of party membership decides his opinion on a person. A party man can do no wrong, and a non-party man can do no right. The truth is that the party, with its open-to-all-with-a-pulse policy, has provided a social structure to him that exists nowhere else in his life. A two line notice of a cumann meeting is carefully scrutinised a dozen times and then placed on the carefully dusted mantelpiece over the fire where his mother knows not to touch it. Everyday, he takes it down to read again, to just make sure that he has the date and time and location correct, even though all three are the same every month. He will be at the meeting at least 45 minutes early, with a Club Orange in front of him bought with the €10 his mother gave him, and will twist in the seat every time the door opens to see if a party member is coming in. Read more…
News from Ireland 2020: Surprise Yes vote on Nuclear Plant.

Coming soon to Carnsore.

Coming soon to Carnsore.
Wexford 2020: Despite a series of opinion polls predicting defeat by a 10 point margin, Wexford County today voted by 57.1% in favour of the ESB proposal to build a nuclear power plant at Carnsore Point. Leaders of the NO campaign were quick to condemn the result, pointing out that the voters had been bribed by the Community Gain package that had been promised by the government if the proposal was ratified by the voters of the county.
Under the package, every existing home will be entitled to a a tax free lump sum of €5000 each year, as a recognition of the county’s willingness to “bear the burden” of hosting the nation’s sole nuclear power plant. It is hoped that the scheme, which will last for 20 years, and cost the ESB approximately €28 million per annum, will protect property prices in the county.
The leader of the NO campaign, Sebastian Wilcox-Smyth, speaking at the count, said that the people of Wexford had no right to impose nuclear power on the “ordinary people”, and would be taking the matter to the High Court. Wilcox-Smyth was involved in a controversy during the campaign when it emerged that his group, People Before Everything, had previously campaigned against the building of wind farms near anywhere “where human beings dwell.” The YES campaign suggested building them on Mars.
The Four Irish Economic Classes: A Primer.

Who creates it, and who wants to spend it?
Let’s be honest with ourselves. Most political disputes, indeed most social disputes, come down to money. Yes, we can have issues over gay rights and what flag who flies where and who apologises to whom, but when it comes down to it, it’s cash that dominates. Curiously, as a society, we don’t debate that reality much, preferring to debate how we would like to spend it (more Resources!) and being pretty uncomfortable as to how it is created.
We have in our society, more or less, four economic classes, and it would do us no harm to pay a bit more attention to their roles in how we live our lives.
The Creators.
These are the people who create wealth. Whether it is writing a song that others buy, or inventing a product or service that others will pay for. It’s true, they need the framework of a state about them which protects their investment and their right to benefit from it, but broadly speaking, they create more wealth than they use up. Some are crooks, and use corrupt practices, but broadly, they bring more Euro to society’s table then was there beforehand. They’re not all millionaires either. Some own corner shops and drive taxis and write chick lit novels. The important thing is that the create money out of pretty much nothing.
The Value Adders.
This would be the biggest group, covering most of us. We work for someone else, taking their wealth and adding value to it, whether as lawyers drafting contracts or putting cans of beans into cardboard boxes. We don’t create wealth, but add a bit on. Again, our key attribute is that we bring more to the table than we take.
The Takers.
This is, ironically, the most socially diverse group, from big farmers receiving CAP payments to dodgy bankers to guys making millions merely by rezoning land, to people permanently on the state payroll or social welfare. They bring little to the table, in that most of them pay taxes but take more money from society (and the state) than they bring to it. The key is that their wealth is primarily as a result of the tangible efforts of others.
The Utilised.
These are the weak, and again, not necessarily the poorest in society. They are the exploited, underpaid workers or consumers, the people big business and the unions and the state roll over. The difference between them and The Takers on welfare is that they can actually add value, and bring more to the collective pot, if only they were helped.
Here’s the problem: In Ireland, only The Value Adders and The Takers are regarded as legitimate. The Creators are despised by the jealous, and The Utilised are just ignored, with what might help them instead going to the better organised Takers.

Who creates it, and who wants to spend it?
We have in our society, more or less, four economic classes, and it would do us no harm to pay a bit more attention to their roles in how we live our lives.
These are the people who create wealth. Whether it is writing a song that others buy, or inventing a product or service that others will pay for. It’s true, they need the framework of a state about them which protects their investment and their right to benefit from it, but broadly speaking, they create more wealth than they use up. Some are crooks, and use corrupt practices, but broadly, they bring more Euro to society’s table then was there beforehand. They’re not all millionaires either. Some own corner shops and drive taxis and write chick lit novels. The important thing is that the create money out of pretty much nothing.
This would be the biggest group, covering most of us. We work for someone else, taking their wealth and adding value to it, whether as lawyers drafting contracts or putting cans of beans into cardboard boxes. We don’t create wealth, but add a bit on. Again, our key attribute is that we bring more to the table than we take.
This is, ironically, the most socially diverse group, from big farmers receiving CAP payments to dodgy bankers to guys making millions merely by rezoning land, to people permanently on the state payroll or social welfare. They bring little to the table, in that most of them pay taxes but take more money from society (and the state) than they bring to it. The key is that their wealth is primarily as a result of the tangible efforts of others.
These are the weak, and again, not necessarily the poorest in society. They are the exploited, underpaid workers or consumers, the people big business and the unions and the state roll over. The difference between them and The Takers on welfare is that they can actually add value, and bring more to the collective pot, if only they were helped.
A pension for the Mayor?
John Gormley has an interesting opportunity with the Dublin Mayor legislation to deal with an anomaly that has crept into the public service, that is, the huge public sector pensions. The deal was always that although public service workers traditionally earned less than private sector workers, they were rewarded for that with relative job security and a good pension. Fair enough. But why should the proposed Dublin Mayor have his pension paid for by the taxpayer? After all, he or she will earn at least €100k per annum which is good money in anyone’s book, so why not require him/her to pay for their own pension, like most Irish workers?
The minister should put his foot down on this issue and the other nonsense that says that we won’t get high calibre candidates if we don’t pay at least €200k. If there is one thing that the last two years has taught us about Irish public life, it’s that, unlike other countries, high pay is no guarantee of anything. I’ve been in touch with the Department of the Environment’s press office to clarify the facts of the issue, and they’re normally quite good at getting back promptly on this stuff, so watch this space, because Gormley has a real chance here to stand up for the little guy.
An Occasional Guide to Irish Politics: “Fairness”

Fairness? Fairness? I'll give you a damn good trashing!

Fairness? Fairness? I'll give you a damn good trashing!
“Fairness” is the Scaletrix of Irish politics, in that the debate goes round in circles and circles and is incapable of a new direction. It starts from a simple proposition. We all believe in fairness, don’t we? You’d want to be Jabba the Hutt to be against fairness. Everyone nods sagely at the desire for Irish society to be built on fairness. But don’t dare ask for details, because if you do, you’re a hateful Thatcherite, a Victorian despatcher of children down the mines, their little tummies aching for a crust, a stale crust at that. Or worse still, you’re Michael McDowell.

1. Our electorate are policy averse, leading to politicians who also avoid stating positions that involve taking a side in a political argument. I have canvassed thousands (I’m not exaggerating) of houses over my political life. The vast, vast majority of doorstep queries were on local matters, which are important, but if we’re not going to discuss policy in a general election, then when? What is particularly extraordinary in the Irish psyche is that there is no connection between the level of taxation and government spending. Every single party, from the former PDs to People Before Profit all run (or ran) on the same fundamental platform, that your taxes can be low, but the level of public services can be high, and let’s not talk about the fiscal Bermuda Triangle in the middle.
Noel Whelan makes a very good point about cancer services in 