Archives
OK
-
-
Posted in:
Irish Investment Lowest in EU
by Village
At 10.7 per cent versus an EU average of 17.9% it’s dragging down medium-term economic growth. By Sinéad Pentony
-
by Village
Sinn Féin is benefitting from the suspension of disbelief, By John Gormley
-
Posted in:
Champions needed
by Village
Strong, principled women like Christine Buckley are essential for cultural change – by Ivana Bacik
-
by Village
Official Ireland is indifferent. This time about Donegal
-
Posted in:
Faction Fiction
by Village
Pat Rabbitte Replies to Ray Kavanagh, former Labour Gen Sec who saw Democratic Left as a faction within Labour Ray Kavanagh is a good Labour man but he is watching an old movie. I don’t recognise the Labour Party about which he purports to write. “Democratic Centralism”, he claims “is the ruling tendency in the Party since its merger with Democratic Left”. Is this the same Ray Kavanagh who wrote “Summer and Fall: The Rise and Fall of the Labour Party 1986 – 99”? This apologia pro vita sua was a dirge of complaint about Dick Spring’s supposed “autocratic style of leadership” aided and abetted by a hand-picked half-dozen advisors. According to the author, this unelected kitchen cabinet used to exile poor Ray to the country for the duration of elections while they made all the decisions. This experience must have seriously scalded itself into Ray Kavanagh’s memory: so much so that he would now like to revive it in the modern Labour Party. But it doesn’t exist. There is nobody working for the outgoing Party Leader, Eamon Gilmore TD who was not born with a Labour membership card in his or her hand e.g. Ita McAuliffe, Mark Garrett, Dr Colm O’ Riordan and former Deputy Derek McDowell. Kavanagh’s attempt to revive the spectre of factionalism in the Labour Party is not supported by the facts, nor is his argument helped by re-warming the mischief-making of Eoghan Harris in the Sunday Independent. In the most turbulent period, at least economically, in the modern history of the Labour Party the unity of purpose of the Parliamentary Party was remarkable. Confronted with an existential threat to our economic independence the party withstood the heat and helped salvage the country’s viability. The subsequent handling or mishandling of penalty points and the administration of justice; discretionary medical cards; and the timing of water charges are the issues that rankled with the public. Not factionalism in the Labour Party. Labour never promised “a recovery with no pain”. The party leader told the conference before it voted overwhelmingly to go into Government that the delegates would be coming to the next conference “through a forest of placards”. “A free health service for all” was never promised by anyone. Actually the balance as between cuts in expenditure and tax increases was not the 3 to 1 sought by Fine Gael but rather was closer to 50:50. I have watched successive general election campaigns where, in the final week of the contest, Labour fell back outgunned by the superior financial resources of the two big parties. On this occasion the leadership fought back and visibly made up ground. The Tesco ad was part of that fightback. The only former member of Democratic Left involved in that decision was Eamon Gilmore. I heard no candidate and no party member complain at the time. Nor did Ray Kavanagh, now so wise in hindsight, complain – then. Nor did I, for the record, ever say that “making promises you know you won’t keep is what Parties do at Elections”. Sean O’Rourke put it to me that I had made no attempt to explain the convoluted detail of the Child Benefit issue at election time but had simply promised not to cut it. I replied “isn’t that what you do at election time?”, meaning ‘keep it simple’. In an advertisement the message must be kept simple. It is perfectly legitimate for anybody to say that the particular ‘ad’ should not have been published. But it is not legitimate for anyone – and not least a party member – to resort to conspiracy theories to denigrate the 2011 best performance by the Labour Party in its hundred year history. The most offensive playing to the gallery by Kavanagh is his claim that “no faction or tendency must be allowed again to take over and dominate the Labour Party” I would remind him that I got an overwhelming mandate from the rank and file members of the party in the ballot box. My office was initially headed up by Fergus Finlay and laterally by Adrian Langan. My strongest supporters were Kavanagh’s so-called ‘Old Labour’ deputies. Many things have been said to me and behind my back but as Labour leader I was never accused of factionalising – a sport that seems to preoccupy Ray Kavanagh. He is living in the past. There is a difference between rewriting history and making it up in your own image because of some perceived slight in the past.
-
by Village
By Michael Smith. Eamon Gilmore needs to continue showing us his edge. “Triangulate: to move in the direction of a point by partly moving away from it”. For years the Irish Labour Party in general and its now leader, Eamon Gilmore in particular, have – characteristically – triangulated. They criticise a measure but pull their punches in part, lest they risk alienating someone or being seen as too radical. Or maybe because the Irish Labour Party, its leadership and much of its membership, after a period of radicalism thirty years ago, is now conservative by temperament. Gilmore won’t criticise the central substance of a measure; he’ll criticise its timing, its presentation, its costing, he’ll say it didn’t go far enough or something else needed to be done first. This won’t just be an add-on to his assessment, it will be his sound-byte. If Eamon Gilmore was breaking it off with you he’d say it wasn’t about you it was about him. Indeed that’s exactly what he’s been telling the unions. Speaking to the party’s youth conference about the link between Labour and the Unions, for Gilmore “It was not about the Labour Party’s view of the trade unions”. But rather, “the question is: where do the trade unions’ members see themselves in relation to the Labour Party?”. Gilmore would characteristically deny there is a problem with policies that indirectly have the effect of favouring the rich by saying he never sees such people. On a recent Questions and Answers programme, for example, he got around a question about whether he was in favour of allowing Tony O’Reilly a free medical card by saying he never saw millionaires at the doctor’s. It’s his instinct: caution outside his key passions. It allows him always to appear solid and competent and not to frighten the horses; and the pedantry even suggests erudition. But politics isn’t really about politicians. Or even primarily about competence. Gilmore needs to unlearn many of his key strategies. The question for Gilmore’s Labour Party is: Is there any beef? The policies Income Tax Labour’s 2007 Manifesto says “Labour will enhance the incomes of hard working families who have suffered from the “rip off” experience by delivering … a 2-point cut in the standard rate of tax from 20 per cent to 18 per cent”. This is directly culled from US and British populist thinking pitched at middle earners rather than the most needy in society. CGT and Corporation Tax Labour’s 2007 Manifesto which remains policy says “we recognise the need to maintain incentives for work, and to maintain Ireland’s attractiveness as a location for mobile investment and skilled labour. Accordingly we will: Maintain the existing rates of Corporation Tax. Maintain the existing rates of Capital Gains Tax”. In fact there is no reason not to increase Corporation Tax marginally to pay for services. It is also a blatant non-sequitur to imply that CGT is an incentive to work. This is definitive evidence of the Labour Party’s failure of nerve and radicalism. Universal Benefits Gilmore favours universal – i.e. non-means-tested – entitlements even against a background where the country cannot afford to give such “rights” to the richest. He seems, perhaps unwittingly, to be pandering to the middle-class base and brains of his party. Means-testing for Medical cards – including for over-seventies – and requiring university fees for those on high incomes are egalitarian policies (though in the case of the over-seventies it may be disproportionate to withdraw entitlements they have come to depend on). Applying typical Gilmore logic he says universal provision of services and benefits ensures those on middle and higher incomes have a stake in maintaining high standards of public services. In fact it is more notable they get a benefit than that they get a stake. Environment Triangulation was the key to Gilmore’s approach as Labour Party Environment spokesperson until 2007. For example Gilmore said the Protection of the Environment Bill 2003 which required householders, as polluters, to pay for the waste they generated and car-sellers to take responsibility for ”end-of-life” vehicles would “come to haunt” the Government when householders, the motor trade and local communities came to realise its impact. There was certainly a problem with the Bill which undemocratically allowed County Managers to override elected councilors, but the costs of taking care of the environment were inevitable and he should not, as environment spokesperson, have been arguing against them on blatantly populist grounds. Carbon Tax. Gilmore advocated reform of vehicle registration taxes (VRT) to encourage people to buy smaller cars, but Labour ruled out and continues to rule out introducing a carbon tax. Such taxation would damage Ireland’s competitiveness, Gilmore said. Liberal Social Agenda Gilmore has notably failed clearly to champion the classic “liberal” social positions that once galvanised his supporters. Abortion Gilmore does not feel the need to promote the party position which is to legislate for the X case. He told Hot Press, “I’m pro-choice. If abortion wasn’t as available in the UK then it would be much more on our agenda than it is now. Situations where the life of a mother is at risk, where a foetus is not viable, and, in particular, the issue of rape – those areas need to be looked at”. As he admits, it is not really on their agenda. Gay Marriage He is not pushing for a referendum for gay marriage, though typically he recently disdained the greens as having been “sold a pup” by FF in not getting commitments to hold one. He said of the Labour Party’s Civil Unions Bill, “To the extent that it stops short of changing the definition of marriage in the Irish constitution … some would argue that we have chosen the wrong approach… [but] our bill will lay the foundation to enable us to win the argument if or when there is a referendum on the issue”. Secular State. Gilmore doesn’t see the Angelus as an issue of secularity but as one of taste. He told
-
Posted in:
Everybody’s wrong except City Hall
by Village
SIPOC and the High Court find against Dublin City Council mayor Oisín Quinn on his ethical breaches In 2011 Councillor Oisín Quinn – senior counsel; nephew of Education Minister, Ruairí, son of tycoon, Lochlann; and now Dublin’s mayor – threatened to sue Village and even drafted the apology for us! This was after we published a relatively benign article in the magazine about his promotion of high-rise in Dublin City. In the course of lengthy correspondence, and meetings, with Quinn’s solicitor it became clear to us that the case to answer was his not ours. Quinn proposed, and voted on, resolutions that substantially affected his valuable property interest in an office block on Mount St, an area where established heights are up for grabs – where several other dismal 1970s blocks like the Quinn block have recently been rebuilt at increased heights. He proposed “Dublin2 minus the Georgian Squares” should be open to a height of six office storeys which is the equivalent of nine residential storeys. This is a dramatic increase on the four-storey Georgian height of Dublin. He also successfully supported mid-rise buildings up to 50m in nine areas of the city and buildings over 50m in four locations of the inner city. His proposal and vote seemed improper to Independent Councillor Cieran Perry and Village editor Michael Smith though Quinn and several tiers of officials in the Council led by then Manager John Tierney seemed to think it okay to declare an interest, and then nonsensically to go on to vote on proposals that might increase the interest’s value. The Standards in Public Office Commission (SIPOC) confirmed Quinn had breached the ethics acts in four ways, though they were concededly minor and “inadvertent”. In late January the High Court upheld that SIPOC decision as “eminently reasonable”. We do not see what a Labour councillor was doing promoting high-rise (as opposed to high density) for the human-scale Dublin centre in the teeth of so much opposition from his constituents. Interestingly, during the SIPO hearing it was clear that the most important submissions, as far as Councillor Quinn was concerned, of the hundreds that he received mostly from the public, were relatively professional submissions made by the Chamber of Commerce, KPMG and a planning consultant. He chose not to refer to the massive opposition from the communities the Labour Party purports to represent. Judge John Hedigan in the High Court ruled forcefully against both the City Council and its mayor. He noted that, during the case, Quinn had introduced evidence from a council planning officer seeking to demonstrate he was no more likely to benefit from an amending of building heights after the city plan was changed than before but, apart from the “doubtful relevance” of this evidence, it was not open to the court to consider it as the case was a judicial review of the commission’s decision and not an appeal. The commission found Quinn’s interest in the property was not so remote that it cannot be reasonably regarded as likely to influence his vote, the judge said. The City Council had consistently purported to be exercised by the danger of paralysis, “that so many councillors would have to disclose and withdraw because of the wide effect of SIPOC’s determination that the Council would be unable to perform its functions”. The judge slaughtered this argument: “No evidence has been adduced to support this proposition…the evidence supports the opposite conclusion”. He noted that only two of even councillor Quinn’s motions could be (and were) challenged and that in the making of eight other local authority development plans recently not a single councillor had felt obliged to declare and withdraw. The City Council seems not to have digested these central facts. Indeed, the new City Manager, Owen Keegan, unprofessionally told the Council in early February “any councillor who asks my advice or the law agent’s advice in the future – you’re on your own”. Furthermore, the Judge ruled “reasonably regarded” refers to perception rather than objective reality and it was “classically a matter of judgment” as to whether it was so. The commission was an expert tribunal. In making its finding against Councillor Quinn, it was “hard to imagine” a body more qualified than the commission. It would have been preferable if the judge had looked more closely at the decision rather than the decision-making body and also if he had addressed the issue of why the reasons given by SIPOC were so paltry, but his judgment is unassailable. The judge also found the Council had no legal standing to bring the court action as it was not a party to the commission’s inquiry and raised serious doubts as to Quinn’s own standing to take the case but decided somewhat unpersuasively that since so much effort had gone into the case he might as well decide it anyway. At the time of hearing, in the eleven years since the instigation of SIPOC this was one of only three decisions that went against someone in public office, albeit for a minor infringement. The issue arises as to why City Management led by John Tierney, now controversially fronting Irish Water, took the expensive High Court case, for which they had no standing, why they seem bent on an irresponsible Supreme Court appeal, and why they seem to have underwritten Councillor Quinn’s involvement – as well as why they were indulgent of ethical delinquencies and indeed why they are facilitating high-rise when Dubliners do not want it. •