Why Greens are blue: the facts show the Greens’ record in Government is deplorable.
Election 2020
-
-
The Green Party should be – and appear to be – this century’s equivalent to the trade union movement. By Councillor Oliver Moran. Protests against environmental taxes in Europe, farmers’ blockades in the Netherlands, urban unrest in France, and the water-charges movement here in Ireland should cast a long shadow for the Green Party in government. The Waste Action Plan for a Circular Economy launched last week contains much that is worthwhile, but an awareness of the political importance of avoiding an environmental transition that lacks social empathy should be visible in everything the party says and does. Climate change and ecological decline disproportionately punish the worst off. The systems of economics that underlie them are exploitative of the poor, both globally and domestically, every bit as much as they are exploitative of nature and the planet. The solutions not only should not add to that but must necessarily challenge the assumptions of ecologically and socially exploitative capitalism. This is not an easy balance to strike. System change, if not implemented well, is more likely to affect the most vulnerable first. The party has progressive values at its core. This is a party that has among its founding principles that (a) unrestricted economic growth must be replaced by an ecologically and socially regulated economy and (b) the poverty of two thirds of the world’s family demands a fair re-distribution of the world’s resources. But the Green Party has missed opportunities since entering government to speak in that sociological voice with the same conviction that it speaks about technocratic solutions for environmentalism. This shortcoming isn’t derived from any malice on behalf of my party colleagues in government but from a cultural reluctance within the party to publicly express these convictions in clear and unequivocal tones. One of the roles of the Just Transition Greens, an explicitly left-wing faction affiliated with the party, is to challenge the party in government. Demanding more of it. Time, both political and in the context of climate and biodiversity emergencies, does not allow us the luxury of waiting. The Just Transition Greens’ critique is evolving. Its end-point is not defined. What unites our members is not particular stances or policy demands that are very different to the rest of the party but a shared conviction. A conviction that it is the duty of the green movement in government to ensure that environmental solutions not only do not punish the exploited further but actively improve their conditions. A just transition For some this conviction is based in eco-socialism. For others it is faith based. One of the most acerbic criticisms of Pippa Hackett’s forestry bill was from the Jesuit Centre for Faith and Justice. Others, like me, reach for the traditional green pillars of peace, democracy and social justice. This does not boil down to simplistic notions of “cycles lanes” vs “social justice”. It is about the lenses through which we see the world. Cycle infrastructure can and should be seen through the lens of social justice too, empowering communities through accessible and safe transportation. The unifying aspect is a philosophy that refuses to disentangle the social from the environmental. A just transition recognises that not everything that is good for the planet is good for people. If, in our rush to save the planet, we neglect the dignity of the poorest in our society, what kind of world will we leave our children? A just transition should lift up the horizons of all people, improving standards of living and protecting at risk workers and communities. Waste policy On 4 September, Eamon Ryan launched the new national waste policy. Justified or not, a far reaching policy that puts emphasis on the producers of waste was overshadowed by two bullet points in an 89-page document that seemingly lacked a nous for social justice. The irony was this drove some people to in effect defending exploitative capitalism. It was lost in some of the criticism that ‘buy one get one free’ on items like confectionery and fizzy drinks does not benefit the lower paid. It is itself a system of exploitation driving consumption and waste. The supermarkets and retail multiples are no friends of the left or workers and producers. They work actively to exploit the poor, labour, farmers and the environment. Neither is ‘fast fashion’ – as opposed to affordable clothing – a source of liberation for the poor. It too is exploitation, based on driving consumption, and it is a source of humiliation for people without the resources to keep up. The waste policy is very good at what it sets out to do. What it does, it does well on its own terms. Where it falls short is in addressing some of the greater social challenges with equal strength. It describes but doesn’t explicitly challenge the inherent wastefulness of capitalism. It lacks a sociological perspective. It doesn’t mention the income of households and how this affects consumption and waste patterns. Politically, launching a waste policy – that on the face of it would levy low cost clothing and ban cheap food offers – the day after a report had shown that 18% in Ireland are suffering deprivation is tone deaf. Not wrong, as I have described above, but tone deaf – and seemingly lacking in empathy and equal conviction for matters of social justice. A socio-economic lens Over-consumption and waste need to be seen through a lens that is socioeconomic every bit as much as technocratic. Tackling over-consumption and waste will only succeed if simultaneous efforts are undertaken to tackle income inequality, food sovereignty and human-rights violations. Our environmental policies should recognise the interconnectedness between economic development and environmental degradation. They should, as the UN Sustainable Development Goals demand, seek to reach the furthest behind first. That is why our policies include a Universal Basic Income and a commitment to transform the relationship between producer and consumer, bringing them closer together – without the mediation of the consumption-driven capitalism of supermarkets and retail multiples. Both
-
A reply to Adam McGibbon and Michael Rafferty of the Just Transition Greens. By John Vivian Cooke. Quo Virides (Whither the Green Party)? In their recent articles in Village Magazine, Adam McGibbon (Just Transiti ON) and Michael Rafferty, (Just Transition are Left insurgents in the Green Party aiming higher than ¨internal opposition¨), debated the future of the Just Transition Greens. Looking from the outside, as a member of neither JTG or the Green Party, it strikes me as nothing so much as two bald men fighting over a comb. At the moment, JTG are caught up in a moment of self-reflection. They are seeking greater influence within the Green Party when they should be seeking greater influence with the public: eco socialism needs to be outward looking and not inward looking. The debate between McGibbon and Rafferty exposes divisions within a movement that itself is already a division within the Green Party giving outsiders a glimpse of the Russian Doll of factionalism that is incapacitating any progress on both a green or socialist agenda and allowing the centre right to dominate the political landscape by default. The spectacle of a party devouring itself leads to electoral defeat and political irrelevance. It is a lesson that neither article appears to have considered. The Green Party needs a continuing supply of vitality and fresh ideas. Clearly JTG have an ample supply of both and their contributions are to be welcomed. Differences, disagreements and debates within political parties are not only healthy but essential. However, those of us who watched the Labour Party in the Seventies and Eighties know all too well that the spectacle of a party devouring itself leads to electoral defeat and political irrelevance. It is a lesson that neither article appears to have considered. McGibbon`s entryist strategy shares the failed ambition with Militant Tendency to take over their respective parties. Rafferty`s neglect of any sort of electoral strategy or practical policies is just another iteration of the refrain about the imminent overthrow of the capitalist system we have heard down the decades. Eco Socialism needs to be a viable political proposition with electoral appeal. That entails attracting people who are not self-consciously environmentalists through the hard graft of knocking on the doors of voters who have never voted Green in order to convince them that specific practical policies will make a tangible positive difference to their lives. Eco Socialism has the ability to realise that potential but not if it remains in the realm of the abstract, or, remains obsessed with winning obscure places on the party`s executive. It was precisely such a concentration on the granular details of retail politics that allowed the German Green Party to rebuild in the aftermath of its electoral meltdown in 1990. Highlighting how Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Democratic Socialists have redefined their party`s platform takes away the wrong lesson: Irish Eco Socialists should learn the mechanics and methods of community activism and outreach that propelled them to positions of influence in the first place. The Green Movement encompasses global activists who have effected meaningful and important changes from whom Irish Greens can learn. However, emulating those tangible successes requires detailed and extensive conversations and planning that go beyond 280 characters. The worry is that the disconnect between JTG and the current party leadership is mirrored by a disconnect between the party and Green Party voters The Green Party has to establish a stable electoral base. Unfortunately, the party`s recent electoral gains were not the product of such a vote, but came about by constructing a rickety alliance of, essentially, contradictory voting blocks. On the one hand, the Green Party won the number one votes of urban-middle-class soft environmentalists who it is tempting to dismiss as Fine Gaelers on a bike. On the other hand, the Green Party profited by capturing the first preference surpluses of elected Sinn Féin candidates – a phenomenon that only occurred because of the absence of a second SF candidate on the ballots. If the environmental movement makes no attempt to understand the broader electorate with all its contradictions and complexities it can never hope to persuade them. The worry is that the disconnect between JTG and the current party leadership is mirrored by a disconnect between the party and Green Party voters. JTG has been founded by eco socialists who do not want to be in coalition with either Fine Gael or Fianna Fáil and who are distrustful of the current party leadership. This dissatisfaction does not mean that the alternatives are any more palatable. It is difficult to see how the party can compete effectively on its chosen ground on the left where voters have a range of socialist options to choose from. Neither should the Greens put blind trust in Sinn Féin as a coalition partner: at the last election they were only too keen to compromise on the environment to win rural votes and their record in Belfast raises legitimate concerns that they might compromise on both the environment and social justice to retain power. Clearly, the parties that appear to be the natural partners of Eco Socialism will prove to be just as difficult to govern with as the current coalition and the party runs the danger of stalling between two fools. Even though it is counter intuitive, there is greater scope to advance a green agenda in coalition with Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael than has been assumed by JFG. Neither Fianna Fáil nor Fine Gael is bound by political dogma. This allows them to make greater policy compromises in order to stay in power. It also, however, allows Green ministers to exact a price even as they green and redden the government`s actions in economic and social policy areas. Green ministers can both shape economic policy to moderate the worst instincts of fiscal hawks in other parties, and maximise the impact of their environmental policies. Recognising these factors will force the Green Party to confront a number of painful dilemmas inherent in melding red with
-
A reply to Adam McGibbon’s recent article in Village. By Michael Rafferty. Adam McGibbon’s summary in Village of the birth of the ‘Just Transition Greens’ (JTGs) recalls the relatively modest experience of the Green Party’s eco-socialists in mitigating some of the worst facets of their involvement in a previous coalition government. But these counted for little when the party was electorally and organisationally wiped out in the Republic’s general election of 2011 and rightly implicated in the wake of economic and ecological damage caused by that administration. Becoming an ‘internal opposition’ (as Adam McGibbon proposes) therefore seems a rather limited prospectus for the emergent JTGs. Instead of being engaged in a negative war of attrition against centrist Green ministers and government whips over the duration of the parliamentary term, the JTGs’ sights are on a more constructive, consequential – and urgent – reconfiguration of eco-socialist politics beyond party structures on the island. Prospects for such an ‘internal opposition’ hauling the Green Party leftward while it implements a greenwashed, regressive programme for government are challenging at best. Equally bleak is the outlook for having a longer-term impact on government through policy development or in forcing a favourable mid-term readjustment of the coalition programme. These ideas run up against some quite obvious, unavoidable -and, I would argue, insurmountable – difficulties. First, no incremental change or ‘greening’ of the Programme for Government (PfG) can efface its deeply neoliberal underpinnings. Acquiescence to any variation of a basic framework which places a higher value on the maintenance of a tax-haven economy than green public investment in infrastructure, services and housing still amounts to squandering the political capital and good-will reflected in the party’s February 2020 election result. The elements of the PfG trumpeted by broadsheet media as ‘Green wins’ such as the carbon tax are objectively regressive in nature, i.e. they make working people pay the costs of a rather illusory decarbonisation of the Irish economy instead of corporate polluters. The fact that it is these latter aspects which were sold as ‘gains’ by Green negotiators makes it quite absurd that they could be renegotiated with Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael in a fit of buyer’s regret. Yet this is the magnitude of adjustment required to render the programme in any way reminiscent of a ‘just transition’. The centrist riposte that ‘there is no alternative’ to making an unsustainable economic model less bad is anathema to eco-socialists in an age of Fridays for Future climate strikers united around the slogan “system change, not climate change”. Second, the political reality of continuing as a mudguard for this grand coalition is another electoral and organisational wipeout. The simple fact that the addition of Green Party TDs was not numerically required to bind the civil war parties in a histrionic coalition will not go away. A handful and a half of pliant independent TDs was all that was required. The Green offer to shore this edifice up came too enthusiastically and commanding too low a price to make sufficient impact on the ‘woolly management-speak’ of the PfG. Setting the bar as low as “internal opposition” at the outset not only makes it too easy for centrist Greens to push back, but would also risk the perception that the new group is an inconsequential face-saving exercise for left-wing Green members. Third, the comparisons with insurgent groups within the party frameworks of the UK Labour Party and the Democratic Party in the USA while topically inspiring are also evidence of the limits of this approach. In the end ‘Corbynism’ was undermined by centrist forces within the Labour Party and the Democratic Socialists of America also failed to nominate Bernie Sanders for the Presidency. The consolation prize of some positive-sounding ‘green new deal’ campaign verbiage from an uninspiring Joe Biden, months out from an election, is seen as precisely that. The organic emergences of left-wing tendencies within broad-church parties, including the JTGs, are of course exciting developments in themselves but they come up against strong pushback from centrists which can weigh heavy on their ability to realise the change they strive for. Setting the bar as low as “internal opposition” at the outset not only makes that job too easy for centrist Greens, but would also risk the perception that the new group is an inconsequential face-saving exercise for left-wing Green members. I think it is more accurate to say that while some Green members have joined the JTGs in the hope of regaining control over their party and its policy, most will accept the doubtful feasibility of overturning a 76% majority within the party for entering government, particularly after Eamon Ryan’s retention of the party leadership only last month. And many are not even Green members at all. While the Greens’ decision to enter government was the short-term cause for the emergence of JTGs, the wider factor is the materialisation of a palpable left-right cleavage in Irish politics evident in the February election result. While the Greens’ decision to enter government was the short-term cause for the emergence of JTGs, the wider factor is the materialisation of a palpable left-right cleavage in Irish politics evident in the February election result. A campaign fought on issues of housing affordability and the infrastructural deficit in health, transport and public-services, followed by unprecedented interventions made in response to the coronavirus, has shifted the economic ‘common sense’ decisively leftward. Globally, even the most staid neoliberal orthodoxy is reversing back up the Road to Serfdom towards ‘tax-and-spend’ Keynesianism in anticipation of the economic freefall when social protection measures are cut back in coming months, second wave or no second wave. Globally, 2021 is likely to see the simultaneous arrival of several historic crises in financialised capitalism, public health, mass unemployment and deepening climate emergency. Emerging in these circumstances, the JTGs’ expectations go well beyond reconciling tensions within the Green Party and are focused more on bringing about the necessary coalition in progressive, ecological and Left politics, trade union and community organisations to make an Irish Green New Deal possible. Implementing neoliberalism with the civil
-
The Green Party needs Just Transition Greens to make it possible to negotiate a more ambitious programme for government. By Adam McGibbon. As the Green Party leadership election drew to a close last month, a new green-left affiliate organisation – the ‘Just Transition Greens’ – was born. The foundation of the Just Transition Greens, announced in a statement signed by TDs, councillors and Northern Ireland Assembly MLAs, is a hopeful sign. Former Northern Ireland Green Party leader John Barry told a podcast last week that around 400 people have joined JTG, and 10% of the Green membership are now involved. This is a good start. The Green Party desperately needs an internal opposition while in government. The Just Transition Greens could help the party achieve more in government, curb the most dangerous instincts of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, keep members involved who would quit otherwise, resist the rumoured drive to make the party less democratic and more centralised, and in the long term bring forward a more deeply embedded red-green politics in the party. The need for JTG is obvious from 2007-11. The membership trusted their TDs completely to get it right meaning that real dissent didn’t fully emerge until half way through the government term by which time many members had already left The need for JTG is obvious when the Greens’ previous time in government from 2007-11 is considered. The membership, excited to finally implement some of their agenda, desperately wanted the FF-Green coalition to work, and trusted their TDs completely to get it right. This implicit trust, combined with a less radical wider environmental movement and a relatively more centrist membership compared to now, meant that real dissent didn’t fully emerge until halfway through the government term. Many members had already left by 2009, but discontent had built up too slowly to exert any real pressure on the party’s TDs. The exodus of dissenting members meant it took longer for real discontent to emerge. In 2009, after the Greens threatened to pull out of the government, a more ambitious programme was negotiated with Fianna Fáil and voted through by the Green membership. But it was too late – as the government fell apart, few of the new renegotiated policies were implemented. The Green Party of 2020 desperately needs Just Transition Greens to prevent this from happening again. The climate crisis demands that the Greens use their position to demand fairer, faster climate action than what has already been negotiated. In voting to go into government, many members felt forced to prioritise environmental action over social justice, despite believing both are equally important. A 45 degrees Celsius heatwave in the Arctic during the voting period may have also focused minds for immediate climate action. Despite important wins like a new Climate Act, an end to oil and gas extraction and the blocking of gas terminals, the current programme for government will not achieve the internationally-agreed Paris Agreement climate goals – more is needed, and the action must be structured in a way that will benefit the worse-off. The Greens are a small party – if members who feel the deal is not ‘red’ enough (as opposed to just ‘green’) – and I count myself among them – can be properly organised within the party, they can exert a huge influence on party policy. They could even pull the party out of government if not enough is being achieved fast enough. Internal opposition can achieve things, acting as pressure on the TDs to be more aggressive in government and giving them much-needed perspective on the world outside Leinster House. In 2009, the Irish Young Greens managed to prevent the introduction of a formalised UK-style tuition fees system in Irish universities, during the renegotiation of the FF-Green programme for government. A well-organised group could hope to achieve much more, as others have done across the world – it’s well-known that the UK Labour Party in government has often been forced into its better governing moves by the pressure of their affiliated trade unions and membership. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the Democratic Socialists of America have had a noticeable impact on Joe Biden’s surprisingly bold climate plans, which some have labelled ‘a Green New Deal in all but name.’ Members who either voted for the Programme for Government – while recognising its shortcomings – or against it, can feel comfortable in Just Transition Greens. Rumours abound of a shake-up of party structures, which could dilute membership control, potentially including the removal of the ability of members of the (more left-wing) Northern Ireland Green Party to have a say in government formation, and more generally, the member’s powerful ability to pull the party out of government. These moves must be resisted – it would make a mockery of the Greens claim to have ‘grassroots democracy’ as one of its four principles, and further centralise power around the party’s TDs. But it can only be resisted if members who disagree stay involved and organise themselves effectively as an internal opposition. Members are free to leave or join other parties, but the Greens are uniquely democratic (for now) and more is likely to be achieved inside. Saoirse McHugh and her colleagues are natural leaders of an internal opposition. Although she has ended her membership of the Green Party, she could still play a huge role through the Just Transition Greens. It is likely that McHugh and allies could have more impact doing this, than by joining another organisation – Fis Nua, the green-left splinter group formed by Greens who left over the FF-Green government, got 0.3% of the vote in the 2011 general election and disappeared. Saoirse McHugh and her colleagues are natural leaders of an internal opposition JTG will not find it easy, from supporting TDs voting against the government, to harnessing the power of youth climate-strikers and the wider climate movement, to recruiting members branch-by-branch – and if too much is being compromised, organise to pull the party out of government. This isn’t factionalism – it is
-
A reply to Conor Lenihan looking at the convoluted practice in Belgium. By John Vivian Cooke. In his article in Village, (¨Risks of high political instability are being underestimated¨, 30 May), Conor Lenihan outlined the factors threatening Irish politics with continued instability. He detailed the calculations of electoral advantage that, in the end, led to an interval of 140 days between the general election and the formation of a new coalition. However, the insecurity caused by this dithering is mild in comparison to the frustrations and anxieties regularly endured by Belgian voters. When Yves Letreme, tendered his resignation as the Belgian Premier on 26 April 2010, federal elections swiftly followed in June. But Letreme`s successor, Elio Di Rupo, was not sworn into office until 5 December 2011. Letreme thereby set an unenviable record by serving the longest term in office as an acting head of government in a modern democracy. 589 days. Ireland and Belgium use their own forms of proportional representation in national elections. Proportional representation has a tendency to create multi-party systems in contrast to plurality voting that has a propensity to two-party systems. The consequence of this is fragmentation in parliament, which, in turn, has necessarily led to a history of coalition governments. The last single-party government in Belgium was Aloys Van de Vyvere`s short-lived administration in 1925, while, Ireland last elected a single-party (minority) government in 1987. In fact, the last Dáil in which a single party commanded a majority was the 21st Dáil, elected in 1977. If Ireland and Belgium both reliably expect their elections to result in coalition governments, why does it take so long to agree their composition? If both countries reliably expect their elections to result in coalition governments, why does it take so long to agree their composition? In both cases, the proximate cause resides in the mathematics of the election outcomes. However, an explanation based on contingency does little to explain the deeper causes of these delays. In the case of Belgium there are two forces in operation: one social and the other structural. Deep divisions in Belgian society jam up the cogs of its politics. In broad terms, the Francophone southern regions of Wallonia are distinct from the Dutch-speaking communities in the northern Flemish districts. This historic, linguistic divide always gave rise to a degree of friction between the communities. In recent years, political relations between the two communities have grown increasingly rancourous as existing language rights and the share of the federal budget are guarded jealously, all the while resenting any gains made by the other community. Unfortunately, some nationalist parties have sought electoral profit by stoking outright enmity and suspicion. Their incessant tugging at the thread of greater regional autonomy threatens to unravel the fabric of the country itself. The political expression of this is not limited to nationalist parties advocating greater regional autonomy. Although some parties have an electoral appeal that bridges the linguistic divide, many parties representing the same ideological position have separate and distinct Flemish and Walloon versions. As a consequence, Belgian voting patterns cleave along both ideological and linguistic lines. Imagine if each of Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil, Sinn Féin, Labour, the Social Democrats and People Before Profit had an English and Irish version in the Dáil. After the 2010 federal elections, 12 different political parties won representation in the Chamber of Representatives. Although such cultural factors are not present in Irish voter behaviour, the salience of voter loyalty as a determinant of voting behaviour is in long-term decline. Fianna Fáil, and, more recently, Fine Gael have had success at individual elections in attracting uncommitted voters. But these gains have proven to be ephemeral and disguise the underlying pattern. As Lenihan noted, the result of the last election ¨threw up an indeterminate result and an intractable three-way split between Fianna Fail, Sinn Féin and Fine Gael. Beyond these medium-sized parties, are a number of smaller parties of varying sizes and ideologies and of course a plethora of independents¨. Neither of the traditional parties looks to be in any position to re-establish its previous electoral dominance on any lasting basis. The Belgian customs of forming new governments are very much the Heath Robinson of constitutional arrangements. The day immediately after balloting in federal elections, the outgoing Premier is invited to form a caretaker administration until a new government can be appointed. Following wide consultations among leading political figures, the King appoints an Informateur whose role it is to take soundings from all parties and identify the candidate in the best position to put together a parliamentary majority. The Informateur need not report the exact terms of the basis of government as there is no expectation that they will be the new Premier themselves, they merely nominate a Formateur. It is the Formateur`s responsibility in turn to undertake the tortuous detailed work of agreeing policies and dividing cabinet portfolios. Following a political crisis in 2007, it was felt that the system was not sufficiently complicated and the position of Royal Mediator was created. After elections in 2019, a Preformateur assumed the functions of the Informateur with the intention of becoming Premier. These positions are intended to speed up the process of government formation, but, surprisingly, it has not worked out that way. Moreover, in order to hold together the existing governing coalition, the positions of Clarificateur and Negotiateur were added to the mix in 2007. If insufficient progress is not made, the process can regress a step with a fresh set of appointees. The frequency with which this happens can make Place des Palais seem somewhat of a roundabout that politicians circle until it is their turn. All the while these Informateurs, Preformateurs, Formateurs, and Royal Mediators go about their business, the previous Premier hobbles along in office a caretaker capacity. Uachtarán na hÉireann rightly holds a constitutional position above party politics and, thus, is denied the role of encouraging parties into government that is reserved for the King of the Belgians. The royal role is a relic from when
-
The leaderships of all three of the potential coalition participants – Greens, FF and FG – are in play. By Conor Lenihan. An initial political risk assessment for Ireland now would rate the country as “unstable”. There is little happening at Leinster House that would re-assure external investors. It is over three months since the election and there is still no sign of a new government. The public indulgence will only last as long as Covid-19 continues to hang over the country as an existential threat. If the opinion polls are to be believed the public seem content to leave the incumbent government in place even though they voted against them in the election. Taoiseach Leo Varadkar has re-invented himself during the Covid-19 crisis. His steady appearances on television have converted him from the TV Anchor Man to the TV Weather Man. As we all know, sometimes the Weather Man gives solace and relief when you have just endured a bulletin diet of misery and bad news. Varadkar’s new-found popularity has rendered Fine Gael activists the pleasing possibility that if they simply hang tough and string things out they might just be able to throw up their hands in surprised despair and call an election. For some of them the thought of sacrificing their big-farmer support on the altar of climate change, via the Greens, is a step too far in erosion of their most solid voting base. Leo Varadkar My friends in the distanced Dáil inform me the coalition formation talks are proceeding apace and may well be completed by June, with a week or two further to get the endorsement of the three parties and their memberships. The Greens’ requirement for two thirds of those voting is a high jump given the extent of division within the party even at a parliamentary level. One can only imagine the level of disputation among ordinary members. The election itself threw up an indeterminate result and an intractable three-way split between Fianna Fail, Sinn Féin and Fine Gael. Beyond these medium-sized parties, are a number of smaller parties of varying sizes and ideologies and of course a plethora of independents. The decision by both Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael to exclude Sinn Féin by definition narrows the choices of the two, previously, big parties. Their requirement appears to be to favour the inclusion of the Green Party – with a bolt-on of independents to give greater comfort. The orthodox wisdom in Leinster House and among political analysts as that this Fianna Fail, Fine Gael and Green Party configuration offers the best hope of a stable administration to see the country through the twin crises of Covid 19 and an increasingly, threatening, hard exit of the UK from the EU. The other consensus viewpoint offered is that there will certainly be ‘trouble ahead’ as public indebtedness rises, amid high unemployment, with the traditional safety valve of emigration from the country is removed as a mitigating factor. The Franco-German axis that runs the EU, is openly promoting the idea of future harmonisation of corporate taxes – not good news for Ireland Inc. Apart from these very obvious uncertainties there is in a more insidious threat to a stable coalition involving FF, FG and the Greens. The Greens are the only one of the three which actually increased their number of seats and with Sinn Féin could claim to have been winners from the results. albeit it might be argued they had the tail wind of a climate crisis and failed to capitalise on the ubiquitous desire for change. Nevertheless the reality is that in a normal election and political system this should be a cause of great contentment and happiness for the Greens – not so. Over the past two weeks there has been open warfare within the party and now the clear prospect of a leadership contest immediately after they select their portfolios and form their ministries. With a clear leadership contest on between Eamon Ryan and his Deputy Leader Catherine Martin this does not suggest stability in government. Things, of course, are not much better when one surveys the vista for both Fine Gael and Fianna Fail. While Fine Gael are stable on the surface and there is no immediate threat to Leo Varadkar, the likelihood is that he will be replaced within the first two years of any new coalition’s term. There are two clear contenders in Simon Coveney and Paschal Donoghue – both of whom presumably would like to take a big bite out of the Taoiseach Cherry when it comes to FG’s spin on the Wurlitzer. In Fianna Fáil a barely concealed leadership struggle is already underway because of the belief that Micheál Martin is a lame-duck potential Taoiseach, on the way out. Party members who hate the idea of sharing power with their civil war antagonists are vocal in expressing the belief that Martin simply wants to have the word Taoiseach on his CV – without reference to the damage that it will do the party. Micheál Martin The party faces the prospect, much-feared within FF, of being sandwiched between an opinion-poll-led resurgence of Fine Gael and the undoubted prospect of further Sinn Féin electoral expansion, as its status as the main opposition party grows and grows. Set against this feeling is the hard-headed realism of those frontbench TDs who want a shot at being ministers after nine years in opposition. Fianna Fáil has at least four who might consider themselves leadership contenders to succeed Micheál Martin – Michael McGrath, Dara Calleary, Barry Cowen and Jim O’Callaghan who has the perceived advantage of being from Dublin. None of these are making waves now given that the process of government formation is underway. The basics here are simple – the current leaderships of all three of the potential coalition participants in the Greens, FF and FG are in play. In the Greens’ case, it is just more obvious than the rest. This is not a recipe for
