GUBU

An Irish woman’s social, political and domestic commentary

29 Comments

1. Darren said,

   May 9, 2007 at 4:35 pm

   You know, all the time I lived in Ireland, and all the time since, I couldn’t really get any Irish folks to articulate how the two parties’ essential philosophies differed. They couldn’t (or wouldn’t) even position them on a left-centre-right scale.

   Care to have a crack?

2. Sarah said,

   May 9, 2007 at 5:02 pm

   That’s easy Darren. Fianna Fail believe they are so entitled to power that it is perfectly acceptable if their leaders are financially supported by rich and generous supporters with cash donations which are, needless to say, not declared to the Revenue Commissioners as income.

   Fine Gael people think you should earn your own money and pay tax on it.

   It’s a culture thing really.

3. Darren said,

   May 9, 2007 at 6:04 pm

   Hmm…that’s a new variation on the typical answer, but it doesn’t help me much.

4. Sarah said,

   May 9, 2007 at 6:44 pm

   Ok so I was being flippant and yet it DOES sum up the two parties.

   First, the North. They did differ in emphasis on the North for a long time. FF were snakin regarders, full of rhetoric, short on action, opposed the Anglo-Irish Agreement etc. FG took the attitude that IRA/Sinn Fein should be sidelined and the SDLP supported and that the tack should be to persuade Unionists they had nothing to fear in a United Ireland. In the end, the Sinn Fein/FF relationship proved crucial to the Peace Process, though what they got out of it that wasn’t in Sunningdale, other than power,(i.e. for themselves) is beyond me. So in other words, FG were “morally” right but FF and Sinn Fein’s well, let me see..Fine Gael I think hampered themselves by adherence to core values, such as non-violence, decommissioning etc. FF and Sinn Fein , or more specifically Gerry Adams, were willing put aside and fudge on these core issues, and ultimately that was what was need to achieve peace. Morally they were wrong, but their common political, attitude, I suppose, achieved the right result. I always compare it to the prodigal son story in the bible. It was always pissed me off. The son that stayed at home was right. Didn’t get him anywhere. Sigh. Anyways…

   On economics, obviously they are both “centre” parties, but it IS all a matter of culture. FF have a tradition of being a crowd pleaser. So when in opposition, oppose. When in government, cut any deal to keep the peace, regardless of long term implications (I give you benchmarking and decentralisation, politically popular and financially crippling and POINTLESS decisions. Decentralisation was just moronic from the start and benchmarking was stunning in its ineptitude. Pay rises to match private sector pay but the private sector can be fired when the economy has a downturn. The public sector got huge increases with NO productivity and index linked benchmarked linked pensions……WHO is going to PAY for this in 20 years?????). FG have a tradition of saying and doing unpopular things because they think its the right thing to do. A few years ago they copped on that this was getting them nowhere and now will probably say anything to get back into power. This is obviously a little disappointing to me since it undermines by snobbery laden arguments about the differences between FF and FG, but I cling to the hope that once they DO get back into power they will take decisions which are in the long term interest of the country rather than for short term vote gain.

   But you know what, back to the cash in briefcases…

   It DOES matter.
   Do we elect people to office who see no need to obey the law, or do we elect people who conduct their personal affairs honestly? If we elect the former then the citizens are obliged to do nothing other than look after themselves with no regard for law or moral obligation or the greater good. If the latter, then it says we think we should run our personal and official affairs within the law, honestly and with fairness.

   I’m voting for honesty. Doesn’t it count anymore?

   In the 1980′s when this country was on its knees FF politicians and supporters combined to generate wealth for themselves and paying no tax whilst strenously opposing FG efforts to sort out the national finances.
   We all said “oh that’s in the past now – it was just Haughey etc”.
   Is it? WHAT is the difference between Ben Dunne funding Haughey and Michael Wall funding Bertie?
   None, other than scale.
   Michael McDowell is a joke.

5. Gordon Davies said,

   May 9, 2007 at 7:10 pm

   On health and the hospitals FF/PDs believe that healthcare is a commodity that should be traded on an open market. If you can’t pay the full price you should depend on charity. However it has been well demonstrated that a market driven healthcare system is inefficient, inequitable and does not allow the full development of a modern knowledge based economy, which is why American companies are delocalising to Canada.

   Labour (and to a lesser degree FG) believe that healthcare is as an essential service as sewerage, drinking water, transport infrastructure and education. Healthcare should be delivered according to medical need rather than according to ability to pay. Doctors should not be concerned by how their medical acts are being financed. When Liz Mcmanus becomes Minister for Health she has an agreed programme to implement, and much support in the medical world.

   Hospitals are not the major scandal in Irish healthcare – the fact that a minimum wage earner has to pay almost a day’s wages to see a GP, and lose a day’s pay because he has to take a dy of work to do so is the fundamental problem, which leads to overcrowede A&E, patints consulting too late and a total absence of preventetive medecine.

   On childcare and education I agree with Sarah. Get all kids into a minimaly acceptable context (25 per class in primary school, perhaps) and then all the extra money has to be used to overcome social, economic and disadvantage…it makes goood economic sense, as well as being theonly humane, civilised approach

   The “why should the childless pay for kids” argument is irrelevant. By definition the “voluntary sterile” sub-species of homus economicus will soon be extinct! They have opted out of the future of humanity.

   On the other hand, Sarah, your observations on the relationships between civil servants and the politicians are over simplistic… and a major branch of research in political science and the sociology of organisations. We have to get away from the myth of the Minister as the sole decider. Even Mary Harney, despite her raucous comments at the time when the delocalisation of Irish administration to FF/PD constiuencies was announced (misleadingly known as “decentralisation” doesn’t believe this. If a Minister is the sole decider in his/her Ministry then in case of error or failure then they are responsible. FF/PD Ministers do not believe they are responsible for anything that happens in their sector, it’s always someone else’s fault. Thus Hanafin passes the buck on paedophile teachers on to the schools, Harney uses the HSE as her standard get out and Dick Roche has developed a sublime and perverse genius for never being held to account for anything.

   Gordon

6. Gordon Davies said,

   May 9, 2007 at 7:19 pm

   On Bertie’s troubled relationship with Anglo6Irish businessmen – the affairs slowly coming into the public domain took place at a time when pots of money could be made on currency exchange. Was it right and fitting that the Minister for Finance (who already had previous in signing blank cheques on public funds), who had accesss to sensitive information, should be personally beholden to a disparate group of drinking buddies here and in Manchester? Unless, of course, as seems the fashion today, the Minsiter had no knowledge of what his department was doing

   What is at issue is Bartholomew Patrick Ahern’s fitness to govern. Vote him out

   Gordon

   Gordon

7. Sarah said,

   May 9, 2007 at 7:39 pm

   Good points Gordon and you are right on the civil servant thing. But the way I see it the civil service will recommend and work to their own benefit OR what THEY see as the national interest. So for example, the Dept of Finance do not want to spend any money really. SO that’s why they oppose tooth and nail anything that even HINTS that autistic children have a RIGHT to an education. That’s why Kathy Sinnott had to go to the Supreme Court to have that right vindicated. Now its why autistic children can’t get the ABA method if they want it. Its not about the method, its about Dept of Finance panic that if one person gets it they’ll ALL have to get it and that would be TERRIBLE.

   I want people in there who at least have the technical authority to say, NO. It is a good thing. We are paying for this.

   And funny that you should mention currency exchange. P O’Neill has been saying for YEARS why the F*ck is no one looking at who made money from devaluation?

8. omaniblog said,

   May 9, 2007 at 9:36 pm

   Oooooooooo I was hoping this was going to go in another direction. It’s the difference about childcare and taxation between Sarah and Paige that interests me most. Two strong willed intelligent people arguing different approaches about an issue that isn’t too huge for discussion.
   Also, as a parent of a child who is 20 months, I have an interest in how the wind is blowing on the funding of pre-school education.
   I look forward to Paige’s reply.

9. Liam said,

   May 10, 2007 at 7:50 am

   Errr Darren, if you are looking for an impartial response to your general question, you have probably asked the wrong forum and the wrong time.

10. Darren said,

    May 10, 2007 at 8:02 am

    Liam: Indeed, and I was hoping for a macro answer and I got a few micro ones.

11. simon said,

    May 10, 2007 at 8:53 am

    So sarah I asked this before but you must have missed it. Why is it a good thing that FG want to make the children of the nation pee into cups?

12. Sarah said,

    May 10, 2007 at 9:12 am

    I don’t think this is a good thing.

    Darren, there IS no macro answer. FF and FG do not split right/left. If anyone else has a better answer I’d be delighted to see it!

13. simon said,

    May 10, 2007 at 9:34 am

    There is little differance between the two parties. they are split on civil war lines which no longer matters so now they are split on personalities and people’s wish to be divided. If you read through the Fine Gael manifesto I am sure you could find twice as much that Sarah disagrees with as she agree’s with (take the drug testing for one) but . she is a committed FG because of family and because she does not want to be in FF.

    Also Ireland is quiet right wing. compare Sinn Fein’s economic policies to Sarcosy in France and Sinn Fein are right of him.

14. Darren said,

    May 10, 2007 at 10:06 am

    Indeed, I’m aware of Sarah’s, er, hereditary inclinations. Simon, that’s the best answer I’ve heard thus far. It’s interesting to me that nobody’s discussing the other fringe (are they fringe?) parties out there. Or do they basically not have enough support to matter?

    It’s also a little odd that one of the major parties (FG, judging from FF’s success over the years) haven’t established some ideaological distance, if only to form or solidify a particular body of support.

15. simon said,

    May 10, 2007 at 10:35 am

    Thing is Darren the Irish people are not that divided on issue they more or less agree. When why the two parties in the center have seen little drop in support. There is nothing to vote for so they stay where they are.

16. Sarah said,

    May 10, 2007 at 10:48 am

    Simon it is true that I disagree with many FG policies, in fact I am probably Labour policy for policy BUT three things

    1. Labour have no hope of getting a candidate elected in Meath so its more effective to direct one’s energies into FG
    2. You are totally ignoring the honesty issue. THAT is the core value for me. Why do you keep ignoring it? It DOES MATTER.
    3. Feck the Civil War. The LAND COMMISSION. Why does everyone forget about the land commission?

17. Colman said,

    May 10, 2007 at 10:53 am

    The Land Commission? Do explain?

18. Gordon Davies said,

    May 10, 2007 at 11:03 am

    Never forget about the Land Commission – especially when the IFA starts giving out about their divine right to build bungalows on “their” land, put up barbed wire fences and shoot hill-walkers.

    Lest we forget, most farmers, especially in the West and in upland areas, work land that was bought through the varous Land Acts, pre and post Independance. at subsidised prices, with subsidised interest rates and not all the money was collected. The Irish (and more distantly) the British taxpayer has a stake in most farmland in Ireland – they, or their predecessors, paid for it.

    Gordon

    PS A common occurence is for civil servants to anticipate their “masters” wishes and put forward the first proposition that they believe will not meet major objections – this was how the Kennedy administration adopted it’s policy during the Cuban missile crisis.

19. simon said,

    May 10, 2007 at 12:05 pm

    Labour have no hope of getting a candidate elected in Meath so its more effective to direct one’s energies into FG
    
    If Labour had a chance would you vote for them over FG? and how are they ever going to get elected if people like you who agree with them don’t vote for them?
    
    2. You are totally ignoring the honesty issue. THAT is the core value for me. Why do you keep ignoring it? It DOES MATTER.
    
    Honesty? Labour PD’s, and Greens have never had anyone done in the tribunals. FG and FF have. so if honesty is your critea why vote FG?
    
    3. Feck the Civil War. The LAND COMMISSION. Why does everyone forget about the land commission?
    because it was done thourgh parliment in 3 or 4 bills. civil war was violent. Will you ever see the land commission on the cinema in any film not staring tom cruise? No

20. Colman said,

    May 10, 2007 at 12:20 pm

    Sarah, shouldn’t you be voting first preference for Labour and then giving further preferences to FG? Isn’t that the whole point of our voting system?

21. Sarah said,

    May 10, 2007 at 12:29 pm

    Here in Meath the major dividing issue was the Land Commission not the Civil War. I don’t think there was a civil war in Meath. Under Fianna Fail the Land Commisison targeted the big farms and old estates. They compulsory bought them, divided them up into small holdings and gave them to families brought up from the west of Ireland.
    Needless to say the farms they targeted were owned by protestants and Fine Gaelers
    And quelle surprise everyone! The grandfather’s farm was one of those sequestered by the LC. The road on which I live is a Land commission road on which there were 5 houses built. “We” got one house and holding after the family were turfed out of their own farm about 3 miles away. The rest were given mainly to what are called the “westerners” – families brought up from the West and settled here. They come from Louisburgh and places like that. That’s why have a Gaeltacht in Meath. They were imported 50-70 years ago
    They still vote Fianna Fail, we still vote Fine Gael.
    No Simon, you won’t see it in the movies, but that history dictates a lot of voting in rural areas.

    The whole thing was so political. Here’s a story famous in these parts. Brendan Crinion was from a well known FG family. He heard the LC were targeting his farm. He was the first person at the next FF cumann meeting, joined up, saved the farm and went onto become one of their TDs in Westmeath.
    Kevin Rafter didn’t notice the link when in his book on Martin Mansergh he tries to establish why the Mansergh’s were FnFers. He mentions, by way of showing that Mansergh’s father was clearly politically involved by describing a diary entry of a trip to Dublin. Mansergh’s father had a meeting with the Land Commission in the morning and the local FF senator in the afternoon. Rafter says something like, oh he was in town on business and dropped into see his FF rep later so he must have been friendly.
    How about, the Mansergh’s got wind their farm was in trouble and cosied up pretty quickly to FF to save the farm. Which worked.
    Just a theory..

22. ang said,

    May 10, 2007 at 12:43 pm

    Interestingly. Mary Harney’s family were in receipt of Land Commission land. Dunno if that means anything but she did start in FF so they appeared to have cornered all sides in the LC argument.

23. simon said,

    May 10, 2007 at 1:19 pm

    No Simon, you won’t see it in the movies, but that history dictates a lot of voting in rural areas.
    I come from a rural area. no one even knows about it.

    It is just ye rich Meath Farmers that crip about it

24. blankpaige said,

    May 10, 2007 at 7:45 pm

    For completeness and because I don’t want to disappoint Omani. My response to your response, Sarah. (Apologies but I’ve had a sick laptop what with all this blogging lark not to mention work).

    Political patronage concentrated within one party is clearly unhealthy for democracy. But extending that patronage to a second party whose policies are indistinguishable from the first is only marginally better.

    Given that the only thing that seems to differentiate the two main parties from each other was what side they took in the civil war (your point re: LC is well made and accepted), experience/track record are the only other basis for a reasonable person might make an informed choice. As with all things, past performance is no guarantee of future performance, but in the absence of a crystal ball it is the only thing that one can go on. Otherwise it is down to who can promise the most – auction politics.

    Having some previous experience is no certainty that one can still do the job or that someone else might not be able to do it better. But I think you’d have to accept the corollary equally true – never having had the job does not make one better.

    Having had some close hand experience, I would not be as quick to assume that the permanent government is so benign. While clearly they fight against the excesses of the vote-seeking politicians, they have their own particular agenda.

    As with most things, we are at one on the need for society to protect its young, sick and elderly. I’ve commented on this on my blog and apologies if my flippant remarks cause unintended offence to working mums or anyone else.

    Individuals – and it need not necessarily be women although it usually is – look after their young, sick and elderly not because they are financially incentivised to do so but because they know it is the right thing to do. Govts of all hue know this and so they don’t look to incentivise/reward this behaviour because they know it will happen anyway. One way to reward this selfless behaviour would be to tax people who don’t tax this perspective and offer greater tax credits for those who do. By extension we could increase our charges for entry into nursing homes (or at least stop business men building nursing homes to secure capital allowances) and increase personal allowances/grants. As I understand it, this might be aligned with FG’s traditional tax & spend strategy but in their rush to the centre ground and to force a ‘contract’ on me that I never asked for, I’m still not sure if it still is.

    I firmly believe that people who work in the home are no greater or lesser value to society than those who go out to work. (In the same way that men are not equal to women, they are just different!) In a fair society they should be treated equally although not necessarily identically. The first step in such a process is to make every individual a taxable (and hence incentivisable) individual. This is why I generally support tax individualisation but it wouldn’t be a deal breaker for me. However iIf I marry, I want my tax affairs to be my business and don’t want the state to assume that I agree to handing authority over to my partner because he/she happens to work outside of the home. I might choose to do so but it will be my choice. A sort of tax pro-choice because sometimes the govt doesn’t always know best.

    Re: Pre-School, although I agree with your general premise – it is vitally important for sustained national economic performance and social cohesion. However I would take a somewhat different tack. Continued education and upskilling is the best route to economic (and probably personal) well being. The first barrier to continued education for those in socially disadvantaged areas is not economic but rather the absence of an expectation that they can/should continue education. Years of targeted interventions show that the earlier the intervention the more effective it is, but the data also shows that removing the economic barrier does nothing to increase participation. Hence removing the cost of Montessori schools would benefit only middle and upper class families. They would then be able to afford the Mercedes XL rather than the L model.
    Only once you have removed the barrier of low expectation does the barrier of economic cost become relevant.

    Perhaps it would be better to stop mass-producing monochrome school teaching generalists and train more Montessori or vocational training teachers if we want to make any meaningful impact in this area.

    Finally any improvement in health care in this country needs to tackle three large vested interest groups – consultants, nurses and hospital management. Mary Harney has been the only Minister for Health (probably since Noel Browne) who has taken the uncomfortable route of trying to tackle these. For this reason, I find it hard to vote for any other party which would reduce her prospects of being returned to that post. It would send a strong public message that €240,000 isn’t a Mickey Mouse salary, 33 hours isn’t a working week and if you can’t count something as simple as beds then you’ve no place being in charge of €14 billion budget.

    For what it’s worth, I’m now officially bored with politics and am no longer undecided! Thanks Sarah for your great public service.

25. Bijou said,

    May 12, 2007 at 3:15 pm

    I’m still reeling from the stunning lack of awareness of Irish history displayed by Gordon Davies’ comments on the historical context of land ownership in Ireland.
    Quote – ‘Lest we forget, most farmers, especially in the West and in upland areas, work land that was bought through the varous Land Acts, pre and post Independance. at subsidised prices, with subsidised interest rates and not all the money was collected. The Irish (and more distantly) the British taxpayer has a stake in most farmland in Ireland – they, or their predecessors, paid for it.’

    We have been so caught up in 20th century Irish history of late that we have lost touch with the events of 17th and 18th century Ireland which serve to explain all that followed in the century after the Famine.Perhaps Gordon should be reminded of how the Irish became dispossessed. Here is a small sample of the body of laws known as the penal laws which served to oppress our forbears. The sections on education are even more astounding.

    7.04
    2 Ann c.6 (1703):
    An Act to prevent the further Growth of Popery
    Sec. 10. All lands owned by a papist, and not sold during his lifetime for valuable consideration, really and bona fide paid, shall descend in gavelkind, that is to all of his sons, share and share alike, and not to the eldest son only, and lacking sons, to all his daughters, and lacking issue, to all kin of the papist’s father in equal degree, etc.; notwithstanding any grant, settlement or disposition made by such papist, by will or otherwise, subject however to all debts and incumbrances charging such estate.

    7.06
    2 Ann c.6 (1703):
    An Act to prevent the further Growth of Popery
    Sec. 12. If the eldest son or heir at law of a papist be a protestant at the time of the decease of such papist, the lands of the papist shall descend to that eldest son or heir at law according to the rules of the common law, provided that the bishop’s certificate of his being protestant be enrolled within 3 months after the decease of such papist,
    And if that eldest son or heir at law become a protestant within one year after the decease of such papist, he shall be entitled to the real estate of such papist, as he might have done had he been a protestant at the time of such papist’s decease.
    And the estate shall be chargeable with such sums for the maintenance and portions of the daughters and younger sons of such papist as the court of chancery shall appoint, not to exceed the value of one third of the estate.
    7.061
    2 Ann c.6 (1703):
    An Act to prevent the further Growth of Popery
    Sec. 13. Provided that such lands, during such time as any protestant shall be seized thereof in fee-simple or fee-tail, shall from such protestant be descendable according to the rules of the common law.
    7.07
    2 Ann c.6 (1703):
    An Act to prevent the further Growth of Popery
    Sec. 14. All debts and incumbrances that a papist may contract to encumber his real estate must be publicly recorded in the court of exchequer within six months after the making thereof, or the same shall not encumber the estate during such time as it shall belong to a protestant.
    7.08
    2 Ann c.6 (1703):
    An Act to prevent the further Growth of Popery
    Sec. 23 and 28. No papists shall take or purchase any house or tenement or inhabit the cities of Limerick and Galway, or the suburbs thereof, and all papists now inhabiting said cities or suburbs, shall before the 24th of March next ensuing before the chief magistrate become bound to her Majesty with two sufficient sureties, in a reasonable penal sum to be set by the chief magistrate, sheriff or recorder, with condition of faithfully bearing himself toward her Majesty, and in default of giving such security, such papists shall depart from the said city before the 24th of March, 1705. Provided that seamen, fishermen, and day labourers in houses worth 40 shillings a year or less are excepted.

    The late Lady Longford once said that not knowing history was like living in a house without windows. In this age of reconciliation, as evidenced by the great events at the Boyne last week, it is more important than ever that we should understand our complex history more fully. Less than 20 per cent of the annual Leaving Cert cohort now take History. This is ominous for the future. Only a comprehensive understanding of past events can help to explain where we are now and how we got here.

26. copernicus said,

    May 12, 2007 at 9:33 pm

    Bijou’s ability to apply his historical learning to reality is as disconcerting as anything in the leaving cert.

    He deliberately conflates the landowners who benefited from the Land Acts and the dispossed Irish of whom the landowners are simply a subset in general and then goes off on his ludicrously pious rant.

    The taxpayer has a very strong interest in land, not least because there’s no such thing as absolute ownerships in this country – the State holding the ultimate title in everything (hence the ability to create compulsory purchase orders).

27. Bijou said,

    May 13, 2007 at 12:04 pm

    BY AND LARGE, Copernicus, the tenantry who benefited from the land acts of the turn of the century were the same peasantry who had been toiling away for centuries in GENERALLY the same areas. Family nomenclature testifies to this in different parts of the country. I hope none of us would be guilty of speaking in sweeping absolutes when it comes to history.

28. copernicus said,

    May 13, 2007 at 1:31 pm

    You could do worse than read Fintan O’Toole’s history of the beef industry and look at the current (seemingly intractable) situtation with ground rents to get a clue.

    The penal laws are completely irrelevant to a discussion about the attitude of the IFA and the factual and legal circumstances of land ownership patterns in Ireland. Gordon’s statements were factually correct. Your objections seem to be based on a misapprehension about the point he was making.

    It is a fact that the Land Commission moneys were not fully repaid. There was recent legislation on this. This happened some time after Emancipation.

29. Bijou said,

    May 14, 2007 at 9:28 am

    I was not alluding to the Land Commission at all. My attention was drawn to the reference to late nineteenth century land settlements where it was stated that ‘the British taxayer has a stake in most farmland in Ireland’. See Gordon Davies above. An extraordinary statement considering the centuries long outflow of Irish rents, many to absentees with relatively little coming back from exchequer funds in an age before state welfare.

• Pages

  • About Me
  • Subscribe

• Recent Comments

  • Claire on Ian Bailey defames himself
  • Claire on Ian Bailey defames himself
  • Hugh Byrne on Ian Bailey defames himself
  • jimmy on Ian Bailey defames himself
  • Marcas MacCaoimhin on More Lisbon

• Friends

  • Andrew’s Photos
  • beaut.ie
  • Cuil – Search Engine
  • Cuil’s blog
  • Dan Sullivan
  • Gavin’s Blog
  • Holiday in France
  • Irish Election
  • John Keyes
  • Justin Mason
  • Kevin Rafter
  • Moriarty Tribunal
  • P O’Neill
  • Paddy’s Photos
  • Political Cartoons
  • President DCU
  • Richard Delevan
  • Slugger O’Toole

• Past Popular Posts

  • Christmas in Belfast
  • Depression
  • Love your Tummy
  • Men, the match, and housework
  • Mr Darcy, sigh
  • New baby – Bad Visitor
  • Silence of the Lambs
  • The Home Birth
  • The Lesser Knife
  • Toddlers on Holiday

• Categories

  • Domestic/Relationships
  • Feminism
  • Irish Politics
  • Sunday Times Columns
  • Uncategorized

Design by Beccary and Weblogs.us · XHTML · CSS