The Census and the Next Dáil

The Central Statistics Office released the preliminary results of the census, which was taken on April 10 last and, as always, it makes for some interesting reading. The total population increased some 8.1% nationally, from 4,239,848 in 2006 to the 4,581,269 recorded on census night. Every county and city increased their numbers with the exceptions of Cork and Limerick cities.

An interesting quandary raised by the census, at least one which is directly applicable to politics, in the distribution of TDs and the shape of Dáil constituencies in the future. One notable constituency which will have to be split is Laois-Offaly. This constituency has existed since 1921, and has returned five TDs at every election since 1923, a remarkable level of consistency and solidity in light of nine decades which saw a national haemorrhaging of population for much of the period, followed by a large increase in recent years. Indeed, the main reason why this constituency will be split is that Co. Laois experienced a boom in population in the last five years, with an astonishing 20% rise, the best percentage performance in the country. Overall, the constituency now has more than the legally-allowed 30,000 persons per TD, meaning the long-lasting political marriage of Laois-Offaly will soon undergo a velvet divorce.

Kildare South has also breached the prescribed 30,000 maximum, but won't have to be split, since it only has three TDs at present. Of course, it will have to be given an extra representative, so it will be interesting to see where that comes from. In addition, there are a further five constituencies where the average TDs represents between 29,000 and 30,000 people, meaning that these will have to be looked at sooner rather than later too.

What makes this necessary addition of TDs to constituencies in the Midlands and Dublin commuter belt more difficult is the desire to actually reduce the number of people sitting in the Dáil. The western seaboard will lose a number of TDs, as many areas have deputies acting on behalf of fewer than 27,000 people. The two Kerry constituencies may well be joined together, at the expense of one TD. One of Cavan-Monaghan's five seats  might be targeted, as might one of the five in Mayo, a potential problem for one of Taoiseach Enda Kenny's three party colleagues come the next election.

Every political party promised political reform in the weeks leading up to the general election, with one pledge from Fine Gael seeking to reduce the number of representatives sitting in the lower house by around twenty. Coinciding with the interim census returns, the Fine Gael-Labour government established a new Constituency Commission last Thursday to see where deputy numbers could be scaled back. The government stated an expectation that somewhere between six and thirteen seats would be abolished, far fewer than the twenty or more envisioned before the election. Phil Hogan, the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, and therefore the person responsible for legislation covering political reform, has realised that the increased population makes it more difficult to cut a large number of TDs without breaching the constitution. The constitution demands each constituency to have between three and five deputies, with each deputy representing at least 20,000 people, but no more than 30,000.

This raises a question over the government's true desire to implement real political reform. Mr. Hogan denied that the government was performing a U-turn on the issue, but the potential reduction of only six TDs would surely fail to impress a general public which had hoped for more wholehearted attempts to slimline Irish politics, certainly in light of pre-election promises on what had being a recurring issue on the campaign trail. Reducing the number of TDs will mean someone, or somewhere, will lose out at the next election, but will the reduced representation be dismissed as minuscule by a public looking to see the Oireachtas cut costs in its own house as well as elsewhere in the public sector?

“How much is seven in France?”: A Eurovision Special Continued

Had they sung last instead of first, poor Karin
might have had an easier time with the translations

Voting in the Eurovision is the most exciting part of the night, or at least it is until one song trounces the rest into submission with a dozen countries still to vote. Anyway, the awarding of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and the famous "douze points" was introduced in 1975. However, the points were awarded in the order in which the songs were performed, rather than going in order from a jury's 10th favourite to most favourite. This must have made for a number of anti-climactic results, as the winning entry that year, "Ding-A-Dong" by Teach-In of the Netherlands, was sung first, and got the top score from six countries. The night's host, Karin Falck, doubtless the only one confused by the odd method of awarding 12 votes, then 2, then 6, then 4, as opposed to going in order from tenth favourite to most favoured. Having struggled between English and French translations through the voting, she hit a blank when the United Kingdom gave seven votes to Sweden, and couldn't remember the French for seven, prompting her to ask the scrutineer from the European Broadcasting Union "How much is seven in France?". The awarding of votes in numerical order, rather than the order in which songs were performed, was first done in 1980.

André Claveau: the 1958 Danish jury
really liked his effort, except one guy,
 who thought it was only "alright"

Before 1975, a number of scoring systems were used, though the most popular one involved each country having ten jurors on a panel, with each juror giving a vote to their favourite song. Of course, that theoretically meant one jury could give all ten of its votes to a country, or one jury could give a single vote to ten countries. This never happened, but in 1958, Denmark gave nine of its ten votes to France while, in the same Contest, Sweden gave four votes to Switzerland and one vote to each of Italy, France, Denmark, Belgium, West Germany and Austria. In 1970, Belgium helped Ireland to victory by giving Dana's "All Kinds of Everything" nine votes.

From 1964 to 1966, each jury voted privately, as normal, but only awarded points to the top three songs, with the favourite song getting five points, the second favourite getting three, and the third favourite getting one. However, if the jury liked fewer than three songs, they could vote for just two songs, and award their favourite song six points and their second favourite three. If the ten jurors only liked one song, that song get nine points. This confusing structure meant that, in 1964, the maximum number of points any song could get was supposed to be 75, but it could be 90, or it could be 135. The old system was brought back in 1968.


A major problem of this system was that, because one country could get a huge share of one jury's votes and few votes elsewhere while another could get a small number of votes from everybody, it was quite possible for a number of countries to share top spot at the end of the voting because of fragmented votes, especially in an era when fewer than twenty countries entered the Contest. The European Broadcasting Union, with the mindset of an American sports organiser, failed to think that anything like a tie could happen and had no tiebreaker should one ever happen. By fluke, there had been sole winners from 1956 (possibly, the results of that Contest have never been released) to 1968, but the EBU got its fingers badly burned in 1969, when no fewer than four of the sixteen participants tied for first place. An urban legend, but a rather brilliant one, goes that the host of that year's Contest, Laurita Valenzuela, asked the EBU's vote scrutineer, Clifford Brown, what would happen in the event of a tie. Brown replied that such a thing had never happened before, and never would. Oops. 

Just asking for karma to bite back

Despite the farce created by the voting structure, it was retained for the 1970 Contest, but at least a tie-breaker had been devised, where any joint leaders had to perform their song again, with the neutral juries voting for a favourite on a show of hands. The system finally bit the dust after this Contest, with a little help from Belgium, whose jury ensured Ireland's first victory by giving Dana nine of their ten votes.

It's unknown if the Eurovision inspired
 the camera staff on University Challenge 

The EBU managed to devise a different voting system in time for the 1971 Contest, which saw each country send two jurors to the Contest, voting for each song immediately after it had been sung, before appearing on screen at the end of the singing to verify their scores. One of the two jurors from each country was aged between 16 and 25, and the other was aged over 25, with at least ten years age difference between them. The jurors were supposed to give a score from one to five to each song, but a major flaw quickly became apparent. The freedom to give any score they liked meant some juries were very stingy with their results, possibly with the intention of improving their own country's likelihood of success. In 1971, the highest score awarded to any song by the Luxembourg jury was five points (out of a possible ten), while Malta gave no higher than a six in 1972. To be fair, there's probably little evidence that any jury actively sought to sabotage the voting in favour of their own delegation, because each contest saw a raft of generous nines and tens from the adjudicators. 

While the 1971 and 1972 Contests were uncontroversial, with clear winners, the 1973 edition showed the inefficiency of the voting method, with the thirty-four jurors (from seventeen participating countries) deciding a very tight Contest, with six points between the top three countries (Luxembourg, Spain and the United Kingdom). Matters weren't helped by one of the Swiss jurors, who decided to become a star of the show by saluting the audience while displaying his results (from 8:00 of this video), especially if they were good scores, to the disbelief of the Yugoslavian judge next to him. With so few people deciding such a close Contest, it was decided that a new voting system was required. The ten jurors with one vote each got a final encore in 1974, before it was replaced by the system which has been retained to the present day.

More Than a Song and Dance: A Eurovision Special

A bit of a break from the politics and the banks, this week I'm writing about the Eurovision Song Contest, an annual exhibition and celebration of the surreal, the bizarre, the grammatically dodgy and the occasional talent. An excellent RTÉ programme last week discussed some of the "secret history" of the Eurovision, by focusing not so much on the music, but on the role the Contest played in a cultural war between the West and the Communist block during the Cold War. I'm not going to rehash information that was shown on television last week, but I thought I'd reveal a few things about the Contest you might not know.

Pick a date, any date.

It's a tradition that the Eurovision takes place on a Saturday night, but this only started in 1961. Before that, the Contest took place on whatever evening was convenient for the host broadcaster. The first Contest, in 1956, took place on Thursday, May 24, and was really a radio affair; since most Europeans didn't have television, the emphasis was on radio entertainment, though there was cameras to present it to those who did have television sets. The 1957 and 1958 Contests were on Sundays, March 3 and March 16, respectively, while the 1959 Contest took place on a Wednesday, March 11, and the 1960 Contest was performed on a Tuesday, March 29. The 1961 Contest was on Saturday, March 18, and Saturday night has been the night of broadcast since 1963.

Nunzio Gallo in 1957: his ode to the strings of his
guitar went on a bit too long for the EBU

The rules of the Contest state that no song may be longer than three minutes, because of time constraints. This wasn't always the case, and the 1957 Italian entry, "Corde Della mia Chitarra" ("Strings of My Guitar") lasted five minutes and nine seconds. Although it's a rather nice song, the European Broadcasting Union eventually decided that such lengthy efforts would not be welcomed, and limited the amount of time songs could take.

The United Kingdom has hosted the Contest on eight occasions, despite only winning the Contest five times. Only one has been hosted outside of England, the 1972 edition, which was in Edinburgh. Like the 1960 and 1963 editions, the BBC hosted despite the UK not winning the previous Contest. The BBC became known as a dependable substitute in the event that a winning country was unable to stage the competition because of limited space or funds, but hasn't stepped in as substitute host since 1972, though only one Contest has been held by a country other than the previous winner since, when the Netherlands hosted the 1980 edition after Israel, having won the 1978 and 1979 Contests, revealed that it could not afford to host such a major event for a second consecutive year.

In 1996, as pretty much everyone in Ireland knows, Eimear Quinn won the Contest, Ireland's fourth success in five years and a record seventh overall. Aside from being the last time Ireland won the Contest (probably to the immense relief of the accountants at RTÉ, since that's meant RTÉ hasn't had to host the Eurovision in the last fifteen years), there was a unique political involvement. For the first, and only, time, politicians around Europe sent good luck messages to their country's delegation, which was played immediately before the song. While the likes of Switzerland and Greece sent low-ranking diplomats to help waste time create a spirit of friendship, Taoiseach John Bruton did the honours for Ireland, as can be seen from 1:14 on this video. His voice wished good luck, but his eyes were praying that someone else would win.

Leon's techno effort failed to impress

1996 is also the only time that Germany hasn't appeared in the final. Due to the sheer number of countries that wanted to enter following the end of the Cold War and the break-ups of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, the European Broadcasting Union decided to have a qualifying round, which wasn't televised, to whittle the 29 entrants (not including host Norway) down to a more manageable 22. In what could only be described as dubious decision-making, national juries made their call by listening to audio taped performances of the songs, and voting as normal, but without the results being released. Despite being a major contributor to the EBU, Germany was eliminated. Eliminating one of your biggest cash cows probably unnerved the EBU, which decided a few years later to guarantee participation in the final for Germany, as well as the United Kingdom, France and Spain. Italy are also assured passage to the final when the enter; this year is their first appearance in the Contest since 1997.

Three million for a year’s toil: nice work if you can get it.

I don’t really listen to “Liveline”, but radio reception in some parts of Connemara is so bad that all you’re left with is long wave, and neither my father nor I are confident enough in our ability to speak German or Russian to listen to their talk programmes. RTÉ Radio 1 it was, then, and the chance to hear the public “talk to Joe”.

Anyway, the hot topic of the day was the huge payout to the former managing director of AIB, Colm Doherty, who was forced to resign from the role barely a year after starting following the effective nationalisation of the bank by the Irish government. For his troubles, Mr. Doherty walked away with the €432,000 he had earned for twelve months work, together with a further €707,000 in compensation for having to leave the post a year early. He also managed to receive a further €2 million in lieu of a contribution to a pension fund. The news comes seven days after the bank announced plans to make as many as 2,000 staff redundant over the next two years, following a €10.4 BILLION loss in 2010.

Naturally, the predominant mood of the callers was of incredulity, while unrelenting anger featured strongly too. For many, it was deemed to be the final straw, the latest in a chain of events which would be comical, were the situation not so serious. This reaction was all the more reasonable given that, in the same programme, a caller phoned in to say that he and his co-workers were about to lose their jobs and that they were not going to be offered compensation. It was all the more poignant given the realisation among workers in their forties or fifties that they were highly unlikely to ever get another job.

The overarching thought which went through my head as I listened to call after call expressing outrage and frustration at the generous package donated by the taxpayer was to wonder what exactly the directors at a nationalised bank do, especially to earn such large sums of cash which the bank itself doesn’t possess. I have to plead ignorance, because the total sum of my knowledge of banking executives consists of watching Milburn Drysdale repeatedly suck up to the Clampetts in “The Beverly Hillbillies”. The Clampetts seemed to be his only customers; perhaps the role of a director is to hang out with oil-rich bumpkins. What exactly do these guys do that justifies the huge sums of money they get from their employers?

In any service or industry, the person at the top has a clear role, and often has a personal interest in ensuring that the company they’re in charge of stays in business. Since AIB, together with pretty much every other Irish bank, have managed to plummet from confident solvency to junk status in less than four years, one has to query what exactly AIB bosses did to earn the type of contract signed by Mr Doherty when he was promoted to the position of managing director.

The Minister for Justice, Defence and Equality, Alan Shatter, speaking at the annual Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors conference in Limerick, noted that AIB had effectively gone into liquidation, and therefore the directors might not be eligible to receive a bonus. This would be an interesting change of opinion, since his Cabinet colleague, Michael Noonan, had claimed 24 hours previously that nothing could be done about contracts which had no mention of the consequences over the decline of Irish banks.

As welcome as Mr Shatter’s comments were, the reality is that we won’t see that three million returned, unless Mr Doherty feels a pang of guilt for taking a seven-figure sum from a bank he helped deliver into government ownership which lost over ten billion while he was the head honcho. Nothing illegal occurred and the government can’t introduce a retroactive premium tax, so only a willing contribution from the goodness of Mr Doherty’s heart will see any of that money returned. But I wouldn’t hold my breath for that, nor would I expect to hear any statement coming from him beyond an attempt to justify that the money was a fair compensation for his work at AIB.

This is really the tip of (yet another) iceberg, because this raises a number of questions which probably won’t get any proper answers outside of a tribunal of enquiry into the banking disaster. First, Mr Doherty got €707,000 in place of a year’s notice: is it normal to get a year’s notice? The only justification for that is that it would normally take a year to find a replacement, which seems rather implausible. Second, who agreed this contract with Mr Doherty, and who signed off on it? How much did the Department of Finance, and the last government, know about this arrangement, given that the State was already a large shareholder when the contract was agreed?

Who else has such generous contracts, in AIB and in other Irish banks? Mr Doherty was only the managing director; how much did the bank’s chairman, Dan O’Connor, get when he was forced to resign at the same time? Finally, why did the Government agree to Mr Doherty’s promotion to the position in the first place? The Government wanted someone from outside the bank’s hierarchy to take charge, the Bank insisted on Mr Doherty.

Given that Mr Doherty had been a major official in the bank for a number of years and therefore had much input into the bank’s dealings over the years leading up to the financial crisis, was he really the best candidate for the job? It seems even in the midst of the worst financial crisis in Ireland’s history, the ones responsible are still looking after themselves. It’s shameful that while AIB is planning to cut 2,000 ordinary staff from the payroll, one man is able to take away €3 million that his employer doesn’t even possess. Those callers to “Liveline” have good reason to be angry at the latest news from the bank, just wait for the rage when the amounts paid to other officials are released once the bank’s annual report is published shortly.

The Day After The Night Before

The dust is starting to settle following the general election, and the decision of the people is rather emphatic. Fine Gael will enjoy receiving their largest share of the vote since the days of Garret Fitzgerald’s leadership, and will even exceed the number of seats from that November 1982 vote. Labour’s “Gilmore Gale” has exceeded the “Spring Tide” of 1992, while Sinn Féin has more than doubled its representation in the Dáil. The United Left Alliance has made a major breakthrough, and a host of new independent TDs will take seats in the lower house when the 31st Dáil meets for the first time on March 9.

These gains have to come from somewhere, and these gains were made at the expense of the outgoing governing parties. The Green Party was struggling in every poll taken since the end of 2008, and while the RTÉ/ Millward Lansdowne Brown exit poll offered a glimmer of hope by giving the party 2.7% when polls during the campaign had the former junior coalition partner at between 1 and 2 per cent, the inability to get transfers from anywhere meant that the six incumbent TDs were always going to struggle, and all were left behind as their opponents picked up preferences across the board.

But the real casualty of this election is Fianna Fáil. While angry citizens in Greece and across the Arab world have been out on the streets protesting against their governments lately, the Irish electorate waited patiently in the long grass for the opportunity to give the major government party a major kicking once the opportunity to go to the polls arose. The exit poll confirmed what opinion polls throughout the campaign was expecting, a massive collapse in the Fianna Fáil vote across the country, with barely 15% of the electorate giving their first preferences to Fianna Fáil. As it transpired, this was to be the case, as incumbent TDs and new candidates alike struggled in virtually every constituency, especially when it came to the spreading of transfers from elected and eliminated opponents.

The magnitude of what is easily Fianna Fáil’s worst ever day at the polls cannot be underestimated. When compared to the 2007 result, the party has lost some 471,000 votes, a decline of over 55%. In areas where Fianna Fáil traditionally claimed huge numbers of first preferences, seats were haemorrhaged as the party cut back on the number of its candidates in an attempt to shore up the number of seats. Éamon de Valera’s old base of Clare just about saw a Fianna Fáil candidate returned, Timmy Dooley scrapping in on the final count, without a quota. Galway West, which has always had two, if not three, Fianna Fáil TDs, will be left with one, after an election which saw Michael Crowe get less than 1,900 votes, and sitting TD Frank Fahey lose his seat after receiving less than 6% of the tally. Bertie Ahern’s old patch, Dublin Central, was lost; indeed Dublin will only have one Fianna Fáil TD out of 47, outgoing Finance Minister Brian Lenihan getting the final seat in Dublin West.

The hoped-for bounce of support in Cork following Micheál Martin’s rise to the leadership failed to materialise, as the party was left without seats in two of the county’s constituencies. More worryingly for Mr. Martin, a question in the RTÉ exit poll asked voters if they thought Fianna Fáil would be in a position to lead a government in the next ten years: fewer than two in five thought they would (37%), but more than half (56%) thought they wouldn’t. A week is a long time in politics, but a decade spent languishing on the opposition benches is a disastrous prospect for a party used to being by far the largest political party in this country.

While the future for Fianna Fáil looks incredibly difficult, the situation facing Fine Gael looks challenging, but brighter. They will lead the next government; the only question is who they will ask to help support it. The most likely option is entering a coalition with Labour, affording such a government the largest Dáil majority in the history of the state, exceeding the 101 seats held by the Fianna Fáil-Labour coalition following the 1992 election. This would be a more stable arrangement than the other real option, a Fine Gael minority government supported by a number of independents. It is also an option preferred by voters: the RTÉ exit poll found that while 28% wanted a majority Fine Gael government and 18% want a minority government depending on independent votes, nearly half (48%) desired a Fine Gael and Labour coalition. Intriguingly, 6% wanted a Fine Gael/Fianna Fáil coalition, something Mr. Kenny would surely refuse to go near, especially since many who voted for his party did so with the aim of getting Fianna Fáil out of office.

The coming days will see various moves at horse trading, deciding how many ministerial portfolios each party will get as delegations draw up a framework for government and form a plan to get Ireland moving towards an economic recovery. The country needs such a process to begin quickly; we can only hope that a government can be quickly formed.

Super Enda

This post is brought to you courtesy of the free (but patchy) WiFi service on Citylink. Thanks Citylink!

I don’t know if you’ve seen the latest technological offering from Fine Gael, but if you haven’t, it’s a basic platform game which sees the Unquestioned Leader (well, unquestioned since he beat that leadership heave against him last summer) jumps across a course littered with leaders from other political parties and, for some reason, killer traffic cones. Enda has to avoid the traffic cones, which can mortally injure or kill him (even with the slightest contact), while fending off his opponents by throwing Fine Gael logo-style throwing stars, while collecting “Vote number 1” tokens  and passing targets representing the party’s five key points put forward in their manifesto for the general election. Yes, I am serious. You can find the game at www.finegael2011.com/game.

The overwhelming opinion on the newsfeeds on Facebook and Twitter is one of incredulity at the decision to festoon the front page of what will be Ireland’s leading political party after the election this Friday with a terribly lame game. The feel of it gives the impression of a poor effort you might have found on the Sega Megadrive nearly twenty years ago, the ending has the same ending as every level on Super Mario Brothers (complete with Enda giving a victory sign; all that’s missing is a GAA goalpost with a moving crossbar) and the only good point in it for many was the joy in being able to kill poor Enda again and again by making him fall onto one of those lethal traffic cones.

And yet, I think it’s a genius ploy. Yes, the gameplay is crap, and the whole concept at “being down with the kids“ and giving us a knock-off video game is completely cringe-worthy. But how many people linked to it on their Facebook pages? By last count, nine of my friends had. How many hits did that little stunt generate on Fine Gael’s website? I would imagine a five-figure number, easily. That’s a heap of free advertising for Fine Gael’s website, aimed squarely at young voters, clicked on by people who may well never ordinarily look at a Fine Gael site or document, and a chance to emphasise the party’s key proposals by getting players to run through the targets representing each of the five points. As a means of subtle propaganda, it’s pretty effective. And all Fine Gael had to do was put up a free video game. Fair dues to them.

The Second Leaders Debate

The second leaders debate of the 2011 campaign saw the two speakers from last Tuesday’s first battle joined by the leaders of Fine Gael, Sinn Féin and the Green Party, as RTÉ’s “The Frontline” hosted a ninety-five minute programme. Pat Kenny became more involved than his TV3 counterpart, Vincent Browne, did last week, asking supplementary questions of the party leaders and drawing them back toward the question at hand when they began the inevitable drifting from the subject or began bickering with an opponent.

The debate saw a few firsts in Irish elections. No Irish television debate had ever included five speakers, nor had any been performed in front of a live studio audience. With the six questions coming from this audience, which was handpicked by Millward Brown Lansdowne on the basis of averaging the national demographic and voter profile in the last general election, the five party leaders were forced to answer questions from a representative group of the Irish electorate.

The opening question was concerned with Ireland’s survival, with an emphasis on emigration. Fine Gael’s Enda Kenny and the Greens’ John Gormley struck a similar tone by empathising with the pain of emigration. Mr. Gormley and Fianna Fáil’s Micheál Martin linked the end of this scourge with the need to radically reform the political system. Mr. Kenny and Labour’s Eamon Gilmore concurred that the creation of jobs was the answer, while Sinn Féin’s Gerry Adams drew on the rhetoric of supporting citizens by the creation of a new republic.

Mortgage support was the focus of the next question, the poser observing that mortgage-holders were being pressured by the same banks which had received so much support from the taxpayer. Mr. Martin argued that supporting the banking system was crucial to ensure the 1.8 million workers could still be paid and that businesses could get working capital. Mr. Kenny condemned the waste created by incompetence and lack of regulation on Irish banking, sparking a minor clash between himself and Mr. Martin. Mr. Adams promised that his party was dedicated to protecting the citizen, and that “not one more red cent” would be given to any bank before any restructure of the whole system, leading to a clash with Mr. Martin, who reasoned that Sinn Féin’s leader would make a great host of RTÉ’s “Late Late Show” because of the latter party’s promise to not introduce any further spending cuts, while Mr. Adams retorted that Paul Daniels’ magic skills paled in comparison to Fianna Fáil’s promises. Mr. Gilmore reminded the audience that his party was the only one to oppose the bank guarantee scheme in 2008, and that nationalisation of the banks would have made the government stronger in negotiations with bondholders, while Mr. Gormley observed that lax regulation in the banking system was possible because of corporate donations from banks to all parties, bar his own.

A common concern was how the parties intended to get people back to work. Labour and Fianna Fáil repeated the aims they stated on the TV3 debate last week, while Mr. Adams sought to encourage private enterprises to hire one new employee while encouraging TDs and ministers to lead by example by taking large cuts in their own pay. Mr. Gormley vowed to invest heavily in research and development, before expressing disappointment with his former coalition partner’s new stance on genetically-modified food. Mr. Kenny took time to refer to his party’s manifesto, due to be published on Tuesday morning, while Mr. Martin and Mr. Adams continued to focus assaults on each other, before Mr. Gilmore joined the attack on Mr. Martin, referring to the Fianna Fáil leader as “The Great Pretender”.

The big question came next: who will suffer with the cuts that any new government would have to implement. The Greens’ leader regretted the austere budget introduced in December, but promised not to cut social welfare further, while Sinn Féin’s president argued that those who earn most should pay most. Fine Gael and Labour had a major clash over the former’s budget proposals, leading Mr. Martin to quip how these were two parties looking to be in government together, though Mr. Kenny and Mr. Gilmore were able to reach agreement on the need to reform the social welfare system. The final fall-out was between the Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin leaders over the issue of fraud, with Mr. Martin looking to hammer Sinn Féin over its baggage with fraud in Northern Ireland, while Mr. Adams countered with a litany of Fianna Fáil politicians who were far from squeaky-clean in the fraud department.

On the day when it was revealed that 2010 had the highest number of people stuck on trolleys in hospital wards across the country, the ability to pay for healthcare was the basis of the fifth topic of conversation. The Greens and Sinn Féin agreed that a comprehensive reform of the health service, though Mr. Gormley reasoned that such a move would be extremely costly and would take a long time. Fine Gael and Labour were able to draw a broad agreement on looking to create a universal insurance scheme, which Mr. Gormley offered limited support to. Mr. Martin sought to defend the Health Service Executive which he personally created in 2004, arguing that Fine Gael and Labour moves to restructure the health service was something workers in the sector did not want, before pointing out that the Dutch health insurance programme, which Mr. Kenny and Mr. Gilmore sought to introduce, costs the average Dutch family some €5,000 per annum. Mr. Adams concluded this portion by emphasising his party’s belief that healthcare was a matter of entitlement in a republic.

The final question asked why debates, like Monday’s, focused more on political one-upmanship rather than on policy. There was a general consensus that the adversarial nature of politics was a major factor, while the format of debates made it difficult to avoid tit-for-tat scrapping. I found this an interesting observation, giving that it’s the politicians themselves that determine the format of any leaders’ debates.  The leaders used this final question to emphasise the need for change of some sort, in the economy and in the electoral system.

In the end, no-one delivered a knock-out blow to any of his opponents. Performances were solid all round, with everyone playing it safe: better to not lose than to win. A civil affair, everyone kept their conflicts to a minimum, partly to look reasonable, partly because the format did not lend itself to lengthy comments. Two big clashes were evident, with Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin going at hammer and tongs, an indicator that the two parties are fighting for a core group of voters who are disaffected with Fianna Fáil. Similarly, with Labour and Fine Gael fighting for the same voters, their leaders clashed on occasion, but overall, the size of the panel made it difficult to engage, because each leader had very limited time to answer any of the questions, which covered a broad range of topics, rather than any one particular subject.

Mr. Kenny has reason to be happiest, a solid performance makes him look stronger, and short answers made it harder for him to make any mistakes. Mr. Adams will be pleased that he got his soundbites in, emphasising the broad differences between his party and the establishment parties. Mr. Martin will feel that he put his message across fairly well, but will be more satisfied that he was able to get his digs in at his rival for Republican votes. Mr. Gormley looked like Mr. Agreeable, trying to get on well with everyone and while he will be pleased that he came across as reasonable and open to negotiating in the national interest, the fact that he was largely ignored by the other leaders shows that the Green Party was very much the poor relation at Monday night’s event. His ability to be so honest was refreshing, but he knows he leads a party which is in for a rough time on Friday and Saturday week.

Of all the leaders, Mr. Gilmore has reason to be least happy with the debate, cutting a frustrated figure as the format of the debate and the large size of the panel made it difficult for him to convince the electorate that his party, rather than Mr. Kenny’s, was the better option as the leading group in the next Dáil. With Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin scrapping amongst themselves for third place, and Fine Gael looking to shore up support and not risking losing any voters, Mr. Gilmore was the leader looking to gain the most in the debate, but was unable to, even though his latest show was much improved on his one-on-one debate with Mr. Martin last week.

The final two debates, in Irish on TG4 this Wednesday and the other, in English, taking place next Tuesday, will be a pair of debates between three leaders, rather than five. Mr. Gilmore will be hoping for a better chance to attack his main opponents.

The first leaders debate

The first leaders debate of the 2011 campaign took place in Dublin against a backdrop of “Debategate”, about who would or wouldn’t show up, with Sinn Féin’s Gerry Adams, probably upset at not even getting an invite to take part, summed up a feeling shared by many that it was really a side issue by referring to the whole episode as "a pain in the ass".

And yet, the first notable thing about TV3’s debate was that, moments after Ursula Halligan referred to it as a battle between the men “who would be Taoiseach”, the man most likely to become the next head of government was about to start an American-style “town hall meeting” in Carrick-on-Shannon instead of sitting at the same table as Eamon Gilmore, Micheál Martin and host Vincent Browne.

The opening statement by the Fianna Fáil leader emphasised that the situation the Irish nation faced was so grave that it could no longer be a case of “politics as usual” and said that harsh measures were needed to tackle the serious economic difficulties facing the next government. His Labour opponent began by claiming that despite a “lousy government”, the best days of the country lay ahead, and that the decision the people will make on February 25 could create a better Ireland, were Labour given a mandate to lead a government. The first impression of the two leaders was how they appeared. Mr. Martin looked pale and tired, almost drained, and had a face that looked apologetic for his party’s role in creating the financial disaster Ireland now finds itself in. In contrast, Mr. Gilmore’s face was serious, but confident, determined to show that his aim to be the next Taoiseach was sincere. Given that television plays a huge role in creating a public persona by how politicians look, Mr. Gilmore looked like a candidate people could follow, and drew first blood.

Naturally, the national finances dominated the first half of the debate, starting with the budget deficit. Mr. Martin emphasised the need to cut the deficit quickly, by a combination of two-thirds spending cuts, one-third tax increases. Mr. Gilmore spoke of the need to create employment and growing the economy first, drawing on the burden on the national budget caused by unemployment. The first clash came immediately, with Mr. Martin accusing the Labour Party of “chopping and changing” its economic policies by delaying the reduction of Ireland’s budget deficit and undermining confidence. Mr. Gilmore countered by stating how Fianna Fáil’s own “chopping and changing” has already undermined confidence in the Irish economy. The two men clashed on which would be the real “high tax” party, with each leader accusing the other of seeking to place a higher tax burden on the public.

The next question focused on the EU/IMF deal, with Mr. Gilmore bluntly stating that it needed to be renegotiated because it was a bad deal for Ireland, for the EU and for the eurozone, and that his party was the only one committed to renegotiating. Mr. Martin observed that it was “dishonest” to say that one country can alter the interest rate charged, and attacking Mr. Gilmore’s statement last week that Ireland’s immediate future would be “either Frankfurt’s way or Labour’s way”.

The next clash was over whether the next government should abandon the €50 billion guarantee on banks debts. Mr. Martin defended the guarantee by pointing out that the most important thing to do was to keep Irish people working and that banks needed to be protected to ensure jobs were also protected. Mr. Gilmore countered that the Fianna Fáil move, in concert with the other parties in the Dáil, left taxpayers in a massive hole, but that bondholders would need to shoulder some of the hit. Mr. Martin played a clever card by replying that a failure to provide a bank guarantee would have had an “immediate and catastrophic” effect on the Irish economy. We don’t know what might have happened had the government not provided a guarantee, but both men agreed that the next government couldn’t walk from the guarantee. Hindsight is 20-20, and the banter between the two leaders did not impress me, because it focused on events which cannot now be changed, rather than providing an answer to what each party proposed to do, were they in the next government.

The second portion of the debate focused on job creation, with Mr. Gilmore promising to create a “jobs fund” providing incentives to employers taking on new staff, looking at ways to reduce rents on businesses and expanding trade in the emerging markets of Brazil, India and China. Mr. Martin promised to restore confidence in the economy by providing investment in training and education, and enticing inward investment from international companies in new industries. As Eddie Hobbes remarked on RTÉ’s Eleventh Hour following the debate, no party can “create” jobs, but merely lay proper foundations to encourage the private sector.

The health service was a source of major clash, with Mr. Martin defending the government’s role in increasing life expectancy, while his opponent criticised the increased number of patients lying on hospital trolleys. Mr. Gilmore countered by saying the health service needed to be overhauled, with a poor quality in relation to the amount of money spent on the health. Mr. Martin, a former Minister for Health, bemoaned the chaos that would be created with another overhaul of the health service, six years after he had disbanded the former regional health boards and created the nation Health Service Executive.

In education, Mr. Gilmore wants to end the two-tier system of secondary education, while Mr. Martin skipped this and decided to focus on third-level education, promising to retain education as a high priority. Neither man addressed the thorny issue of student fees, nor was there a clash on the topic, with both speakers saying education is good and would remain a key part of government policy. There was little surprise with the thoughts of either leader and I’m not sure what Vincent Browne was expecting to hear: a pledge to stop funding education or training programmes, perhaps?

Both Mr. Martin and Mr. Gilmore agreed that politicians pay needed to be reviewed, and that political reform was required, with Labour wanting a strengthened Dáil and an abolishment of the Seanad, while Fianna Fáil wants to introduce the party list system. For me, this was an interesting conversation, and could have taken a larger part of a debate than the few minutes provided, but it’s understandable why it isn’t as pressing a concern as the government finances and the national debt.

The final question asked each leader who they would like to enter coalition with. Mr. Martin stated he was happy to support any government which sought to implement the decisions which would improve the nation. For his part, Mr. Gilmore sought to reiterate his belief that Labour could lead the next government, before dismissing any coalition with Fianna Fáil. There was nothing new here that hadn’t already been said in the last few weeks. The only logical reason I can think of for its inclusion in this debate was for a soundbite to be shown on news bulletins.

In the end, both men did what they needed to do in this first debate. Mr. Martin sought to convince Fianna Fáil supporters that he was the best person to lead the party, and convince voters outside of the party that Fianna Fáil continue to have a role in Irish politics: he steadied the ship. Mr. Gilmore oozed the confidence Labour has going into this election, emphasising the need for change and that Labour were a real option to lead an Irish government. However, Wednesday’s newspapers give Mr. Martin a victory, as his performance will benefit his party more than Mr. Gilmore’s performance will help his. Mr. Gilmore had a bigger task; he had to knock Mr. Martin out of the contest with a killer blow, especially as he was the only opponent in the debate, as well as convince floating voters that Labour were the most credible choice on polling day. He didn’t succeed in either. Meanwhile, Mr. Martin’s task was to convince voters that Fianna Fáil were not spiralling into the abyss, but were willing to act in the national interest, while also defending the harsh measures the outgoing government had taken as a necessary evil, again in the name of the national interest. In the immediate aftermath, Mr. Martin was able to complete his task in a more convincing way than Mr. Gilmore.

For the next debates, both leaders need to focus more on their party’s policies and less on attacking their opponents. The electorate doesn’t need politicians to attack other people’s manifestos; we’re clued-in enough to do this ourselves. What Mr. Martin needs to do is explain why Fianna Fáil deserve another term in government, rather than express support for any other party who implements policies his party happens to agree with: Fianna Fáil is not a party which ever runs in the hope of being the leading opposition party, nor has it ever run with the aim of being a junior party in a coalition. For Mr. Gilmore, his performance will galvanise Labour supporters views that they have a great leader, but in order to become the leading party in the 31^st Dáil, he needs to get support from soft Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael voters: he has to convince them that he is the real deal, and his party the best choice to lead the country.

Constituency Profile: Dún Laoghaire (#GE11)

A constituency profile for the upcoming election, looking at Dún Laoghaire.

Dún Laoghaire has always featured a number of prominent politicians, a tradition the constituency has enjoyed since it was created in 1977, with numerous ministers and spokespeople, past and present, representing this constituency over the years. 2011 is no different in that regard, but will see at least one incumbent lose their seat, with a reduction in the number of seats and all five sitting TDs seeking re-election. The next three weeks will see much drama and recriminations in a constituency that has been dubbed the “group of death”.

The five incumbents are hoping to retain the seats they won in 2007: Mary Hanafin and Barry Andrews of Fianna Fáil, Eamon Gilmore of Labour, Seán Barrett of Fine Gael and Ciarán Cuffe of the Green Party. Four of the five elected in 2007 had also won seats in 2002, with Barrett the sole change; he regained a seat he had held from 1997 until 2002 when Fine Gael were wiped out in Dublin. He took the seat at the expense of Fiona O’Malley, as the Progressive Democrats suffered their own terminal meltdown. Gilmore, leader of the Labour Party since shortly after the last general election, has been a TD for the constituency since 1987, being a member of the Workers Party and Democratic Left before the latter united with Labour in 1999. Andrews is part of a dynasty in Dún Laoghaire; his father is former Minister for Foreign Affairs David Andrews, who represented the constituency and its predecessor (Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown) from 1965 to 2002.

The background of past elections and longevity of the incumbents is important, not least because it explains why the Fianna Fáil policy of moving incumbents to other areas for this election has not happened here. With the party in trouble nationally, it has become a desire to limit damage, especially to younger TDs and candidates: in four constituencies (Cavan–Monaghan, Cork North West, Dublin North West, and Dublin South-Central), Fianna Fáil is nominating fewer candidates than it has outgoing TDs, effectively conceding a seat in each, knowing that it would be nearly impossible to retain them.

In Dún Laoghaire, the party is looking to return their two TDs, a difficult enough task in a five-seat constituency given the level of danger the party in is, both nationally and especially in Dublin. With only four seats to run for, Ms. Hanafin (new deputy leader of the party and outgoing Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport, Enterprise, Trade and Innovation) and Mr. Andrews (outgoing Minister of State for Children) facing a backlash from the electorate and a fight with each other for the remaining Fianna Fáil voters.

                                                                                                    

Given that nearby Dublin South’s Fianna Fáil ticket looks weak, the stubbornness of the Ms. Hanafin and Mr. Andrews in refusing to consider moving will almost certainly haunt at least one of them, if not both, as they risk splintering what will be a much reduced party vote on February 25. Ministers are not immune to being deemed surplus to requirements by the electorate. Ms. Hanafin would be considered the favourite were it to become a race between the two Fianna Fáil candidates; her elevation to party deputy leader and her recent attempt to become party leader may help her cause, while the fact that she polled over 3,000 more votes than Mr. Andrews in 2007 means she would probably be in the healthier position.

The party expected to do perform best here is Labour, a reasonable opinion given both the stature and popularity of its incumbent, Eamon Gilmore, and the similarly high profile enjoyed by his running mate, Senator Ivana Bacik. It’s unusual for Labour to be in the position of being able to run two candidates in any constituency, let alone in any with fewer than five seats on offer. The party tried two candidates here in 2007, but while the two candidates were unable to get more than a combined 16% share of the vote, Oisín Quinn’s hopes weren’t helped by the fact that Mr. Gilmore received over three times as many votes as his running mate. Labour would do well to take a leaf out of the Fianna Fáil vote management book, and give half of the constituency to each candidate, allowing them both to maximise their chances. That said, the high profile of both candidates, especially that of Mr. Gilmore, should be enough for Labour to gain a huge share of the overall vote, probably one of the largest shares of the vote Labour can expect to get anywhere in the country, and it would be most disappointing for the party were Ms. Bacik not to win a seat too.

                                                                                                 

Fine Gael enter this particular race free from the threat once posed by the now-defunct Progressive Democrats, and Seán Barrett should have no difficulties in retaining his seat. Indeed, party HQ have been talking up the possibility of nicking a second seat here, with Mary Mitchell O’Connor the chosen running mate for Mr. Barrett. Were Dún Laoghaire still a five-seater, a gain might have been on the cards, but with one less seat to fight for, and an expected surge in support for Labour, the likelihood is that Fine Gael will be unable to get enough support to get close to winning two seats.

                                                                                  

The Green Party’s Ciarán Cuffe is heavily tipped to lose his seat. He received only 7.7% of the vote last time out, and relied heavily on transfers from across the spectrum to scrape home. With the Greens struggling badly across the country, and transfers from anywhere looking a most improbable prospect because of the greens role as junior partner in the last government, former Minister of State Mr. Cuffe would be performing heroics to get even halfway near the number of votes he’d need to retain his seat.

The People Before Profit (and United Left Alliance) candidate, Richard Boyd Barrett, did surprisingly well in 2007 and would have been in a great position to win a seat were there still five seats on offer. In order to finish with a seat in the Dáil, Boyd Barrett would need substantial transfers from other parties, a scenario which is unlikely, given his inability to get transfers from anyone bar Sinn Féin in 2007. His first preference vote will be boosted by the fact that Sinn Féin will not be running in this constituency this year. 

Come polling day then, Labour and Fine Gael will certainly have one each. Fianna Fáil will probably retain one seat, but won’t keep the two they enter the election with. The final seat will be a contest between Ivana Bacik and Richard Boyd Barrett, with Ms. Bacik the clear favourite, with a proper vote management and a high level of transfers from her party leader that should be enough to ease her over the finishing line.

Prediction: Labour 2 (1 gain), Fine Gael 1 (unchanged), Fianna Fáil 1 (1 loss)

The joys of polling

With the election campaign finally underway, every party has begun to set out their stalls for the electorate to peruse. Perhaps even more excitingly, though, is the proliferation of polls which will now be released over the course of the next three weeks, with aspiring TDs, party spin doctors and background teams awaiting each new poll to see what effect the policies and desires of the candidates have on the voters.

In the 2002 and 2007 elections, every poll during the campaign was frequently dismissed as unimportant by people from all sides to such an extent that “the only poll that matters is the one on polling day” almost became the default mantra on any occasion a candidate was asked on his party’s latest performance. In this campaign, so far in any event, the parties have kept their opinions on the pollsters findings to themselves.

Certainly noticeable in their silence this time around is Fianna Fáil. In 2002, everyone in the party was eagerly trying to downplay the polls, which were predicting a 29^th Dáil with around eighty Fianna Fáilers returned to Leinster House, perhaps enough to form a majority government. In 2007, polls early in the campaign were predicting up to twenty lost seats, before the final week saw numbers rise again, courtesy of a series of robust performances by then Finance Minister Brian Cowen and Taoiseach Bertie Ahern looking more convincing than his chief rival, Fine Gael’s Enda Kenny, in the leaders’ debate.  That said, Fianna Fáil had averaged around 38% in polls in the six months up to election, a figure not too far from the final result of 42%, especially when the standard 3% margin of error polls always have is counted.

Despite what any party member might publically say, polls are a wonderfully useful way in finding out how the general public are likely to vote on polling day. Of course, the proportional representation system we have for elections depend on more than the first preference vote of the electorate, but the polls give a good indicator of who we can expect to be in government, and in the lower house, when the 31st Dáil meets for the first time on Wednesday, March 9.

Wednesday’s Irish Independent published its latest poll, carried out by Millward Brown Lansdowne, while Red C released its latest findings in a poll commissioned by Paddy Power bookmakers on Wednesday afternoon. While the two surveys have a large difference in the level of support for Fine Gael (Millward Brown Lansdowne has the leading party at 30%, Red C has them at 37%), and a notable gap in support for Labour (24% on the Millward Brown Lansdowne, 19% on the Red C), both are respectable polling companies which are usually quite accurate, and show that support for each party stabilise around the numbers given in the latest polls.

The Ipsos MRBI poll in Thursday's Irish Times broadly follows the lines of Wednesday's polls, even happily putting Fine Gael's rating halfway between the Red C and Millward Brown Lansdowne polls.


If these polls were replicated at the general election, Fine Gael would be the biggest party in the Dáil, but would need support to form a government, with Labour (the second most-supported party) being the obvious choice. Fianna Fáil would be the third party, just ahead of Sinn Féin and heavily dependent on transfers within the party’s support base, because they’re not going to get many transfers from supporters of other parties.

In terms of predictions, Fine Gael can expect to win somewhere between 30 and 35 per cent of the first preference vote, their best performance since Garret FitzGerald led the party into government in November 1982, with Labour hopeful of matching or exceeding the 19.5% the party got in the “Spring Tide” of 1992. Sinn Féin are aiming to double the vote they received in 2007, while independents and the United Left Alliance are looking to make major inroads and claim a significant number of seats in the new Dáil.

It doesn’t take a genius to work out that an infuriated public withdrawing their support for a deeply unpopular government spells trouble for Fianna Fáil and the Greens. The election of Micheál Martin has stabilised the rapidly shrinking support for Fianna Fáil, but with poll ratings stuck in the mid-to-high teens for the past five months, the party would find it miraculous to even get to the low-20s on polling day, never mind the 41.5 % and 41.6% the party won in the 2002 and 2007 elections, respectively. Such a result would easily be the worst performance by Ireland’s most dominant political party, since its first election under Éamon de Valera in June 1926.

At least Fianna Fáil can still expect to be in the chamber on March 9. Their former coalition partners, the Green Party, is facing a wipeout on polling day, with all six of their seats at risk of being lost come February 25. The polls from all three agencies give little hope to the party, with support consistently below 5% in every poll taken in the past nine months, and as low as just 1% in the last two Millward Brown Lansdowne polls.

The campaigning is far from over, but given that the polls have been relatively stable over the last six months, and with only slight margins of error, one can observe that, if the people being asked are an accurate reflection of the general population, the electorate has largely made up its mind over who they’re voting for on February 25.  

The fall of Cowen

People often say that politics is a boring subject, but the events of the last few days have been anything but boring. Were the situation not so serious, it would be the plot of a Hollywood comedy which would probably be panned by the critics for being too far-fetched and unrealistic.

The big news today, of course, is that Brian Cowen has stepped down as leader of the Fianna Fáil party but will stay on as Taoiseach until the general election. Little time had elapsed for the news to sink in before the attention turned to the next leader. Micheál Martin and Brian Lenihan have already put their names forward for the leadership contest which will take place on Wednesday while, at the time of writing, Éamon Ó Cuiv is also expected to enter the contest by declaring live on TG4. Mary Hanafin is another front-runner, but hadn't declared at the time of writing, while Conor Lenihan had declared an interest in partaking before nominations close on Monday. Tánaiste Mary Coughlan announced on RTÉ's Six-One news this evening that she would not be in the running.

Within the party, candidates will look to gain the support of a plurality of the seventy-one Fianna Fáil TDs in what will be the first contested leadership election since Charles Haughey resigned as leader in 1992. By 5pm, three hours after the Taoiseach announced his resignation, former Foreign Affairs minister Martin already had thirteen colleagues backing him, and is the bookmakers' favourite to become the eighth leader of the largest Dáil party.

As numerous opposition TDs and large volumes of text messages read on RTÉ Radio observed, the general public don't really care who's in charge of the larger government party, and that Mr. Cowen should add his resignation as Taoiseach to his resignation as Fianna Fáil leader and call a general election to be held before the previously announced date of March 11. A frequent question asked on RTÉ Radio 1's "Saturday View" was that if Mr. Cowen was no longer good enough to be leader of Fianna Fáil, why is he good enough to remain on as Taoiseach? Opposition parliamentarians point out that the Fianna Fáil TDs' attention have focused on the needs of the party, rather than the needs of the country. Whether that is true or not, it is fair to say that the ongoing drama has done little to improve Ireland's standing in the eyes of financial markets and her neighbours.

Whoever wins the party leadership contest on Wednesday will immediately have to defend their party in the Dáil, as a Labour Party motion of no confidence in the government is discussed on Tuesday evening, with a vote being held on Wednesday. And that's if the Dáil stays in session until then, as a Fine Gael motion of no confidence in Mr. Cowen will take place on Tuesday. Fianna Fáil and the Green Party may well unite against the Labour motion on Wednesday, but there may not be such a united front in a motion against the Taoiseach.

The drama won't subside any time soon, not least because the Green Party has notably kept silent on the whole affair today, and will remain so until after the party meets tomorrow morning. They refused to allow Mr. Cowen nominate new ministers to replace the five who resigned on Wednesday night and Thursday morning; will they pull their support for Mr. Cowen now that he isn't even his party's leader? Anyone who has booked a flight to return to Ireland to vote on March 11 might be looking for a flight a few weeks earlier yet.

Questions for when the candidates come calling and crawling

The race hasn’t quite started yet, but the show ponies and the jackasses are getting ready to line up and start the sprint to the finishing post that is 83 Dáil seats come March 11. This of course means that houses up and down the country will soon face the tapping of door knockers and ringing of bells as candidates of all parties and none come looking for votes (or at least a chance to explain themselves) of an electorate which has been baying for the chance to go to the polls.

One benefit of the horrible mess we find ourselves in is that we are now a nation of more politically aware people, a fact which politicians will ignore at their peril. The lack of interest held by much of the electorate in the last two or three general elections has been replaced by a wave of anger and a demand for information as to what any new government will do to make things better.

I, for one, am planning on having lengthy chats with any candidate who comes looking for my support. The following are the issues I’d like candidates to address.

1.      How do you intend to create new jobs in this country? This is probably the most important question, relating as it does to fixing the economy by increasing tax revenue and reducing social welfare payments. The next Dáil will have to focus on ways of making Ireland more competitive against its rivals, and invest in the new green industries.

2.      What do you intend to do regarding ministerial and TD pensions, and the bonuses paid to state employees, including the leaders of the banks we now own? Let’s face it, reducing the amount of money TDs and ministers make is always a popular issue with the voters, but the nonsense of the last few weeks justifies it. Some thirty TDs retiring (so far), including half a dozen ministers, with the majority looking forward to getting huge pensions, set at 2008 rates, unaltered by any pay cuts TDs agreed to take in the last two years. The excuse that people are stepping down to “allow the next generation take charge” not only smacks of a generation refusing to take responsibility for the mess they created, but of a group willing to get very generous pensions without offering to help fix the problems they’ve left for the next generation of leaders.

As for bank bonuses, I doubt I’m alone in the anger I felt when I heard that AIB were willing to pay €40 million in bonuses to its staff, fearing legal action were it not to, despite the fact that it effectively had to be nationalised with taxpayer money to cover the bad debts it, and other banks, willingly loaned out in the good times. If we own the banks, then employees in them should not get rewarded for costing us more money.

3.      Are you eager to look for a better deal from the EU and the IMF, and what makes you think you’ll get a better deal? Yes, the interest rate appears high, but it’s lower than what Ireland would have to pay on the open markets. Given that a lot of talk has come from some opposition parties looking to renegotiate the deal (a move which might get support from the other weak eurozone countries, especially Greece and Portugal, but would get short shrift from the big players, France and Germany), how will a new government get a better deal for Ireland?

4.      What are your policies on equal rights for the LGBT community? Settle for the Civil Partnership Act, or introduce legislation allowing equal access to marriage and adoption? Will legislation be introduced recognising sex changes? Any LGBT legislation would have no effect on me, but placing limitations on how citizens can interact in their state, when heterosexual couples have extra freedoms and rights, is an appalling injustice which should be remedied.

5.      Have you plans for political reform? The Seanad has become a big topic in the last two months, with parties across the divide giving varying sounds of approval to abolishing the second house. I feel too much focus has been placed on closing the Seanad, without looking at any reform in the Dáil or in local authorities. The cynic in me feels that Dáil deputies are looking for a sacrificial lamb to slaughter, taking the pressure off the main chamber to sort itself out.

If the problem is that the Seanad is little more than a talking shop, why not give it more powers? Similarly, make local authorities more powerful by letting them deal with more local issues, the issues one would assume county and city councillors were elected to deal with in the first place. Localism will continue in the Dáil if TDs have to placate their electorate by looking after the potholes, whether there’s one national chamber or two.

6.      Are you willing to change the way candidates for the Presidency of Ireland are nominated? Granted, this isn’t a major issue for many, but it could be a source of grief for any new government next autumn. Under the status quo, prospective presidential candidates need support from at least twenty members of the Oireachtas or from at least four local authorities, one-term incumbent or former presidents excepted. This is a system which effectively guarantees candidacies for people supported by the major parties, and makes life difficult for anyone running independently or for smaller parties.

The single most popular prospective candidate is Senator David Norris, who probably would not seek a party nomination anyway, but would need to court local authorities for support. The problem arises that if local authorities refuse to support him, the most popular candidate would be unable to enter the contest.

In the interest of fairness for candidates outside of the big parties, a referendum to change Article 12 of the Constitution should be considered before the election next October; perhaps introducing an additional qualification, say allowing someone to enter were they to have a petition supported a significant number of the electorate.

These are some of the issues I want to see tackled early in the next Dáil. I’m sure everyone has different issues, ranked differently. But the key aim of this piece is to get minds thinking; what is it that we, as citizens of this country, want from our government and our public representatives? Never mind what parties and candidates say they want to do for us, what do we demand of them? Perhaps a few more questions from an angry public might get a few more honest answers when our preferences are on the line.