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.