This statement, while sweeping, is one I will stand over even if Fianna Fáil manage to pull off an amazing resurrection in the next general election; there is no rational basis for failing to run a candidate in the current circumstances, the only reasons can be fear and short-sightedness. That Fianna Fáil must, if it hopes to continue as a viable entity in Irish politics, enter what will be the main political event over the next few months should be self-evident, and the reasons I give below are just some of the arguments that can be made in favour of running a candidate.

Before I begin, I must note that I am not a Fianna Fáil supporter, I have never been a member, and I have no current intention to join. I was however, Dublin Chair of the Young Progressive Democrats, a witness to the deterioration of the Progressive Democrats and present at the vote taken to wind up the party; it is on this foundation that I base my remarks. I am not writing this for the benefit of Fianna Fáil, but in the (most likely vain) hope of in some way delaying their replacement by more extremist elements, until a new, properly constituted party with rational policies can rise to displace them. Ireland needs an opposition, and frankly at this moment in time, and for the forseeable future, the alternatives to Fianna Fáil are worse than Fianna Fáil.

The first point to note, and this must be made clear, is that Fianna Fáil cannot win this election – it would be an astounding upset if they managed to do so. What Fianna Fáil seem to fail to understand however, is a truism that every small party takes for granted: An election can be a victory even if your candidate is not the person who gains the office. Even if one cannot win an election, it is essential to take part, or be sidelined from the discussion and debate that surrounds the race; if the party has no dog in the fight, it will be effectively barring itself from most public debate for a period of weeks, during which public interest in politics will be at a high, and when national issues, and the merits of a particular candidate, will take precedence over the party brands.

And it is unavoidable that the Fianna Fáil brand will act as an albatross around the candidate’s neck, reducing their vote considerably and hampering them in any public debate. However, the solution to this problem is not to sit quietly and wait as long as possible before raising one’s head above the parapet, in the hope that the public will forgive and forget – simply, frankly, the public will not do so. This election provides Fianna Fáil with an opportunity to at least partially heal their brand.

The candidates in this election are, as they now stand, woeful (it is beyond the scope of this piece to go through each candidate and detail why they are unsuitable, but I have no doubt it has been done already by numerous writers). This dearth of talent is Fianna Fáil’s chance: if the party nominates any good candidate, not one that is the highest in seniority, or has served his time, or is liked internally, but a candidate who will make a good and capable President that the Irish people could be proud of, then Fianna Fáil will poll respectably, and have a realistic chance of outpolling Gay Mitchell, the candidate of the largest party in Ireland. For once, the good of the nation, and the selfish good of the political party are in sync, and Fianna Fáil can only profit if they can make the election a choice between voting for the Fianna Fáil candidate, or voting for a clearly inferior option. In the previous Presidential elections this would not have been possible but the general low quality of candidates in this election makes it so. The question of the election should be, and more importantly could be: will Ireland cut off it’s nose to spite its face?

A huge number of people have sworn that they will never vote Fianna Fáil again, and most of them made admirable progress in carrying out this promise at the last election – Fianna Fáil were left with 19 TDs, few of them able media performers and several of them planning to retire rather than run again. The party cannot enter the next election as tainted as it is now or its seats could fall to single digits.  Fianna Fáil need to get the Irish people back into the habit of voting for them, and putting forward the best candidate in a race that focuses mainly on the attributes of the particular candidate, is the best opportunity to do so. The stigma will stop them winning, but it will still allow them to poll well and do respectably compared to the other candidates – the party is the third smallest in the Dáil, there is no shame in not coming first when the other parties hold literal multiples of your seats. Fianna Fáil need to understand that their position has changed and they are now a smaller party; they need to tear up the old rulebook and standards, and look at what the smaller parties in Ireland do to simply survive.

Another advantage of running a candidate is that it allows the party machine to begin to work again. At the moment the stories emanating from Fianna Fáil are so similar to the end of the Progressive Democrats as to be uncanny: empty meetings, positions going unfilled or filled by acclamation, people speaking heartily of rebuilding at one meeting, being subdued at the next, then failing to turn up to the one after. And above all else, the slow decay as members wait longer and longer for something to be done. The party is, by all accounts, withering slowly in many constituencies, and left without any experienced campaign-teams in others. This atrophy is not a temporary phenomenon, it is a cycle that feeds itself, and if the canvassers are not called to arms before 2014 (the next local and European elections), then there will be nothing left.

It must be emphasised that Mr. Martin cannot take the approach that Mr. Kenny did of visiting every branch and boosting the party that way; while this is important, all the internal team building in the world will not save a party whose members feel afraid to show their colours in public. Mr. Kenny had time to play Mother Teresa to every member; Mr. Martin does not have such luxury as more and more of the party members realise that everything has gotten significantly harder, and that they are unlikely to regain much of the ground they have lost – many face the prospect that they may not be able to keep the ground they have now. The time to begin revitalising Fianna Fáil as a whole is now, and it begins by running a strong, decent candidate for President.

Furthermore, Canvassing when you are disliked almost universally is a completely different experience from canvassing when you have a large support base, as many Fianna Fáil canvassers found to their dismay at the last election; different tactics and approaches must be used. It is far harder to find canvassers:very often an embattled party must rely on a crack team of canvassers, as opposed to merely rounding up some people from the local Cumann and giving them some paper and some stock lines. If Fianna Fáil are running a good candidate, then not only will the election provide an opportunity for the party machine to be oiled and run rather than deteriorating for three more years, but canvassers can be trained, and can confidently approach the door with a legitimate selling point, making the experience much easier.

In short, running a candidate will allow the party to begin the process of repairing its reputation, galvanise the remaining membership and train canvassers to operate in the vastly different landscape they now face.

If Fianna Fáil decide not to run a candidate in this election, then there are only two possible explanations: either the leadership has decided the party is dead, or the party does not possess, in all its thousands of members, a candidate of sufficient worth and capability to make, with no effective opposition and ample media coverage, a respectable contender for the Áras.

In either case, the party should not limp on till it gradually dies, but should bite the bullet, follow the Progressive Democrats, and end itself.

Over the last few months there was an attempt to have a train station named after Stephen Gately, the deceased former member of Boyzone. This was rejected on the grounds that “Iarnród Éireann now restricts the naming of stations to their geographical location, a policy which was developed on the back of repeated requests to rename stations after celebrities and other well-known figures“. Given that the renaming of a street or station should be a relatively permanent event, this policy is a fairly wise one, in these times of overnight fame. Unfortunately, this policy robs otherwise deserving Irishmen of their chance to be honoured by having a landmark named after them.

The solution should be relatively simple: for new landmarks, publically-funded statutes and the renaming of old roads and stations, only candidates who have been dead for fifty years will be considered.

If what you did in life was so minor that after only fifty years you aren’t considered worthy of a statue, then you probably weren’t worthy of one in the first place. Also, this allows for candidates like Archbishop Ryan, whose reputations are sullied by new revelations or changing standards in society, to be weeded out.

Dedications should be restricted to those persons whose accomplishments can stand the test of time, and be respected by the next generation.

Enjoy.

Firstly, a clash has occurred between a BNP candidate and several Asian teens. The teens spat on local candidate Bob Bailey after chasing off Nick Griffin by hurling fruit at him. A fight ensued in which the BNP candidate got several choice blows in, as can be seen from the video in the link. It’s unfortunate that it came to this, as even the BNP should be able to canvass without being threatened or literally spat on.

Secondly, a rather funny story about a Florida state senator who was caught watching porn on his laptop during an abortion debate. In fairness to him, his excuse that the single image was sent to him in an e-mail is probably true, given that the ‘porn’ is a rather tame shot of a few girls on a beach, and a video of a running dog can also be seen on the Senator’s laptop. It is incredibly unfortunate for the senator that it occurred during a period when another senator was complaining that the measure under discussion “disrespected to too many women in the State of Florida”.

Thirdly, a leading anti-gay campaigner has been caught with a rent boy. Apparently the young man was helping him carry his baggage.

Fourthly, The Economist has provided an interesting summary of the election manifestos of the three main parties in the British general election.

Bizarrely, Iran has been given a seat on the UN Commission on the Status of Women. One can only assume the press release was deliberately drafted to be as turgid as possible, in order to avoid any widespread reporting of this decision.

Finally, on a lighter note, the Sun has launched a last-minute campaign based on the notion that if Labour or the Liberal Democrats get it, they will ban the paper’s infamous Page 3. WARNING: Link contains naked breasts.

Our improved ability to map the human genome, and our ability to isolate parts of it with greater accuracy, have led to a minor gold-rush as bio-tech companies around the world compete to patent as much of the human genome as possible. Plant genes have also been patented by the likes of the Monsanto corporation.

This decision is a welcome development, especially when one considers the similar decision of the European Patent Office in 2004, which revokes the same patents, and I hope it is upheld on appeal. While companies should be allowed to patent any new breeds that they engineer, it is ridiculous to suggest that discovering something that exists in nature, and has been a part of humanity for millennia, is akin to inventing it. Allowing companies to mark out a gene as being only for their use hinders research and limits the scope of future investigations.

Eugene Lambert has died aged 82.

The Lambert Puppet Theatre, which Mr. Lambert founded in 1972, will be closing for two days as a mark of respect to it’s founder. Mr. Lambert was also known for the children’s television show Wanderly Wagon which has recently experienced a revival as a nostalgia piece.

I have very fond memories of the Lambert Puppet Theatre, and a clear recollection of Mr. Lambert and Judge arguing on stage, with Judge trying to give Mr. Lambert the literal run-round, and in general being incredibly cheeky, while the audience sat convulsed in laughter. So far as I recall, I never attended a show that Mr. Lambert did not also attend, walking out during the break to act as the comic relief. The times I spent in Lambert’s are some of my fondest memories of my childhood.

So much so that for my next birthday I was half-considering holding it at the Puppet Theatre, as a little bit of nostalgia. What made me want to do this was that I had been told that Mr. Lambert still appeared from time to time, occasionally performing for the audience, but more often waiting to speak to guests when they had finished. While I saw Mr. Lambert perform many times, I never actually met the man, and had wanted to. I am disappointed that I will not now get the opportunity.

RIP Eugene Lambert, probably Ireland’s greatest children’s entertainer.

It has always struck many in our society, including myself, that attending funerals in order to gain votes is a particularly craven aspect of the excessive focus on the ‘parish pump’ which blights our politics. The idea of turning up to a funeral uninvited and without knowing the deceased, making sure that every single mourner notes one’s presence, by sitting near the back so that everyone must pass, and going up to Communion last so that you are seen by the whole congregation when walking back, in order to secure a place as a family’s ‘minder’, who they turn to to negotiate the use of any public services, must be one of the most cynical political tactics in the world.

Were this an unknown practice in Ireland, and an author described it in a book, it would be considered a laughable scenario constructed for its shock value.

And yet, it works. If people were shocked and horrified by politicians soliciting their votes at a funeral, and responded negatively to their attempts at ingratiation, this practice would long since have ceased, instead, politicians who do not engage in this practice, most particularly in rural areas, normally lose out to those who do, and a process of selection occurs whereby those politicians who spent a greater amount of time on local issues tend to have safer seats then those who spend less; of only two Progressive Democrat TDs to survive the last election, one of them survived solely on the basis of his impressive constituency work: Noel Grealish. This leads to the truly bizarre aspect of Irish politics: a politician must calculate the local work he has to do to succeed in re-election, add a generous safety margin, and then, if there is any time left over, try and turn his attention to national issues. In fact, in many rural constituencies, a politician who does not utilise funerals as public appearances will often be criticised as being aloof, and unconcerned.

This is a point that many commentators who criticise this disturbing practice fail to grasp: funerals are not enjoyable affairs which politicians attend because they wish to study the artwork and bob along to the dirges; funerals are sad, depressing events which they attend because they are given no option. If they fail to attend, a competitor will, and they will soon be ousted, given only the epitaph that “He didn’t do much for the area, and he was never around”. The blame for the continuance of this practice rests solely with the populace who demands it, and punishes those politicians who refuse to continue it.

So long as politicians gain electoral support from this scavenging this shameful practice will continue.

Over the last few days, there has been a small furore regarding Martin Cullen’s use of the word rape to describe the ordeal suffered by himself and his family due to the accusations that he was having an affair with Monica Lynch, accusations which proved to be false. The exact text of his speech can be found here, and I strongly advise anyone seeking to comment on this issue to read what he actually said before doing so.

Mr. Cullen made it clear during his speech that he was aware that the words he was using were inflammatory, but the Minister obviously felt that they were appropriate to the feelings of violation that he felt during that period, at the abuse of his family such as the bullying his children suffered, and the rumours that floated around his local area.

Mr. Cullen did not have to make that speech and make those comments. In fact, considering that the Irish media and public have long since moved on from this issue, and any PR representative worth their salt would have nixed the idea of reviving it, one can only assume that this what it appears to be: the bitter rant of a hurt man. There is no real reason to doubt Mr. Cullen’s sincerity when he made his remarks as they were planned, give him no discernable political advantage, and were made in a forum comprised mostly of journalists, who would have been very hostile to the Minister’s support for any proposed Privacy Bill (and thus the Minister), and would doubtless be unsympathetic to his frustration.

It’s clear from the context of the Minister’s comments that he was using the word rape not as a physical description, but as a way of expressing his feelings of violation at the intrusion and disruption of his life, the decimation of his personal privacy, and the suffering caused to his family.

In short: It’s clear what he meant; he was using the word ‘rape’ in a common enough usage; he was making a point which should be heard: that untruths printed in the media about public figures cause genuine harm to those people and their families.  Everyone needs to move on from this – there are far more offensive and inappropriate ways to use the word rape, and the Minister’s usage was at worst a little dramatic. It is certainly not a resigning matter.

I sent in a letter to the Irish Times regarding this issue, which was published today. It reads as follows:

Madam, – I was deeply disappointed, but unsurprised, to learn that former Taoiseach Patrick “Bertie” Ahern has managed to get on to the list of tax-exempt artists, meaning he can earn up to €125,000 on his new book without having to pay tax. This is on top of the very generous salary and pensions he receives from the public purse.

While there can be no doubt Mr Ahern is entitled to claim this tax break, he is by no means obliged to.

It would have been a welcome sign if he had chosen to forego this tax break, and instead contributed more to the empty State coffers.

It is regrettable that, with the country on its knees, and a huge chasm between the amount coming into the State and the amount being spent, that a former minister and Taoiseach, already in receipt of vast sums of State money, would begrudge his country such a comparatively small amount.

I hope Mr Ahern reverses his decision to claim this tax deduction, the purpose of which is to support and reward struggling artists, not politicians. – Yours, etc,

It is surprising that this issue has not received more attention in the mainstream media, especially when it is considered that most blogs and bulletin boards have picked up on this story, and there has been a huge amount of interest in it. There have been (so far) no editorials on the matter, and while I understand that the issue was briefly discussed on radio, there has been very little print space dedicated to a truly shocking story.

To put it plainly: The former Taoiseach, who is still in the Dáil, has decided that, as well as taking a lot of time off to do a book tour, he will, at a time when the country is struggling financially, claim a very generous tax-break on the first €125,000 that he will earn from his book. This will cover only part of his advance for the book (rumoured to be over 400k), and will be on top of his Dáil salary.  As well as that, Mr Ahern claimed over €111,000 as part of his pension in 2008.

A former leader of this country claiming this tax break at a time when the country’s coffers are being scraped for every cent, especially when one considers the large amount of money received by Mr Ahern from the state, shows an appalling dearth of patriotism.

The purpose of the Artists Exemption is to encourage struggling artists to contribute to the strong artistic credentials of this country, not to allow politicians writing once-off autobiographies to keep a larger percentage of their advance.

I was disappointed to note that prominent Labour politician and former Minister for Finance Ruari Quinn is also present on the list. Mr Quinn claimed tax-exempt status for his autobiography “Straight Left – A journey in Irish Politics” which was published in 2005. As the earning cap was only introduced in 2006, it is likely that Mr. Quinn may have actually received more money tax-free than Mr. Ahern. While Mr. Quinn is not a former Taoiseach, and he claimed the money during the boom years, it is still disappointing that he did so, especially when one considers that he has been drawing a ministerial pension, that in 2008, paid him over €40,000 on top of his Dáil salary.

Mr. Ahern should do the honorable thing and pay his taxes, setting an example for the rest of the country.

The fact that a prominant politician paying his taxes constitutes an example in this country is beyond sad.

If you don’t know who that is, then let me direct you to his profile. As well as representing Ireland internationally in Pitch and Putt, he is a sitting councilor in Louth, and was previously the President of UCD Students Union as well as Chairperson of the UCD branch of Fianna Fail.

While this CV is not unimpressive, it could be argued that it is wholly insufficient to warrant a seat in the Seanad, one of the branches of government. However, the CV of a Senator is largely immaterial, and it is the contribution of the Senator to debate within the House, and amendments to the legislation passing through it that matters. The Senate, more so than the Dail, allows a talented individual to make an impact to a greater extent, enabling them to raise issues and proffer amendments that would otherwise be untouched by the timid hands of the Irish Politician. It is the seat of higher thinking in Irish politics, often producing debates of far higher quality than those of the lower house.

It is a pity therefore that in a time of national crisis, when the people are tired and jaded towards the political system, that instead of choosing from among Ireland’s intellectual elite, be it a business person, an economist, a journalist, a social analyst, or just someone very intelligent and well-read, the government chose a councillor with  a chance of future election. The appointment of a person of unusual calibre could have sent a signal that the government is serious about political reform, both of the Seanad and of the Dail, and that it is focused only on repairing this country. Instead, an insider was appointed, yet another example of how the political parties have used and abused the Seanad, and stopped it filling it’s original function.

If the Constitution is read, it quickly becomes clear that the original, intended function of the Seanad was as a body of experts supervising the Dail. It was to provide an intellectual oversight of Dail decisions, removed from the petty realms of politics. The bulk of the appointments were intended to be from panels of experts, with several Senators elected from the Universities, and the remainder hand-picked by the Taoiseach. The Taoiseach’s Senators were intended to  prevent a situation were the Dail and the Seanad would find themselves in conflict, and limit the Senate to an advisory role. I have no doubt that if the Senate had been operated in this manner, the nation would currently be in a far better state of repair. Instead of an intellectual elite critically examining and advising the Dail, the Senate is now home to a mass of politicians ranging from the possibly (some day) electable to the hopelessly unelectable to the outright rejected. The newest appointments to the Senate are a continuation of that failed policy.

What is particularly galling about the appointment of Mr. Carroll, is the comments that have accompanied his appointment. When congratulating Mr. Carroll on his election the Taoiseach stated “I know that he will work hard for the people of South Louth and I look forward to welcoming him to Oireachtas Éireann”. Mr. Carroll said ” I will be able to provide the people of Drogheda and South Louth with strong and energetic leadership”. There is no such thing as a local senator. A Senator is a national appointment – there is no Senator for Louth. The main justification for the existance of the Senate is that it is one step removed from the parish pump politics that contaminate the Dail; for a newly appointed Senator to make no bones about the fact that he sees his Senate seat primarily as a way to gain advantage for his future constituency, is a tragedy.

The Senate should not spend time fixing potholes, mowing grass or circumventing the planning laws. It should be focused on the national arc of public policy, on ensuring that all legislation passed is appropriately thought out, on commenting on national issues at a remove from local politics, or the politics of hysteria. The Senate should be the calming, mature voice in Ireland, the voice that cries “Stop!” when permanent legislation is hastily proposed to address a temporary crisis, or when knee-jerk reactionaries may be advocating a destructive course. It is the House of debate, of consideration, where issues should be aired that in the Dail would be verboten.

The Senate is supposed to be the counterweight to the overly local focus of politics in Ireland, but the appointment of an unashamedly local Senator once again shows that it is not fulfilling its role.