The ongoing tensions at a local level between Jackie Healy-Rae and John O'Donoghue have been the source of much comment over the last number of months in the corridors. Indeed, even Government TDs laughed the tensions off as the normal difficulties in a multi-seat constituency.
However, matters have taken a turn for the worse recently, with Healy-Rae's outburst this week where he was decrying the fact that his every move was being marked by his ministerial colleague. Drapier hears that this rivalry between the two is causing Bertie Ahern much grief and that quite a lot of his time is being spent soothing Healy-Rae's bruises.
It has always been a fact of life that ministers tend to get "good news" before anyone else, but Jackie, being Jackie, and also being a very important vote for the Government, feels that he, not the Minister, should be first out of the traps.
Drapier thinks this is somewhat unreasonable but, then again, Healy-Rae is in a strong position and is not the normal backbencher.
All in all, this continuing squabble between the two does not read very well for the Minister, who has enough trouble looking after a difficult portfolio. It would appear that, despite his public difficulties in Justice, he keeps a very close eye on what is going on in the home patch.
Equally, Bertie Ahern isn't that happy with his Minister's antics in relation to Healy-Rae. Bertie, being the pragmatist, knows full well that when times get rough for this Government they will need Healy-Rae's good will more than ever, and from the way Healy-Rae was speaking this week his bargaining position may be higher than it is today.
Looking at the constituency arithmetic, Drapier cannot understand how such rivalry can be so intense, in that Healy-Rae and O'Donoghue are well placed (i.e. their bases are far apart) and therefore no real danger electorally to each other. Then again, Kerry is no ordinary constituency.
All in all, O'Donoghue's antics may be short-sighted and may give him some short-term satisfaction in beating Healy-Rae to the good news. But taking the long view they may cause Bertie and his Government more long-term and lasting grief.
Hats off to the Government for its decision to force RTE to reveal the pay of some of its top public figures. This has been a bone of contention for a number of years now. Despite valiant attempts by members of the various Oireachtas committees, the information sought was never forthcoming.
Drapier mentioned last week how the Government favoured the independent radio stations by abolishing the 3 per cent levy. Now it has gone one step further by attacking RTE where it obviously hurts. It has been the attitude of all of the political parties in the Dail that RTE should be made to disclose this information, particularly in the era of openness, transparency and accountability and also particularly now that the freedom of information legislation is well bedded down.
No one in here sees any logic in a situation whereby in every walk of life where taxpayers' money is being spent there is not total transparency; so why should it be any different for RTE? RTE may claim contractual obligations and commercial sensitivity. No one in here believes this for one minute.
Readers may say that it is only sour grapes on the part of deputies and senators who have been made to "bare all" over the last number of years. This may very well be true but that's life. We are human beings after all (despite what many might think).
We have seen a situation over the last number of years where public representatives of every party and every persuasion are up on a pedestal to be pilloried, so why shouldn't top RTE personalities (who can very much lead the political agenda) not be subjected to some outside scrutiny? These people are very quick to question whether or not TDs' and senators' pay is justified, whether or not they are paid too much.
Drapier can see RTE putting up a fight on this, and it may very well succeed in regard to existing figures. But in the long term Drapier thinks it will be obliged to comply with the same set of standards as everyone else who is a recipient of State funding. There was a time when none of us could find out how much barristers, solicitors, doctors and dentists were receiving under State schemes, but now this has all changed. So what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Drapier noticed this week that there were moves to expand the televising of the Dail. This is an obvious follow-on call because of complaints that RTE was not paying proper attention to the proceedings of the Dail, mainly by having the transmissions at an ungodly hour. RTE was able to counter this by saying that the proceedings were stultified and not good television.
It would appear to Drapier that the recent suggestions of relaxing the restrictions on coverage will finally change for all time the Dail and Seanad from being the houses of parliament to being places of entertainment. Since the inception of televised Dail and Seanad proceedings, it has always been the attitude of those in charge that the chambers were not there for the entertainment of the masses via the TV screen but to be respected as a parliament of the people.
Drapier notices that the powers-that-be are suggesting that the televisers can show reaction shots of other deputies when a member is speaking. Drapier would advise those mooting these changes to be careful; these types of shots could be taken out of context and like sound-bites could be used as "view bites" to the detriment of those on screen.
At the end of the day what do we want? Do we want a parliament televised on a serious basis or do we want a place of entertainment for the delectation of the viewers? Which is it to be, Drapier asks?
The Haughey judgment in the Supreme Court was "a little bit of this and a little bit of that": it upheld the legislation setting up tribunals and the right to inquire in this regard, but it censured the way in which the Moriarty tribunal used its powers to inquire into Haughey and his family members.
While in the long term this may not halt the inquiries against Haughey himself, it may open up the possibility of some of the Haughey family members bringing claims for damages against the State for unwarranted inquisition.
Most of us in here thought it was somewhat unfair that Haughey's relations should be dragged in in such a fashion. The zeal with which these tribunals are set up may be curbed in the future, but then again it's easy to be wise after the event.
The political and media pressure may be so great that rational decisions are difficult to take. Most of us in here would like to see the back of all these tribunals, but we are realistic enough to know that they are with us for some time.
The Government's proposal about a permanent commission may have some merit, but Drapier wonders if this will happen. In effect, that always and ever there will be someone for the chopping block.
Drapier has always stated that he is looking forward to retiring, but this is more so than ever. Many of the longer-serving TDs and senators are saying that the last two years have really taken their toll on people's resolve to make a career out of politics.
Drapier can predict that there is now a lot less possibility of members staying in for the long haul and that a lot of the younger, newer deputies will cut and run to greener pastures sooner than their predecessors.