LUCINDA CREIGHTON,
Sir, - We are the two Young Fine Gael delegates who sucessfully proposed the new system for electing the Leader of Fine Gael. We feel shocked, appalled and betrayed at the decision of the Fine Gael Parliamentary Party to elect a successor to Michael Noonan under the old, undemocratic system.
More than ever, Fine Gael needs to consults members and councillors across the country about the future of the party and its leadership. Clearly, the rump 31 TDs and the 14 unelectables from the fag-end of a Senate have learned nothing from Fine Gael's mauling at the polls.
As we write, candidates for the Leadership are already sowing the seeds of Fine Gael's next election defeat by trading votes for votes with senators determined to make it back to Leinster House at any cost. The decision of the parliamentary party to decide the future of Fine Gael alone and behind closed doors is a disgrace and demonstrates their contempt both for the loyal Fine Gael membership and the 400,000 or so electors who voted for them. Shame on you all. - Yours, etc.,
LUCINDA CREIGHTON,
Vice-President,
Young Fine Gael;
LEO VARADKAR,
Dublin West
Constituency Organiser,
Upper Mount Street,
Dublin 2.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - We are writing to voice our concern at the inappropriate haste with which our Parliamentary Party colleagues intend to elect Michael Noonan's successor. We believe this is imprudent for several reasons.
Firstly, why does the first official duty of any new leader have to be the ignominy of leading the depleted ranks of Fine Gael TDs into the Dáil chamber on June 6th to vote for him or her as Taoiseach, in a vote he or she will loose? Michael Noonan had the good grace to accept responsibility for the results of the General Election and offer to stay on in a caretaker capacity. As the leader of Fine Gael at the General Election, it is only fair to the people that he is the Fine Gael candidate for Taoiseach in an election that bears out the recently expressed preference of the people.
Secondly, the new parliamentary party will not even elect the new leader of Fine Gael. Instead it will be the party's TDs elected to the new Dáil and the outgoing Fine Gael senators. This could raise legitimacy issues about the mandate of the new leader. For example, if the new senators had been elected, it is not inconceivable that this would have delivered a different result.
In February, a cross-section of delegates at the Árd-Fheis voted overwhelmingly for a Young Fine Gael motion calling for an electoral college of the whole party to elect a leader every two years in the teeth of fierce opposition from the party leadership. While it is generally now accepted that the latter part of this motion needs to be revisited, it cannot be denied that there is a clear majority of members who, reasonably, want to be enfranchised when a new leader is being elected.
The leadership procrastinated over this for a long time and Fine Gael HQ is only now sending out ballot papers for ratification of this motion.
In January 2001, Fine Gael parliamentarians rushed into replacing the leader - on the basis of one opinion poll, not policy - with almost no consultation of the party members in the country. This was a huge mistake, compounded by our massive defeat on May 17th. The decision to apply the same policy to this contest implies that the last men and women standing have learned sweet nothing from the lessons of history.
Failure by the collective opposition to present a viable alternative government in this election, coupled with the fact that we presented certain opportunistic policies, produced this rout.
We now either rush onwards into desperation, or we take the ample time we have to consider our future as a party - all 25,000 or so of us. - Yours, etc.,
STUART CULLEN
(Fine Gael,
Dún Laoghaire);
MICHAEL SCANLON
(Fine Gael,
Dublin South).