Madam, – In light of Enda Kenny’s refusal to participate in the upcoming TV3 leaders’ debate, is it fair to assume that we are replacing a taoiseach who was unable to communicate with the people of Ireland with one who is afraid to? – Yours, etc,
Madam, – On Tonight with Vincent Browne on TV3, it should be Mr Browne’s objective to facilitate political debate and discussion, not to dominate it. His sneering attitude, constant interruption and shouting down of the panellists spoils the programme, and often leads me to switch off.
A quiet, logical and forensic questioning of panellists would generate more light and less heat, and would achieve what should be the programme’s purpose – to inform the viewers. Unfortunately Mr Browne does not seem capable of this.
I therefore think that Enda Kenny is quite right not to participate in a debate under his chairmanship. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – The role of any chairperson during a public debate is that of representing me, the viewer/listener. As a Christian, I do not advocate any person being told to consider committing suicide; therefore I find Vincent Browne’s advice to Enda Kenny as to how he might consider ending his life reprehensible in the extreme, disqualifying him from suitability for the role of debating chairman. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – It seems that Enda Kenny’s reason for not participating in the TV3 debate is as transferable as the STV! – Yours, etc,
Madam, – While acknowledging the abhorrent character of Vincent Browne’s remark to Enda Kenny, it is not acceptable that it should be converted into an attempt to avoid participation in political debate, particularly when the former has offered an apology.
Such an action would constitute a gross abdication of political responsibility. Mr Browne has long since served the country well in that he has provided many of our politicians with the opportunity to highlight the cracks and inconsistencies in their policies. More pertinently, he has on many occasions grilled John Moloney TD, Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, about the apathy and ineptness surrounding the implementation of the government’s 2006 mental health policy document, A Vision for Change.
Mr Kenny is perfectly entitled to feel personally hurt at the utterance of such a comment but we are equally entitled to hear party policies discussed and debated under the chairmanship of one of the country’s most effective journalists. Mr Kenny is poised to take over the running of the country. He cannot shy away from debate because the man on the telly was mean to him. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – I refer to a letter from Brian McBride, Dalkey (February 4th), in connection with a letter he received from me through the Oireachtas postal system.
He failed to make clear that the main purpose of the communication was to enclose a copy of my regular newsletter setting out national policy, Dáil business and local issues.
Incidentally, this correspondence was issued prior to the dissolution of the Dáil from my monthly allocation and only a very small number were sent by post, with the remainder delivered by hand. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – Fianna Fáil’s reforms (Front page, February 7th) amount to a presidential style of government: appointed ministers, a Cabinet divorced from the Dáil and an abolished Seanad.
Fianna Fáil has proposed that Cabinet ministers have a stand-in to do their constituency work. The stand-in would be named on a list before election. Does this mean every TD would have a possible substitute in case he or she serves in the Cabinet?
This would means if you vote for one TD, you get a second free. The idea is inconsistent with Fianna Fáil’s wish to reduce the number of TDs. When it comes to re-election, do you vote for the competent TD who handled his or her constituency work well, or do you vote against their Cabinet minister shadow who fluffed their portfolio? What if the proxy TD disagrees with their matched minister and wants to cast their Dáil vote differently? What does it mean for the opposition’s shadow cabinet ministers? Do they also get a substitute so they can focus on their ministerial brief?
There is indeed a problem for ministers in handling their national portfolio simultaneously with the very local needs of constituents. This is not the solution.
Finally, the abolition of the Seanad is an act of constitutional vandalism. It is critical that there is a second chamber to review legislation, one free of the need to worry about the next general election. The Seanad as it stands is a weak institution. It needs to be strengthened, not closed. However, a strong Seanad would not suit the presidential style of government that Fianna Fáil is now proposing.
Such a system should be very alarming given Fianna Fáil’s track record. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – That Mary Lou McDonald is proposing to raid the State’s Pension Reserve Fund is not unexpected (February 4th). It is perfectly in line with Sinn Féin/IRA policy and practice. Its claimed rationale is to create jobs! If in any private business the boss/directors/managers raided and took all or most of the money to sustain jobs, they would be treated as criminals. They would become personally liable as directors, and pilloried by all and every political party in the country,including Sinn Féin.
But of course no politicians take responsibility for their actions. Soundbites are good. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – May I suggest that Fine Gael’s new campaign slogan, “Let’s get Ireland working” is about as convincing as Fianna Fáil’s previous one, “A lot done, more to do”. Although the sentiment to get the country working is blindingly obvious, the question is, how are their policies going to achieve this?
A couple of years ago, Enda Kenny deliberately moved his party from the centre ground to the right, essentially filling the gap left by the PDs. He then aligned Fine Gael to the Tory Party in Britain. So, are we to believe that a party with a policy of low taxation, a zealous adherence to the same kind of neo-liberal, free market ideology that has been at the root of our problems, a programme of austerity including savage cuts in public spending and an almost Fianna Fáil-like pursuit of corporate donations, represents the radical change necessary?
If in doubt, just look at how its new allies, the Tories, have been conducting affairs in the UK since getting into office last May. Along with the most severe spending cuts in its history, leading to the closure of nearly half that country’s public libraries and the imminent sell-off of its state forests, the UK economy is stagnant and in real danger of entering a double-dip recession.
For a country that’s in desperate need of a fundamental transformation of its social, economic and political life after the appalling mismanagement of the past 13 years, I believe that Fine Gael winning an (increasingly possible) overall majority in the upcoming election is the last thing we need.
It has not offered anything in its policies to suggest a fairer, more equal society. To help prevent Fine Gael getting an overall majority, I may even do the unthinkable (and something I’ve never done before) and give Fianna Fáil my vote! – Yours, etc,
Madam, – Eamon Gilmore’s remark regarding the EU/IMF bailout deal (Home News, February 4th) that “It’s Frankfurt’s way or Labour’s way” strayed too far into the territory of jingoistic campaign hyperbole. There is strong competition in this election for typically left-wing votes from Sinn Féin and United Left Alliance candidates who campaigned against the Lisbon Treaty, so there may be a temptation for Labour Party candidates to also hint at Eurosceptic views. Mr Gilmore’s comment certainly seems in line with such an attitude and clearly communicates an overtly negative connotation regarding the influence of European policymaking in relation to Irish affairs.
While there seems to be a widespread desire to revisit the terms of the bailout arrangements, this does not justify such undiplomatic use of language. The Irish negotiating position in the EU is extremely weak due to the economic crisis and its fallout. It does not need to be worsened by having a future senior minister – as Mr Gilmore hopes to be – making a statement with the potential to adversely affect goodwill regarding one member state in particular. Mr Gilmore should immediately apologise for going overboard in the manner of his rhetoric. – Yours, etc,