In the 20th anniversary edition of his 1991 book Jiving at the Crossroads, John Waters describes an exchange at a press conference during Charles Haughey’s last days as taoiseach, early in 1992. Haughey was responding to claims by former minister for justice Seán Doherty in a now iconic interview on the Nighthawks programme on RTÉ television that as taoiseach Haughey had been aware of the bugging of two journalists’ phones.
Asked by a journalist at the press conference whether the Doherty interview related to a leadership bid by “Albert Reynolds and the western alliance” Haughey threw back his head and corrected him: “You mean the country and western alliance.” “For a moment,” Waters writes, “the hostility of the press conference dissipated and Haughey had most of the journalists laughing and again eating out of his hands.”
The media loves it when politicians deliver a colourful characterisation of opponents, especially when it incorporates an element of snobbery or reverse snobbery. Such sneery depictions have been a feature of Irish politics for decades.
‘Posh boys’
The current talk of Taoiseach Leo Varadkar and some of his Ministers as being “posh boys” is merely the most recent iteration of the phenomenon.
In Garrett FitzGerald’s time, conservative and rural Fine Gael TDs opposed to his Just Society views sought to dismiss him as a bungling Dublin 4 academic type who could never relate to ordinary people. Fianna Fáil gleefully deployed such depictions at the doorsteps.
Bertie Ahern’s opponents also liked to make his origins an issue. They dismissed him with terms such as “anorak man” and some even more crude. The implication was that he was of a class and a type who should never aspire to be taoiseach.
This derisive characterisation of Ahern followed him well into his first term as taoiseach. These depictions of FitzGerald and Ahern, and the tagging of Reynolds as “country and western”, originated from within their own party. They were first uttered by ministerial colleagues or disgruntled backbenchers in off-the-record chats with political reporters. They quickly gained traction. Opponents from other parties seized on them and they were also widely repeated in political coverage.
The implication is always that the targeted politician’s background makes him unfit to hold high office, or to do it with appropriate gravitas. Alternatively it is implied that either a lack of education renders them in some way unsuitable for ministerial office or an abundance of education leaves them detached from the lives of voters.
The description of Varadkar and some Ministers as being “posh boys” similarly began within their own party before it migrated all over the political media.
If you trace the description back to its roots it seems some Fine Gael Ministers and backbenchers went out of their way over the summer to describe their colleagues in this way to political correspondents. Of course, they were not brave enough to do so on the record, but they knew it would get subsequent traction.
They expressed it as a concerns that the privileged background of these Ministers is somehow damaging the Government’s image.
In spouting or repeating such colourful turns of phrase about their Ministers these mutterers harm their party. They have handed ammunition to the other parties.
The implication of describing them as posh boys is that because the Taoiseach and Ministers such as Murphy and Simon Coveney were educated in fee-paying schools or come from relatively wealthy backgrounds they are incapable of real empathy with those who suffer homelessness or poverty.
Left-wing politicians
This, of course, is patent nonsense. Some of the country’s most prominent left-wing politicians come from equally privileged backgrounds. Among those loudest in articulating empathy with the homeless are Sinn Féin’s Eoin Ó Broin, People Before Profit’s Richard Boyd Barrett and Solidarity’s Paul Murphy, all of whom come from backgrounds at least as ‘posh’ if not ‘posher’ that most of Fine Gael’s leadership
The nature of educational attainment or a person’s economic background are not a guide to ministerial ability. Neither is it an indicator of their inclination to tackle the housing crisis or social and economic deprivation generally. The difference for Fine Gael Ministers at the moment, of course, is that they hold office and therefore must do more than merely mouth off about these problems.
There are many legitimate reasons to be critical of the Government’s approach to the housing crisis and to criticise the performance of some Ministers. Seeking, however, to attribute political and policy failings to the background of individual politicians does no service to the issues. Neither does it add much to the quality of political debate.