Charlie McCreevy is an amiable blatherer, writes Vincent Browne. Chock full of conviction not just that he is right but has always been right.
He is convinced of his own brave independence and capacity to "tell it as it is". All that was magnificently on display in his TV interview on Sunday night with Sean O'Rourke.
The most outlandish claim he made was that, as minister for finance, he "had to" face down the Taoiseach, as well as other Ministers. Obviously, he thought this was quintessentially his role as guardian of the nation's finances. Quite something.
Where did he get the idea from? Did he think other ministers for finance "faced down" their taoisigh and other ministers? It's a nonsense, for under the Constitution any minister for finance that did so could be required to resign by the taoiseach of the day.
In any event there is the little matter of the constitutional requirement where, under Article 28 4.2, it is stated: "The Government shall meet and act as a collective authority, and shall be collectively responsible for the Departments of State administered by the members of the Government". It says nothing at all about the minister for finance having to face down anybody, whether taoisigh or ministers.
The "collective authority" bit suggests that all ministers are equal, none with authority to "face down" any other minister. It means that all decisions are taken by ministers acting together, all responsible for collective decisions.
We know of course this is a fiction, that decisions are taken by a cabal of ministers and others merely look on. This is especially true in coalition governments where the leaders of the coalition parties, along perhaps with the minister for finance and a few others, take all decisions, which are subsequently rubber-stamped by the cabinet, or maybe not even that.
But the idea that Charlie McCreevy "faced down" Bertie Ahern is either untrue, in which case Charlie is more of a fantasist than we previously suspected, or true, in which case Bertie Ahern is more pathetic than we previously suspected. Very probably Bertie gave the impression to Charlie McCreevy that he (Bertie) was being faced down successfully, whereas in reality it was Bertie who was getting his way.
Charlie McCreevy claimed how right he had been from the beginning on economic policy and how he had opposed the 1977 Fianna Fáil manifesto and subsequent Fianna Fáil policies in government from 1977 onwards. That Fianna Fáil manifesto promised more borrowing, more public sector jobs, lower taxation, all of which were intended to prime the economy. Take a look at what Charlie McCreevy said about that in his speech on the budget on February 9th, 1978, which introduced the first instalment of the derided 1977 election manifesto.
He said: "I think the budget was courageous and radical. We have taken a calculated gamble in one direction . . . This budget contains exactly what I advocated during the election campaign . . .
"Before the election I spoke about borrowing and said we should adopt such a course. I also suggested that taxation should be reduced; the individual be encouraged and that we should bank on the private sector . . .
"Many commentators have referred to the high borrowing requirement in the budget, but I see nothing wrong with a business or government borrowing. It depends on the purposes for which one intends borrowing. We told the people before the election why we were going to borrow . . . that it was to prime the pump. It is the same as a business man approaching his financiers to borrow £10,000 to start a business. Before he does so he estimates that out of the profits he will make in his first years of operation he will be able to repay it. That is what the government have done. They have borrowed with the intention of creating extra jobs, and from the taxation that will accrue from those extra workers and the saving in social welfare by reducing the number of people on the live register, they will be in a position to repay the debt."
Was there any more ardent advocate of the policies that Charlie McCreevy now says he derided than McCreevy himself? And there was his "courage" in standing up to Charles Haughey and to the death threats, Garda protection and the like. How come we heard of none of this at the time and now hear of it only in terms sufficiently vague to be uncheckable?
He was the hero who instigated the heave against Charlie Haughey in October 1982. Does anybody remember what that was about? That government, which came into office in March of that year was, at least according to Charlie McCreevy's thinking today, an excellent government. It had begun to grapple with the fiscal crisis, spending was being cut back, borrowing reduced and the budget deficit reined in. So what was the October 1982 heave about, except a personalised attack on someone who had overlooked the glittering talents of Charlie McCreevy in forming his government? I am quite certain Charlie McCreevy believed every word he said to Sean O'Rourke, which is all the more disquieting.
Happy Christmas.