Today, as 2.8 million people cast their vote in the Lisbon Treaty (something I admittedly never want to hear of again - its prominence on the news agenda has made me completely desensitised to it), some 200,000 people are involved in something new.

This something new would seem quite foreign to those who became accustomed to the Eire that flourished on the back of the Celtic Tiger; a country where Mercedes' seemed omnipresent, eating out was a regular affair and people had surplus cash to fritter away without a second thought. Well, we were led to believe that most people had it this good.

Now, the most well-trodden floors in the country belong to the local dole office, not L'Ecrivain.

'Unemployment crisis as 200,000 on dole' was the headline I gave this story on Wednesday. I'm not one to use the word crisis liberally - it's as bad as horror and tragedy if used too much - it loses all meaning.

But the statistics seem to support the idea that fresh worries for the country's unemployed are justified, as 47,746 more people signed on to the dole last month than at the same time last year.

47,746.

Northern Ireland is bucking the trend with a jobless percentage below the UK average, while Ireland is reportedly one of two countries in the EU where unemployment has risen in the last year. The other 25 seem to be able to maintain a plateau or improve upon their jobless rates.

Tánaiste and Employment Minister Mary Coughlan has inherited this burden and it is one she would be wise to address in the Dáil as soon as possible.

Because it seems that all this talk of the Lisbon Treaty has clouded the agenda. Surely the leaders of this country should be scrambling to find a solution and help those who want to be working to do so.

And I'm sure those who have cruelly suffered the loss of their job would rather be queuing for the ATM.

Con
He went on the record recently saying that it was a bit rich of Lisbon Treaty opponents to call the treaty in particular or the EU in general "anti-democratic" when they themselves lacked a "democratic mandate". Seems Brian (not untypically for a representative) can't imagine any form of democracy that isn't representative democracy. If the mandate he and his mates have (votes from last year's general election) amount to an endorsement of the Lisbon Treaty then it is a very vague one at most.

One key difference between anti-Lisbonites and the EU, which Biffo ignored, is that Libertas, or whomever, aren't levying taxes on me or making rules which bind me or other citizens. They're just voicing an opinion. What's the Tea Shack worried about? Is he really arguing that you need to be a TD to legitimately express an opinion in public on an issue?

The anti-Treaty campaigns (as distinct from anti-Treaty parties like Sinn Fein) aren't such bad examples of democratic bodies since all their members signed up because of their express agreement with that side of the argument and their funding comes from those who again expressly agree with the opinion or at least with it being aired.

On the other hand, Cowen has applied the whip in the severest manner to his own party to force not only support for the treaty but active campaigning for a yes vote out of Fianna Failers. And government and party money has needless to say flowed into the Yes campaigns although not every party member or donor or taxpayer is necessarily a supporter of the referendum. Funny thing, democracy. Maybe if the Bri Man finishes reading the Treaty cover to cover he'll find some positive reasons in favour of it to focus on instead of warning the public off the No Side, who are, it should be noted, a motley enough crew and no strangers to the odd bit of rampant hyperbole themselves.

Pro
We all had great craic overhearing Brian telling his right-hand Mary (Coughlan that is) in the Dail and under his breath to knock some heads together and get those "fuckers" from the National Consumer Agency in. For a nice cup of tea and a chat presumably. Our fella has truly stepped into the realm of major world leaders now that he's had his very own "Yo, Blair!" moment.

Campaign for a Decent Public Health Service

Lobby by trade unionists, patients’, hospital and health groups

Wednesday 7th May 2008, 1 –2 p.m,

Dáil Eireann, Dublin

Supported by:

Dublin Council of Trade Unions
Youth Committee ICTU
Patients Together

Des Derwin, President, Dublin Council of Trade Unions: 087 6229686 or dctuhealth@gmail.com

At the Campaign’s Representative Conference on 26th April one of the activities agreed on was to lobby the Dáil for a decent public health service on the occasion of Brian Cowen’s elevation to Taoiseach on Wednesday 7th May. The lobby will take place from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. in front of Leinster House,Kildare Street.

The Campaign for A Decent Public Health Service march in Dublin on 29th March united trade unions, patients’ and hospital groups, health professionals and people from various regions in a demand for a health service accessible to all in need.

Since then there have been more scandals and a determined programme of disimprovement, cutbacks and hospital downgrades by the government and the HSE. They are determined, but so are we. In the next while we shall be publicising our timetable of major campaign activities for the coming months.

Are Sinn Féin still to be frozen in the Coyctus?

But as one government has been formed, we should look forward to the next - and in that context, Fine Gael should be prepared to look at coalition with Sinn Féin if the numbers stake up. Such a course of action is something which cannot be undertaken lightly and there would need to be an open and vigorous debate on this within the part, but the events leading up to this election and subsequent too it suggest that we should no longer consider Sinn Féin as utterly beyond the Pale.

While the events in the North had over the past decade seen a softening of attitudes towards Sinn Féin, a number of factors militated against their participation in the Republic's government. They still appeared to refuse to accept the common political narrative of this state, their position within that and all that implies; their political strength had the appearance of ever increasing momentum; and all the while the continued to adopt economic policies which were far beyond which could be incorporated in a workable government.

Most publicly through their acceptance of the PSNI, and previously through acts such as the PIRA's decommissioning, the so-called 'Republican Movement' were increasingly adopting the accepted political narrative of this state - that whereas armed rebellion was acceptable in times past, it cannot be repeated again. The continued rhetoric from all levels of Sinn Féin in condemning militant activities and encouraging co-operation with authorities on both sides of the borders confirms this complete about their on their previous past. Indeed, in tandem with the above, their attempts to recast the narrative of the PIRA's terror campaign as a human rights issue, rather than a war of attempted national re-unification is similarly encouraging.

They have now accepted that what was acceptable to them in the recent past, in circumstances not today dissimilar is no longer acceptable today. They have, liked most of the other political players did seventy/eighty years ago accepted their own hypocrisy, and lacerate those who did what they once did. Their armed revolutionary output is now purely of an historical variety, with no real implications for the future.

While the above has only really settled down in the past year, the potential rapid advance of Sinn Féin electorally in the absence of such settling was worrisome. Now, it is fairly clear that their electoral advance has been stymied, with the threat that they could possess to the general political order clearly limited. While the prospect of having Sinn Féin in a government when they were ever increasing in size and gaining further momentum wouldn't be stomachable for many, most particularly those in the Labour party - after the most recent election, Sinn Féin as very much a junior partner are a different and more bearable proposition.

Finally, the almost complete abandonment by Sinn Féin of any form of strongly left-wing economic policies - most exemplified by their complete u-turn on corporation tax - show that on the economic front, they offer little that wouldn't be compatible with a FG/Labour government. Indeed, on the policy front more generally their main issues would be covered by such a government in the main, beyond possibly on a number of issues relating to promoting a United Ireland.

These would appear to be namely a Green Paper on National Unity; speaking rights for Northern Ireland MPs in the Oireachtas and allowing voters in the North to vote for the President. While allowing Northern Irish MPs speaking in the Oireachtas may yet be a step too far - after all, if they aren't going to be affected by the parliaments decisions, why should they be allowed speak there - the other two areas should present little enough difficulty. A Green Paper on National Unity is something which, as a United Ireland party, we should not be afraid to promote ourselves - indeed, it is something which if promoted by ourselves could be quite a useful mechanism for engaging the Unionist community. Expanding the vote for the President to all citizens would allow Northern nationalists vote, and is something which is largely important only in a symbolic way.

Therefore, as we look forward, Fine Gael should be willing to contemplate co-operation with Sinn Féin in a future government. Labour's deal with Sinn Féin in the Seanad has set the tone, and we should not be unwilling to co-operate increasingly in the Dáil, with a willingness to one-day potentially work in government with them. Such a course of action will provoke a strong debate in the party, and there will be an inevitable backlash from some members and supporters - this was clear from the last meeting of this forum, when this subject attracted strong opinions from all sides.

And in addition to the above, they present little electoral threat to Fine Gael, but have the potential to be represent to Fianna Fáil what the PDs have represented to us. As they settle further in main-stream centre-left constitutional politics, there should be little obstacles to do a deal with this party in three, four, five years time.

Expect fireworks a day early tomorrow on July 3rd as Deputy Brian Hayes T.D., Fine Gael, looks for more answers regarding the infamous €252M for ICT in education and the recent termination of contracts of all the ICT Advisors.

Yes, that’s right. The Taoiseach swears. Even the eff-word. The bad eff-word. Not ‘feck’ – you know the one I mean. I’m as shocked as you are. Apparently (although I’m not sure how true this is), he goes to the toilet sometimes too. I mean, who would have thought it?

After being subjected to repeated (pre-watershed) airings of his disgraceful misdemeanour, and a great deal of sanctimonious hand wringing from Enda Kenny (a man who once told a ‘joke’ which included the word ‘nigger’, which is considerably more offensive than ‘f***er’), a somewhat humbled Taoiseach issued an apology through the media. He said: “I’m really fucking sorry. Regardless of the fucking context or regardless of whether it was being heard publicly or privately it should not have fucking been said and I withdraw it and I acknowledge it. Now, fuck the fuck off and leave me alone, you fucking f***ers. Go on, get ta fuck.”

The hugely important story of Cowen’s ‘four letter outburst’ (seven, surely) somehow made its way onto the front pages of almost every newspaper on Thursday, from the Times to the Indo, right down to the S*n. It’s completely understandable, as there is clearly fuck-all else worth reporting at the moment. The economy is a bit fucked; the health service is utterly fucked; the Lisbon Treaty is fucking incomprehensible to most of the fucking electorate. But who gives a fuck about any of that? The Taoiseach whispered the word ‘f***ers’ in the Dáil, and that’s all that fucking matters.

Tomorrow: Mary Harney apologises for telling cancer patients to 'get f***ed'

While it is a matter for debate whether this is a new Government, it is an opportune moment for us to have that wider discussion. I ask the Leader to arrange for the new Taoiseach to come into this House and to set out his ideas, his proposals and his vision for the post-Celtic tiger Ireland into which we are facing. Before we can get down to the important debates with individual Ministers, I would echo the call to bring in the Taoiseach to the Seanad for that type of debate. We can then grapple with the challenges that exist in the economy, such as the deepening inequalities that have characterised the last decade of growth, the spectacle of 190,000 children at risk of poverty in a country with such enormous wealth held by so few people.

If we had that debate, we could consider the sort of public service we want to have in this country, how we fund it, how we use the taxation system in order to bring about a fairer society, and whether we want one health service for the well off and one for everybody else. I would like to hear the Taoiseach set out his stall on these issues in this House. The Opposition parties are also under a duty to put forward their ideas and their vision, and this would provide an excellent opportunity to do that. I join with my colleagues in congratulating the new Taoiseach, but I hope we get down to business today. I would welcome the opportunity to have such a debate at the earliest possible occasion.

I'd be indifferent, my heart would tell me to go with the idea, my head would tell me to stick with the status quo.

Things to note in favour.

FF are popular, no doubt, but their vote has fluctuated here and there, and are continuously in power because of a divided opposition, whom it can play against one another (note Bertie’s kite flying on FF-Labour scenarios in last weeks Sunday Independent. Now that's the nature of PR, it lends itself to the creation of small parties, but it has certainly worked in FFs favour. So a bigger, united opposition party could attempt to match FF (and it is clearly not matched at the moment, something pundits fail to note when they talk of the "strength" and "professionalism" of the FF political/media machine). Before a single vote is cast FF have an advantage, such is the nature of incumbency, hefty financial support and having the government/civil service apparatus at your disposal.

Secondly voters in each party seem to have a high regard for one another, despite the occasional back-and-forth banter from users on this site. There has always been a high transfer rate, with or without a pact.

On an issue-by-issue basis there is substantially no difference between them. If anything it is just a difference in emphasis and rhetoric. FG may occasionally portray the latest gangland shooting in hyperbolic tones, but better to highlight crime than to downplay it. Labour too occasionally make its nods to whatever the latest Leftist cause célèbre is at a given time, be it Shannon or Shell or whatever.

Thirdly, each is strong in different areas. Labour in particular has strength in Dublin that is admirable. Ditto FG in Munster, Connacht-Ulster.

It would lead to a more varied, and talented frontbench.

Arguments Against

Much like the whimsical Alliance for the Left idea, it is a wholly unrealistic idea, thought about by bored hacks here, and not by anyone in any position of power in the Dáíl or in the respective parties. Given the current Labour habit of blaming a shift from them to FF in the general election on FG, it most certainly wouldn't be a popular idea in the Parliamentary Party. It's a flight of fancy, nothing more.

It might throw a lifeline to the PDs, though I can't imagine anything will save that ship now.

Most importantly, there is no evidence that they attract people from the same voting pool as such. Each attracts votes from varied enough social classes and the like but their voters aren't motivated by any closeness, loyalty or otherwise to each other. So FG might lose a wee rump to the PDs and possibly FF, but the real losers would be Labour. Given FG are polling 2.5-3 times as much as Labour, it would be perceived as a takeover. Labours key challenges to it's support base would be greatly exacerbated by a merger. There is certainly and épater le bourgeois in the Labour Party and they would lose soft, middle class, trendy Guardian readers in places like Dublin South East to the Greens, and would lose a working class base in some communities in Dublin and elsewhere to Sinn Féin and possibly some other micro parties (such is the fetish for schisms in some Left circles). So I think they'd be down a few percent from their current combined total.

All in all, I think at present, I'd concur with the 'sum of the parts is greater than the whole' theory and FG and Labour should stay separate.

What would be ideal is a more co-ordinated opposition in everything to try and counter FF, Dáil manoeuvres, candidate selection, resources, everything. But given the Greens are in government, SF would likely be hostile, and the Labour Party has a stated preference for an "independent" stance in the hope of an FF-Labour government, even the notion of greater cooperation is unrealistic.

I'll tell you one context this could be a viable, perhaps a Hobsons choice option. That context is a United Ireland, something that may well happen in my lifetime, but who knows where we'll be or the lie of the land at that time.

Brave men and women have used it to blow the whistle on corruption, criminality and subversion. Mr Ahern has chosen to demean and debase this privilege. He has taken this precious and noble device, and he has gone to the courts to use it to vindicate moral cowardice and a lack of transparency that would embarrass most right-minded people.

As a citizen, the courts are open to all of us. But as citizens we also have an inalienable right to do what is right. Does the Taoiseach really believe there is some constitutional issue at hand here about reconciling public accountability and parliamentary privilege?

Could he not be as brave as those for whom the device of privilege was intended, and waive it in order to protect that other precious principle of democracy - the integrity of public office?

Whatever you may think about Frank Connolly's travel habits, you have to admire his forensic determination when it comes to his research, and his Elliott Ness-like ability to spot a potential weakness. His article in the Irish Mail on Sunday last weekend regarding Bertie's tax compliance may be the start of some real headaches for the Taoiseach.

Forget about never ending tribunal enquiries into moneys from 15 years ago, Connolly's angle brings things far more up to date by highlighting a clear divergence in opinion between the Revenue Commissioners and Mr Ahern on his tax declarations after the 2002 election

All elected representatives must fully account for their incomes, assets and tax status to the Standards in Public Office Commission. Failure to do so, or worse still, making false declarations is a serious issue. Indeed obtaining a false tax clearance certificate can lead to a custodial sentence and a criminal record - just ask former FF TD Michael Collins.

If the position as stated by the Revenue in their correspondence is shown to be accurate, then Mr Ahern did not discuss his loans\gifts with the 'tax authorities' as he claimed in the Dobson interview (and no amount of parsing that statement to mean authorities on tax rather than the Revenue is acceptable - his statement had a clear intent). This means he potentially made a false declaration after the 2002 election, and it will be very interesting to see what he files at the end of this month as part of his latest submission. Anything less than a complete account could really leave him in serious trouble.

It will also be interesting to see how FF handle this. One backbencher on the radio yesterday brought the tribunals into the equation. This is a complete red-herring. Bertie's compliance with standards legislation is not within the remit of the Mahon Tribunal and any attempt to it to the equation is a deliberate effort at distraction. It also has the added benefit of tuning the public out as it is clear that a considerable amount of tribunal fatigue is setting in.

This is a matter for the Standards in Public Office Commission, the Revenue Commissioners and potentially the Gardaí should there be a case to answer. I think the opposition have grasped this, and it seems Fine Gael are to lodge a formal complaint with the SIPO over the 2002 returns. It will be very interesting to see how all of this plays out.

That Ahern reacted in such a way was noteworthy enough for even the sober citizens of the Cedar Lounge Revolution to pick up on the issue and have a cut at the newbie from Dublin West.

So what comments were made?

Deputy Leo Varadkar: I wish to share time with Deputies Sheehan and Creed.
This debate is not about the Government’s record on Northern Ireland, the economy, the health service, transport and the environment. It is not about the personal affairs of the Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, despite his attempts to bring family problems into the debate at every possible opportunity afforded by RTE but not by the tribunal.

Deputy Dermot Ahern: Following in the footsteps of gutter Fine Gael.

Deputy Leo Varadkar: This is about low standards and credibility. Politicians should not take money for personal benefit from wealthy people. I do not know why the Taoiseach took the money. I do not know if the reason he took money in Manchester was that some of them were the Manchester investors in the casino project in my constituency. I do not know why the Taoiseach took money from Mr. Michael Wall, a private bus operator looking for bus services to be deregulated in this country. I would like to know because I do not accept the reasons provided.
What the Taoiseach has done is no different from what Mr. Liam Lawlor, Mr. Charles Haughey, Deputy Lowry and former Deputy Ray Burke did. In none of those cases do we have documentary evidence of corruption. The reason they are discredited, disgraced and removed from office is they behaved in an inappropriate manner by receiving large sums from private individuals for personal gain. The same standards should be applied to the Taoiseach. Just because he is Head of the Government does not mean lower standards should be applied. By any international standard, he would no longer be Head of the Government. In Germany Ministers resign when they keep frequent flyer points accrued on Government flights. In Britain Ministers resign for accepting undeclared loans. In the United Kingdom the Taoiseach would not be fit to be a member of a county council. He is certainly not fit to be a candidate for the Fine Gael Party.

Deputy Lucinda Creighton: Hear, hear.

Deputy Leo Varadkar: Regarding credibility, most people in the State do not believe the Taoiseach’s assertions about his finances. A journalist in the Sunday Independent wrote that if there was a simple explanation, we would have heard it some time ago.

Deputy Simon Coveney: Was that Deputy O’Dea?

Deputy Leo Varadkar Nobody believes the Taoiseach’s story. Privately, most of those on the Government benches do not believe it. Nobody believes the Taoiseach did not have a bank account. The only reason he did not have a bank account in that period is worrying and sinister. Nobody believes his claim that the dig-out came from friends. Even Mr. Padraic O’Connor of NCB Stockbrokers, for example, denies that he is the Taoiseach’s friend and stated the money was given to Fianna Fáil. Nobody believes the money the Taoiseach received was for the refurbishment of a new house. Nobody believes the Taoiseach did not deal in dollars. Nobody believes the 24 people in Manchester were his friends. The Taoiseach claims that they were but cannot name them. Nobody believes the Taoiseach, his partner at the time and the bankers forgot to count the money.

History will judge the Taoiseach with more sophistication than the Sunday newspapers or Senator Harris.

Deputy Dermot Ahern: The people judged him on 24 May, which Fine Gael keep forgetting.

Deputy Leo Varadkar: History will judge him and, in some ways, as a successful Taoiseach. It will also judge his years as Taoiseach as a lost opportunity to achieve great things done in other booms such as the Adenauer years in Germany or the post-war years in America.

Deputy Willie O’Dea: We will see what Deputy Varadkar achieves.

Deputy Leo Varadkar: Sadly, this dark affair will darken the Taoiseach’s record in the same way as Tony Blair’s involvement in Iraq or Bill Clinton’s corruption and personal scandals darkened theirs. History will judge the Taoiseach as being both devious and cunning, in the words of his mentor, master and, clearly, role model.

Well, the consensus at the time was that Ahern took umbrage at fairly innocuous remarks about the poor legacy Clinton and Blair left behind them (at least, as viewed in some quarters). I wouldn't agree with Varadkar's comments with regard to those two fine politicians, but they were hardly lacerating. Certainly, not something that would be bothering Ahern the next day and not something which would explain his bitterness.

However in light of recent tribunal developments about the National Lottery, US Dollars donations and developments at the Phoenix Park racecourse, the ire Varadkar rose may have more to do with comments relating to what Varadkar didn't know. Namely "I do not know if the reason he took money in Manchester was that some of them were the Manchester investors in the casino project in my constituency."

As Varadkar remarks in his comments, ministers resign for far less infractions in other states than here. A similiar comment could be made about the Irish media. In other states they don't need tribunals to do all the investigative work into these issues ten years after the fact. Why? Because they have investigative journalists funded by a responsible media. Unfortunately for us, with the exception of one or two brave souls we don't have such pioneers operating in this state. And the quality of Irish democratic life will continue to suffer.

But as the bright boys over on Dublin Opinion suggest "But no one says how fast reforms need to be." Indeed, and it would appear that in this instance it will be quite a while before anything happens. Why? Because it would appear that there has been no government move with regard to putting the legislation in place to enable such reform (in general at least a two year process) and Gormely was more or less speaking off his own bat. That is the clear implication from the Tanaiste's less than clear line of answering to Brian Hayes in the Dail the other day.

Deputy Brian Hayes: The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government informed the Seanad last night that it is the Government's intention to reform the Upper House. In particular, there is a proposal to reform the university seats by merging the two panels together and extending the franchise to all graduates. The latter proposal would implement a referendum decision of the electorate in 1979. When are we likely to see the legislation to implement these proposals? The only way to effect the changes is through primary legislation. Assuming this is an agreed Government initiative, what timeframe is envisaged for its implementation?

The Tánaiste: The Minister pointed out that, in principle, we are of the view that extending the franchise should form part of prospective future reform of the Seanad. He took the first opportunity yesterday to give that indication in the Seanad. I am sure it will be welcomed by Members on all sides of the House given that it is a long-standing recommendation and one that will reflect the far greater participation we are pleased to have reached in third level education. There are many graduates who should have voting rights to those seats along with those who traditionally held them in the past when the situation was different.

The question of when legislation will be brought forward-----

Deputy Róisín Shortall: Surely that is elitism.

The Tánaiste: It is the very antithesis of elitism to extend voting rights to all third level graduates.

An Ceann Comhairle: We cannot have a debate on this issue or we will be here all day.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: Why should voting rights be confined to third level graduates?

The Tánaiste: I never thought I would hear a Labour Party Deputy defend the current situation in regard to Seanad seats.

Deputy Emmet Stagg: We do not defend it; we wish to change it.

The Tánaiste: As they say in my part of the country, that beats Banagher.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: My point is that there is no reason that those who had the benefit of attending third level should have separate representation in the Upper House. There is no justification for that.

Deputy Eamon Gilmore: There should be universal suffrage.

Deputy Brian Hayes: There is much to be said about the rotten boroughs that exist. I thank the Tánaiste for his reply. Has a memorandum gone to the Government on this specific issue or was the Minister winging it last night when he spoke in the Seanad?

The Tánaiste: The Minister gave his views-----

Deputy Brian Hayes: That is my point; he gave his views.

The Tánaiste: No. He gave the Government's views on this matter as part of a wider prospect of reform that should take place. Deputy Brian Hayes may one day get to make a ministerial speech - which I hope he will, although not in the near future.

(Interruptions).

The Tánaiste: In any case, I hope he will be making speeches as a Deputy rather than a Senator. It is possible for a Minister to give his or her views without a memo to Government. Deputy Hayes should not be too stilted if he ever gets the job.

Deputy Michael D. Higgins: The Minister is simply making a narrative.

Deputy Brian Hayes: There is no legislation proposed. The Tánaiste said this proposal is part of a broader review. In other words, nothing will have happened in five years' time.

The Tánaiste: That is not the case. Deputy Hayes should accept when somebody says something new.

"We would like to see further work ongoing in Dublin to give us and our constituents in particular the right to be represented in our national parliament," she said.

This very well may be a first step towards a united Ireland.

Sources: BBC

"Yes, I do take drugs . . . just coke though . . . regularly enough. I'm certainly not the only one around here [the Dail] that does."

On 11 November of this year RTE confirmed the existence of the taped interview but today the journalist says she no longer has the recording of the admission. Does she or doesn't she? The questions remain and as the Gardai, ministers within the Dail, and the public get involved I'm sure we haven't heard the last of this.

Sources: The Independent Sunday Tribune

As Enda Kenny rightly highlighted in his speech, the politics of Ireland will remain centrist. The challenge we face in FG is to provide clearly Fine Gael solutions within that context to the problems facing the country, and this is centrally a useful way to come up with radical proposals in that regard. As Enda further pointed out in his speech "we came close to Government. It would be easy for us to think that a little bit more of the same will get us over the line the next time. It won't." We need to remember that over the coming months, and vigorously embrace initiatives such as this.

Such an approach requires an honest engagement from the upper echelons of the party to  the outside ideas and influences, and in particular to the many people within the party who are have first hand expertise in the areas under scrutiny. And in return, the membership should actively engage in the debate. If not directly involved, party members should look to foster their own debate on the issues, and promote their own thinking. This blog will look to help in that regard by inviting people to contribute their views on the 4 areas over the coming weeks.

This is an opportunity for a fresh approach to be taken to many of the issues which despite our recent prosperity have not been tackled.  It is an opportunity which the party should vigorously engage with after this week, and it is an opportunity to which all party members and supporters should take.

The four areas highlighted by Enda Kenny for discussion:

1. A Competitive and Green Economy - Achieving Strong and Sustainable Growth in Employment and Living Standards Across the Country

2. Public Services - Delivering Quality Public Services like Education and Health

3. Trust in Politics - Empowering Citizens and Restoring Political Accountability

4. Families and Communities - Balancing the Needs of Family, Community and the Economy and tackling long term issues like poverty and deprived communities .   

Past opinion polls suggest that when the media or the opposition has probed the Taoiseach on cash provided to him, Fianna Fail support has held steady, or even increased. Though it is quite likely that revelations on the Taoiseach's finances played some part in the poor showing by the Progressive Democrats in the election, history suggests that further revelations are unlikely to turn off Fianna Fail voters. Regardless of the short term impact of these matters on party political support, it is inevitable that they undermine public confidence in politicians generally. Proactive steps need to be taken to demonstrate to the public that Irish political parties can meet the best international standards for probity.

With the Green Party and the Progressive Democrats now tied to Fianna Fail for perhaps the next five years, Fine Gael is positioned to lead the debate on this issue. The most immediate areas for reform seem to be public appointments by ministers, campaign spending and fund raising. Hundreds of state positions are filled in the lifetime of every government by ministerial appointment. While criteria are set for the various state boards and offices to be filled, a significant numbers of them are filled with supporters of government parties with little oversight.

Such cronyism means that it is unlikely that the most suitable person for the role is appointed. As a result, not only are salaries, expenses and perks given to the wrong person, but key decisions concerning matters of state are taken by under qualified individuals. Fine Gael could begin the public discussion on how to reform these public appointments. The party could explore how to establish transparent, fair and effective procedures for the majority of appointments. Prospective appointees for the most significant positions could be vetted by the relevant Oireachtas committees.

The same committees or the Public Accounts Committee could be given the power to investigate more minor appointments where they believe established procedure may not have been followed. The legislation that limits electoral spending has been shown to be flawed as parties and candidates spend significant amounts of money campaigning throughout the electoral cycle, not just after an election is called.

Minister John Gormley has suggested that he will be reviewing this legislation. The raising of political funds should also be discussed, considering the levels of money that should come from the exchequer and the levels to be raised privately. In leading these discussions Fine Gael should remember the lessons from its earlier unilateral ban on corporate donations. Proposed changes should be discussed at the parliamentary level first.

The party should aim for cross-party support for any steps to be taken. And the party should seek to reform political standards without attempting to take the moral high crowd. Any posturing on these matters for electoral gain is likely to be transparent to the electorate. Reform should be sought for the benefits that it will bring to Irish politics as a whole rather than merely for interests of anyone political party.