But a lot has changed in those eight years on the issue of gay marriage. Then it seemed destined to be a nice feature of certain liberal enclaves, whether in the US or in Europe. Now it seems an inevitability, only a matter of time across most of the developed world. Last year, public tracking polling by Gallup showed for the first time that a majority of Americans supported legal gay marriage, with 53% in favour and 45% against. The figures in 2004 were 55% in favour, and 42% against. The figures in 2004 were 42% in favour and 55% against, and they remained steady till last year. An annual tracking poll should be reliable, but in case it looks too sudden to be credible, it was corroborated by similar figures from the Washington Post (53%) and CNN (51%).

President Barack Obama speaks to the Human Rights Coalition

Does anyone really think President Obama is in the shrinking minority of Democrats who are against equal marriage? I think he has actually supported it from as early as 1996, and has been telling us otherwise for political advantage. His Department of Justice has stopped defending the Defense of Marriage Act. So of course it would the most honest thing to tell us what he really thinks. By continuing to oppose, he provides ammunition to the opposition, who can say, “Even Obama only supports civil unions”. His answer to the question in 2008, citing religious reasons, was used in phone calls by the Yes side in Proposition 8. If he leaves an announcement till a second term, it could well be accused of political cowardice on the issue.

But even aside from the moral argument, I think it could make political sense. His position would become an accepted fact by the autumn, rather than being raised and pressed particularly during the height of the election campaign. He would boost the turnout and activism of unaffiliated gay rights groups and give liberals who have become disenchanted with him a reason to turn out. I am going to acknowledge personal bias and geographical distance, but I don’t believe it would particularly swing Independent voters against him, bearing the figure above in mind. It would though affect the Republican primary race. It would make that great defender of traditional marriage, Newt Gingrich, yet more likely in Florida, as conservative voters move towards him to make a point. It could ensure that the loathsome Rick Santorum raises money to stay in the race longer and remind voters of the worst aspects of the Republican Party. And it would force Mitt Romney, still the likely Republican nominee, to take a stance that could turn off Independent voters.

As long the US Constitution has the Fourteenth Amendment, I would see questions of equality between citizens as a federal matter, agreeing with the American Foundation for Equal Rights, and their case as explained by Boies and Olson. But what’s legally reasonable is not always politically so. What Barack Obama should do then later today in his State of the Union would be to say something like, “Last year, we saw the New York Assembly pass a Marriage Equality Act. That was a joyous day, when politicians reached across the aisle to find what they believed was the best way to protect equal rights for all its citizens. You have all heard commentary on my evolving view on this issue, and events this past year have led me to support marriage for all couples. This is a matter that I believe best determined at a state level, but I pledge my full support to the Respect for Marriage Act so that those legally married at home can be recognized by the federal government”.

I found the framing device of the story told as a series of memories of a Thatcher suffering from dementia distasteful and almost voyeuristic. The moment in the opening sequence when we realise that the Dennis Thatcher she is speaking is her delusion seems played as a gag.

It’s not unusual for a biopic to start at the end of a life and look back. We’ve seen it in Gandhi, Lawrence of Arabia, and many others. Maybe the fictional account in Citizen Kane was the best early use of this. But we rarely have the later years dominating. A fault more of the production company than the director, but it was not marketed in this way. There is only the briefest hint from the trailer of this, but you can’t rely trailers (you could have bee forgiven from the trailer of A Single Man in thinking Firth and Moore played romantic leads).

What it missed was a real sense of what made her such an iconic figure. It wasn’t just that she was a woman in an overwhelmingly male environment, or that she kept her pearls. she is remembered, fondly or hatefully, for the policies that would be considered Thatcherism. We catch elements of this in the film, but only through her discussions with her cabinet members. And even at that, these scenes are not sustained enough before flashing forward to the ailing Thatcher thinking back to those better days.

What it crucially misses is a sense of the change in Britain from her premiership. We know from crowds banging on her car window that she wasn’t universally liked. And that Geoffrey Howe was bad at spelling so was embarrassed into leaving the cabinet. But it seems odd to have had a film of Thatcher without the characters of Arthur Scargill or Neil Kinnock. Michael Foot features, but only across the dispatch box in the chamber. To some her fight against the miners showed she would let Britain be held back by inefficient industries; to others it showed her callousness towards the devastation of communities. But for either, it was a crucial episode in her career. Or as she is considered to have played an important role in the years leading up to the end of the Soviet Union and the Iron Curtain, surely Ronald Reagan could have featured in a speaking role?

The only episode to get the treatment close to what it deserves was the Falklands War. Yet even there, the film does not convey how it was her success that that led her win the 1983 general election she might otherwise have lost. Even at that more generally, and maybe I like these details more than most, but there was hardly a mention, let alone a portrayal on screen, of the fact that she won three successive elections. Aside from a brief montage scene, there was little hint of the way of what British society was like and how it changed during the eighties.

The film does what the director wants it to do, in showing how an illness and the loss of a loved one can affect the life of someone, even one as influential as Thatcher. But this is not the biopic she deserves. One that truly shows why so many loved her, why so many hated her. Why they cared. It will be made again. It is a pity though, as Meryl Streep was excellent in this, that she will not be in that film.

With this and current polling trends in mind, Mitt Romney should fare quite well in the primary and caucuses before Super Tuesday on 6 March:

• 3 January – Iowa: Romney polling ahead
• 10 January – New Hampshire: Romney polling ahead

quite comfortably

• 21 January – South Carolina: Gingrich polling ahead
• 31 January – Florida: Romney marginally ahead in latest poll; predicting him rather than Gingrich, polling second, assuming Gingrich loses steam after poor IA and NH finishes
• 4 February – Nevada: Romney, based on 2008
• 7 February – Colorado: Romney, based on 2008
• 7 February – Minnesota: Romney, based on 2008; even if it is Bachmann’s home state, she’s faring very poorly
• 11 February – Maine: Romney, based on 2008
• 28 February – Michigan: Romney, based on 2008
• 28 February – Arizona: no lead
• 3 March – Washington: no lead

This is unscientific, so if you have better clues on any of these, let me know. And I don’t mean to suggest either that he would lock out any contenders before 6 March, even if he wins all these, as he could win them only marginally, with rivals taking plenty of delegates from these contests too. And there are ten contests on Super Tuesday that could change things a lot. But if he wins both Iowa and New Hampshire, he will be the first Republican since Ronald Reagan in 1980 to do so. Not a bad start at all so.

Edit: But Romney is only marginally ahead in the Iowa polls. If Rick Santorum or Ron Paul win, I’d still see most of the above panning out the same, except with Romney in a weaker position against Gingrich in Florida.

Jon Huntsman served as ambassador to Singapore from 1992 to 1993, worked in business till he was appointed Deputy United States Trade Representative in 2001 by President Bush, and in this role helped bring the Republic of China (Taiwan) and the People’s Republic of China into the WTO. He served as governor of Utah from 2005 to 2009, and as Ambassador to China from 2009 to 2011, appointed by President Obama. Through these positions, he has an understanding of international relations, and the role the US plays, already more developed than most presidential candidates, in this season or in past years. He showed patriotism by accepting an ambassadorial position under this current Democratic administration, when it would have been better for his prospects in the Republican primaries to have continued as governor.

Though very much the most moderate of the Republican candidates, he is a fiscal hawk. In 2008, the Cato Institute, a libertarian think-tank, ranked Huntsman in fifth place among governors on fiscal policy, on level with Republicans Rick Perry of Texas and Jim Gibbons of Nevada. His economic and taxation policy is focused on reducing corporate welfare and other tax expenditures. Yet in August, he was the only one of the Republican candidates to approve of the deal between the president and the House on the debt ceiling, calling it “a positive step toward cutting our nation’s crippling debt.”

While his support for civil unions rather than marriage for gay couples still places him behind the population at large in tracking polls, he is one of only two Republican candidates not to have signed the National Organization for Marriage’s anti-equality pledge, the other being Ron Paul. He showed disdain for the anti-evolution views and climate change skepticism of fellow candidate Gov. Rick Perry, tweeting during the summer, “To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy.” On immigration, he appealed during one of the debates to the example of Vancouver to claim that immigration would help the economy.

So I would not hesitate to vote for Jon Huntsman from the Republican field. But the many reasons I like him are part of the reasons he has featured so poorly among Republican primary voters. Unfortunately too for Huntsman, the fact that both himself and Mitt Romney, the likely nominee, are both Mormons, means he is unlikely to even be selected as the vice presidential candidate. The best he has to hope for on current polls is coming third in New Hampshire.

The race in Iowa is currently between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. Paul had been ahead before Christmas, and crucially before the focus on his newsletters in the 1990s full of racist slurs. If his loss were attributable to that, it could be taken as a welcome assertion from voters that such things are not acceptable. However, if Paul did win, I would not see it conversely as endorsement of anything in the newsletters. Apart from the newsletters, I have plenty of issues with Paul, even from within a libertarian framework; he favours restrictions on immigration and supports the Defense of Marriage Act; in 2008 he supported the extremely anti-libertarian Constitution Party in the general election; he has associated with the paranoid John Birch Society. But it is not for these reasons that he has done well this year. Last week, Glenn Greenwald excellently catalogued the many ways in which Paul has defended issues which liberals of all varieties agree on, but which have been absent from public discussion since Barack Obama became president. These include war; due process for all, including suspected terrorists; prohibition on drugs; whistle-blowers against the state; drone attacks; infringements of civil liberties; and US foreign policy towards Israel and Iran. So while I would not myself vote for him, I could not see the electoral success of a candidate with these positions as in itself a Bad Thing.

We will probably see the success tomorrow of a man who lacks any backbone, in Mitt Romney. A world I can live with, I suppose. As long as it’s not the reprehensible Rick Santorum, who worryingly is rising in the polls.

In 1980, George H. W. Bush won 6 states, with Ronald Reagan winning the remaining 44. Bush was selected as Reagan’s Vice President, and after Reagan’s two terms was the nominee in 1988.

In 1988, Bob Dole won 5 states and Pat Robertson won 4 states, with Vice President Bush winning the remaining 41 states. Bush was elected president, contesting again in 1992. In 1996, Bob Dole was the nominee.

The pattern doesn’t hold between 1996 and 2000. Bob Dole win 44 states, Bat Buchanan won 4, and Steve Forbes won 2, whereas George W. Bush was the nominee in 2000.

In 2000, John McCain won 7 states to Bush’s 43. Bush was elected president, contesting again in 2004. Then in 2008, McCain was the nominee.

In 2008, Mitt Romney won 11 states, Mike Huckabee won 7, with McCain winning the remaining 31. Now Romney looks the most likely to win this year’s nomination, though it is by no means secure for him.

But Congressman Ron Paul is not a candidate I could endorse for either the presidency or even, as Andrew Sullivan did last week, for the Republican nomination. In that endorsement, Sullivan refers somewhat obliquely to serious mark on Paul’s character with a single line, “He has had associations in the past that are creepy when not downright ugly”. This is something that deserves much more notice than this, and it is to Sullivan’s discredit that he did so little to address it.

In an article in The New Republic earlier this year, ‘A Libertarian’s Lament: Why Ron Paul Is an Embarrassment to the Creed’, Will Wilkinson recounts how Paul should fail to satisfy a libertarian, such as on issues such as immigration. (My favourite line in the piece is one that refers to Rick Santorum, “In 2006, I tossed a few dollars at the Democrat running for Senate against the loathsome Rick Santorum. It could have been a three-headed goat, for all I cared, but Wikipedia says it was Bob Casey.”) Most importantly in a judgement of character, in my view, is the reference to racist material published under his name in a regular newsletter.

This received coverage during the 2008 campaign, but at a time when Paul’s polling was considerably lower than this year. As he has become a contender, it has rightly reemerged.

It is widely believed that these newsletters were mainly written by Lew Rockwell, chief of staff to Paul from 1978 to 1982, and in 1982 founded of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, an organization which has a worrying interest in the Confederacy. The contents of these newsletters, have been scanned online and can be read with controversial elements highlighted. These are rife with attacks on black and gay people, and include tacit support for David Duke, a renowned racist politician.

This was reported by James Kirchick in The New Republic, a liberal, Democratic-leaning magazine in their issue of 8 January, 2008.

Paul issued a statement on this that day, which given my criticism of him, I should quote in full:

The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.

In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person’s character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’

This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It’s once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.

When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.

This was followed by articles in Reason, a libertarian magazine, by Matt Welch on 11 January and by Julian Sanchez and David Weigel in their issue of 16 January. This is perhaps most revealing, with the political thinking behind the content of the newsletters,

During the period when the most incendiary items appeared—roughly 1989 to 1994—Rockwell and the prominent libertarian theorist Murray Rothbard championed an open strategy of exploiting racial and class resentment to build a coalition with populist “paleoconservatives,” producing a flurry of articles and manifestos whose racially charged talking points and vocabulary mirrored the controversial Paul newsletters recently unearthed by The New Republic.

David Boaz, vice president of the libertarian Cato Insitute, issued a statement explaining their silence to date on the Paul campaign. They were treated by some supporters of Paul as heretics, and accused of libertarian infighting. Julian Sanchez responded to a lot of these fringe criticisms in detail.

In the second round of the controversy, four years later, Ta-Nehisi Coates, a senior editor of The Atlantic has put the case against Paul well and succinctly,

The standard defense has generally been Paul didn’t write the newsletters. I think an honest reckoning with that defense would have someone question the faculties of an adult who would allow a newsletter filled–by Paul’s own admission–with bigotry to be published under one’s name. Had I spent a decade stewarding an eponymous publication steeped in homophobia and anti-Semitism, I would not expect my friends and colleagues to accept an “I didn’t write it”excuse.

I think it is credible, indeed likely, that Ron Paul did not write the offensive material himself. It would not be at all unusual in the political world that the political writing of a representative would be penned by their staff or outsourced further, particularly in the case of a journal which he had given his name to, rather than one coming from his office. But it is inconceivable that for years on end, Paul had no idea what was being published under his name. He was willing to allow ignorant fears of black people and crime and of gay men through the AIDS epidemic to be used to build political support. This is surely grounds for considering him unworthy of support during this primary season.

The important message from her speech is that she is not talking about any special rights for gay people, as Governor Rick Perry so wilfully misunderstands.
As Clinton says,

Some have suggested that gay rights and human rights are separate and distinct; but, in fact, they are one and the same. Now, of course, 60 years ago, the governments that drafted and passed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights were not thinking about how it applied to the LGBT community. They also weren’t thinking about how it applied to indigenous people or children or people with disabilities or other marginalized groups. Yet in the past 60 years, we have come to recognize that members of these groups are entitled to the full measure of dignity and rights, because, like all people, they share a common humanity.

This recognition did not occur all at once. It evolved over time. And as it did, we understood that we were honoring rights that people always had, rather than creating new or special rights for them. Like being a woman, like being a racial, religious, tribal, or ethnic minority, being LGBT does not make you less human. And that is why gay rights are human rights, and human rights are gay rights.

It is wrong to make legal distinctions, prohibitions against lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender people because no one should be subject to any special exception from human rights. It is not about creating exceptions, but ending them. Culture and religion can be no excuse for an infringement on human rights.

As I posted on Facebook, she didn’t start being great on Tuesday. This speech consciously mirrors her speech in Beijing at the Fourth World Conference on Women. This is a speech should be read again now by all those inspired by her speech on Tuesday,

It is time for us to say here in Beijing, and for the world to hear, that it is no longer acceptable to discuss women’s rights as separate from human rights.

These abuses have continued because, for too long, the history of women has been a history of silence. Even today, there are those who are trying to silence our words. But the voices of this conference and of the women at Huairou must be heard loudly and clearly:

It is a violation of human rights when babies are denied food, or drowned, or suffocated, or their spines broken, simply because they are born girls.

It is a violation of human rights when women and girls are sold into the slavery of prostitution for human greed — and the kinds of reasons that are used to justify this practice should no longer be tolerated.

It is a violation of human rights when women are doused with gasoline, set on fire, and burned to death because their marriage dowries are deemed too small.

It is a violation of human rights when individual women are raped in their own communities and when thousands of women are subjected to rape as a tactic or prize of war.

It is a violation of human rights when a leading cause of death worldwide among women ages 14 to 44 is the violence they are subjected to in their own homes by their own relatives.

It is a violation of human rights when young girls are brutalized by the painful and degrading practice of genital mutilation.

It is a violation of human rights when women are denied the right to plan their own families, and that includes being forced to have abortions or being sterilized against their will.

If there is one message that echoes forth from this conference, let it be that human rights are women’s rights and women’s rights are human rights once and for all. Let us not forget that among those rights are the right to speak freely — and the right to be heard.

The problems she refers to are unfortunately as alive today as they were 16 years ago, and we must continue to scrutinize our approaches to human rights issues around the world to ensure that we do not place the right to life and personal autonomy of any individual on a lower scale for any reason.

Also, the following were elected unopposed:

• Douglas Hyde in 1938
• Seán T. O’Kelly in 1952
• Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh in 1974
• Patrick Hillery in 1976
• Patrick Hillery in 1983
• Mary McAleese in 2004

(A Tale of Two Cities, Charles Dickens)

Congratulations first to Michael D. Higgins, who will be deemed elected as Ireland’s ninth president this afternoon. As someone who has spent a political career with a broad view of Irish culture and society, I’m confident he will serve us well. Congratulations also to Patrick Nulty, who won the bye-election, a man very far from my own politics, though one who will be a strong contributor in the Dáil and an interesting dynamic in this coalition. It was the first time since July 1982 that a candidate from a government party won a bye-election.

Yesterday’s election results were undeniably a bad day for Fine Gael. Gay Mitchell’s fourth place finish at 6.4% was by a good stretch the lowest the party has polled to date in any national election, with the 17% Austin Currie received in the 1990 presidential bid the next worst. In Dublin West, Eithne Loftus also finished fourth, though with a more respectable 15%. I would commiserate both candidates, and indeed all candidates in these elections. Particularly in the case of the presidential campaign, it was a very public and difficult campaign for them.

While the result for the party could have been devastating in 1990, when Currie’s performance led to the resignation of Alan Dukes as party leader, or had this occurred any time before the February election, where Fine Gael won 36% of the vote, becoming the largest party in terms of both votes and seats for the first time. That the party could win the most number of Dáil seats in its history and then poll its lowest result, requires a more complex relationship and response.

I think some within the party misinterpreted the results of the February general election. It was a vote of support for a manifesto promising reform and competent government, and for the strong team of prospective ministers. But having come so recently to the party, the general election results did not mean that 36% of the electorate were now dependable Fine Gael voters. There was no good reason to assume on the basis of this result that it was now Fine Gael’s turn to be the dominant party for 79 years. In the selection of the presidential candidate, some within the party seemed to work on the assumption that having got into a habit of voting Fine Gael earlier this year, people would naturally come out and vote for the Fine Gael candidate for president, putting the party on a starting platform at that level and with that lead on a first count, transfers would inevitably put them over the line. As it was Fine Gael’s best chance to date to win the presidency (and next to 1966, it almost certainly was), many within the party felt it natural that it should be someone who had served the party well and loyally through many years. Gay Mitchell was electorally successful at the time when Fine Gael’s popularity was low, one of three TDs to retain their seats in Dublin in 2002. He had a strong electoral track record till then, not losing a single public poll, though he had come fourth in the leadership contest after the 2002 election.

It was the party convention that selected him, with a broad base of the parliamentary party, councillor and the national executive. And Mitchell was encouraged to seek the party’s nomination by a number of TDs, as well as by former party leader and Taoiseach, John Bruton.

But many of the things which Gay Mitchell used publicly to present himself as a the best candidate to the Fine Gael Presidential Convention were things that made him a less appealing candidate to the electorate at large. He appealed to the fact that he had been a party member from the age of 16, whereas another of the candidates had only joined that week. While a reference to a mere 100 days as a party member might have dissuaded other party members, it means little to the public at large, the overwhelming number of them are not members of Fine Gael, and would not consider joining, even if they would vote for us. We have to avoid falling into the trap of thinking that either personalities or policies are good or bad because of their relationship to different parties. This is perhaps most true of the office of president, given that office-holders are expected to sever formal links with their party, but it is true more generally

The problem with focusing so much on an appeal to party members brings to mind the problem with a focus on Buy Irish as a means of economic development; just as a country’s industry will not become rich relying on its compatriots, but by being good enough that others will buy them too, someone cannot win a 50%+1 election relying on their own party’s base. Statements during the campaign that Mitchell would be a good choice because he would be able to work closely with Enda Kenny as Taoiseach probably fell entirely on deaf ears because of people’s perception of the nature of the role of president.

Mitchell’s appeal to Christian democracy held sway within certain sections of Fine Gael, but it immediately turned off large sections of the wider public. This is something we should certainly take heed from. While the airing of particular points of view in the Christian democratic tradition did not affect the party that much in February, without being part of a broader package of economic competence and reform to balance it, it did have an effect.

The most important thing I think we should get from this, to avoid the hubris of thinking that at 36% in the election, and still at around that figure in opinion polls, that the public at large support us because we are Fine Gael, rather than because of what we proposed and are doing in government. In contrasting the results between February and October, and indeed from the party’s electoral history since 1933, I don’t think it is even fair to consider yesterday’s vote the core Fine Gael support. This should not in any respect affect Enda Kenny’s strength as Taoiseach and leader of Fine Gael. And because we are still doing well in polls, and because I believe the country will be in better place in 2016, I would not really hold to the “despair” in the epithet above.

There is a similar lesson from the 30th Amendment Bill, the proposal to allow for Oireachtas Inquiries, and in this case, Labour also fell foul of the trap of hubris. We don’t yet know if it will be defeated, but it seems more likely than not. During the general election campaign, both parties promised citizens’ engagement with the reform of the Constitution and the political process. We are delivering on this, with the Constitutional Convention in the new year. But these Amendments could easily have been part of that, and I think it should now be considered bad practice in most instances, outside of very technical amendments like that on Local Government in 1999, to schedule referendums on the same day as other elections.

It involved the insertion of a new Article 28.4.3°: -

The confidentiality of discussions at meetings of the Government shall be respected in all circumstances save only where the High Court determines that disclosure should be made in respect of a particular matter –

1. in the interests of the administration of justice by a Court, or
2. by virtue of an overriding public interest, pursuant to an application in that behalf by a tribunal appointed by the Government or a Minister of the Government on the authority of the Houses of the Oireachtas to inquire into a matter stated by them to be of public importance.

The amendment was supported by the five leading parties; the wording had originally been drafted during the lifetime of the Fine Gael–Labour–Democratic Left coalition, and the coalition of Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats, which had been in government since June, carried the amendment bill forward, proposing it in September.

It was opposed within the Dáil by the Green Party, whose John Gormley described the attempt to railroad the amendment as “tantamount to blackmail” (The Irish Times, 28 Oct. 1997).

More notably and contentious politically, it was also opposed by senior figures within the Progressive Democrats. Party founder and former leader, Des O’Malley, then a backbench government TD, criticised the bill in the Dáil as being too restrictive. He spoke (Vol. 480, No. 4, Col. 680) of his own experiences of a Minister, and the effect the amendment would have on the ability of former ministers to write memoirs,

I was a Minister for 13 years and I know it is usual to speak with the Secretary. Will this now be illegal? Frequently it is necessary to speak with a number of civil servants about matters discussed at Cabinet. This is perfectly proper but the current proposal will make it illegal.

I am in the unusual position of having resigned, for good reason, on two occasions from Government. I know the procedure and the trauma occasioned by this. At present there is an absolute right for a Minister to explain to the House why he resigned from Cabinet. However, what is now proposed will preclude him from doing so. This is ridiculous.

It is a tradition in Britain and less so here that former Ministers write their memoirs. Two were written here in recent years by former Deputies Garret FitzGerald and Gemma Hussey. Both quote extensively from what was said and done at Cabinet meetings. In Britain, almost every former Minister writes his or her memoirs, quoting extensively from Cabinet discussions. Bona fide students of history need to know what discussions take place in Cabinet but now they will not be able to find out.

He criticized the rush of the bill, and called for it to be redrafted and delayed until the vote on the Amsterdam Treaty (which ultimately took place in May 1998).

Also outspoken was former Progressive Democrat TD (and future party leader), Michael McDowell. He publicly clashed with Mary Harney, then leader, after he wrote in an article for the Irish Independent that the proposal was “the predictable consequence of running the country out of the hip pocket and handbag of coalition leaders, without consultation or reflection”. He had also around this time criticized Mary Harney for rowing in behind Fianna Fáil and giving formal party support to Mary McAleese as a presidential candidate. He announced on Questions and Answers that he intended to allow his party membership to last until March. Significantly however, he would “not unequivocally rule out any future role in politics” (The Irish Times, 25 Oct. 1997).

The Irish Times editorial line was opposed to the referendum, with a heading “Vote No” to the editorial on the day of the vote and columnists Dr Garret FitzGerald, former Taoiseach, and Vincent Browne also wrote against it. Garret FitzGerald criticized the way that “the best that two successive government have been able to come up with has been a constitutional amendment for just two very specific and limited exceptions, outside of which the dangerous rigidity of Supreme Court’s ruling will continue to operate in a thoroughly perverse way”. He echoed O’Malley’s concerns of the right of resigning ministers to give an explanation, a right of a minister to discuss cabinet with civil servants, and the effect it would have on historians (18 Oct. 1997). Vincent Browne proposed an alternative constitutional amendment, “The confidentiality of government discussions shall not be a matter of Constitutional right but shall be regulated by law” (29 Oct. 1997), and expressed confidence that a further appeal to the Supreme Court would overturn their ruling of 1992.

The Irish Council for Civil Liberties opposed the amendment on similar grounds to those of Des O’Malley and Garret FitzGerald mentioned above (The Irish Times, 27 Oct. 1997).

It would be a stretch to draw any direct parallels between the referendum on cabinet confidentiality and tomorrow’s referendum on Oireachtas inquiries, it is interesting at least to find Michael McDowell, the Green Party, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties and The Irish Times, (and Vincent Browne as a columnist), again on the same side calling for a No vote. (And it was also Brendan Howlin who spoke for the Labour Party in the Dáil supporting the Amendment).

Ultimately, it passed by 52% to 48%, with 5% of votes spoiled. I would imagine that tomorrow’s vote on Oireachtas inquiries will be similarly tight, and again with a high proportion of votes spoiled.

It is likely that there will a large proportion of non-transferable votes by the last count, as many might not fill their ballot to the candidates remaining by that point; for example, if someone voted 1 McGuinness, 2 Norris, 3 Davis, and left the rest blank, their ballot would not be in contention between the two candidates currently leading the polls.

Here then is a summary of the three elections to date with more than two candidates, to give an impression of the proportion of votes that were transferable to candidates in the last count, and how heavily they favoured particular candidates. In both 1945 and 1990, the Fianna Fáil candidate fared poorly on transfers, and in 1990, it was enough to push Robinson ahead of Lenihan on the second count. As polls this weekend stand (Irish Times/MRBI, SBP/Red C, Sunday Times/Behaviour and Attitudes), Michael D. Higgins will have to both narrow the gap on first preferences between himself and Sean Gallagher, and win an a significantly greater proportion of the transfers than him on successive counts to win this.

1945

1990

1997

Note: The percentages next to the column for the second count give the percentage of the transfers received by the remaining candidates and those not transferred, not the percentage of total remaining votes.

This year, that figure has jumped to twenty-five, nominating four candidates between them, Mary Davis, Sean Gallagher, David Norris and Dana Rosemary Scallon. The bulk of these voted for Mary Davis (full breakdown below).

So we now have a field of seven candidates, with more than half nominated by Councils rather than by Oireachtas members: Mary Davis, Michael D. Higgins, Sean Gallagher, Martin McGuinness, Gay Mitchell and Dana Rosemary Scallon.

This system of nomination for the presidency has long been criticized. In researching the elections, I came across a report from The Irish Times of 26 May 1973, in which Labour Chief Whip Barry Desmond said of the “rather outdated Constitutional requirements … I would hope that in any further revision of our Constitution this question will receive objective review … with a view to broadening the democratic aspects of the scope of the nomination”.

Throughout the years, candidates who had made their wishes to contest known and who have received national media attention have failed in their attempts to win the support of councils: Alfie Byrne in 1938, Patrick McCartan in 1945 (who later secured the signatures of Labour and Clann na Talmhan TDs in an individual capacity), Eoin O’Mahony in 1966 and 1973 and Dana in 2004.

Michael Gallagher recently outlined alternative methods of securing based on signatures. If we were to move towards linking PPS numbers with the electoral register, it should not be difficult to prevent duplication and fraud, if signatories had to sign in with ID and be crossed off a database at their local Garda station. I don’t think our current system, with some sort of vetting procedure is so outrageous by international comparisons, but there is clearly demand for a change to the system to be explored. And particularly if the size of the Oireachtas is to be reduced, it will be more difficult yet to reach 20 Oireachtas signatures. We might consider a figure such as 20,000 electors, as is the case in Finland, or 50,000, which was the number who could force a referendum under the Constitution of the Irish Free State.

But while we have the current system, aspiring candidates should treat the system respectfully. Cllr Paul McAuliffe’s speech last night highlighted perhaps the biggest problem David Norris faced with councils. While his supporters had taken the time to write to him, he had not heard from Norris himself. While one might not agree with the current system, it does put either Oireachtas members or councillors in a position where they have to publicly consider the merits of a prospective candidate. Nominations from Councils are more anonymous on the nomination form, they are listed by locality, rather than specifying any voting record, making them amenable to Independents, presumably designed with that in mind. While we do have the system, we should consider what it does mean for a representative at local or national level to take their Constitutional obligation seriously, while retaining an expectation that they would facilitate a candidate in most cases. Had Norris picked six councils, which based on political alignment he believed he would have had the best chance with, and taken the time to meet with sufficient councillors there, he would likely have secured his nomination with greater ease. It would have been harder for the councillors in South Dublin or Cork to have voted against him had they had a meaningful conversation with him. Though it would have taken effort, it is how Mary Davis managed to secure such support.Here is a table summary of the Councils which nominated candidates in 1997 and for this year’s election:

Sources for the table: Wikipedia, contact with Aisling Kerr in Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government.

Seán T. O’Kelly, then Tánaiste and Minister for Finance, was chosen as the Fianna Fáil party candidate. Fine Gael had been declining in support, losing seats and votes at each election since 1933, and at the outset were reluctant to contest. On 11 April, The Irish Times reported that the only likely candidate was Dr Patrick McCartan. This report also included a statement from Labour that “no member of the Labour Party in the Oireachtas may sign a nomination on behalf of any Presidential candidate or associate himself in promoting any such candidate”.

Patrick McCartan had been a member of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Dála, elected in 1918, 1921 and 1922. He reluctantly voted for the Treaty, and soon after retreated from political life, not contesting the 1923 general election. By 1945, he was associated with anti-de Valera Republicans, and received the support of the Old Comrades’ Association of the IRA (Irish Times, April 1945). McCartan had to secure the support of either four County Councils or 20 Oireachtas members; he fared poorly with the former, while working quietly on the latter.

The prospect of an Independent candidate spurred Fine Gael to action, who nominated Seán Mac Eoin, an IRA leader during the war of independence. His paper was submitted on 6 May 1945 with 17 Fine Gael signatories, as well as Independent TDs Alfie Byrne, Thomas Reilly and Richard A. Anthony.

On 15 May, Labour Party then reversed their decision, and allowed their members to sign a nomination form, perhaps concerned by then that a straight contest between the two largest parties would give Fine Gael too much of a dominant position within the opposition. Patrick McCartan was nominated with the support of 9 of the 11 Clann na Talmhan TDs, 5 of the eight Labour TDs and 6 Labour Senators. His Labour nominees included future leader Brendan Corish. This year, it is the many Independents, Fianna Fáil, Socialist Party and People Before Profit TDs and Senators who are free from any direct order as to who to nominate, while it is still not precisely sure what Sinn Féin will do.

The high salary of the president, at £22 000, was an issue in the campaign; Clann na Talmhan had agreed to sign McCartan’s form on the condition that he would accept a reduction to £5000 with expenses of £2500.

Patrick McCartan performed reasonably in the election, and transferred relatively strongly to Seán Mac Eoin, despite ideological differences, presaging the success of Clann na Poblachta in 1948 and the formation of the Inter-Party government.

So Seán T. O’Kelly was elected on the second count and was unopposed when he nominated himself for re-election in 1952, serving till 1959.

In any case, a point made on Twitter by mgconnor (of iCampaigned) was that Michelle Gildernew, should she be interested in standing for the Irish presidency, as is speculated, would similarly be expected to resign her seat. It was easy for Adams, as it was a near certainty both that he would succeed Arthur Morgan in Louth (he topped the poll) and that Sinn Féin would win the Belfast West bye-election (Paul Maskey won with 70%).

Neither would be true in the case of Gildernew, who is quite unlikely to win, while she won the Fermanagh–South Tyrone seat for Sinn Féin in 2010 by only 4 votes. Will anyone ask whether she should resign as Adams did, or would she respond that it’s equivalent to Gay Mitchell continuing as an MEP while standing? While that could be fair, it won’t always be as easy for Sinn Féin to transfer representatives across the border as between West Belfast and Louth.

A more pressing issue is how any Sinn Féin candidate would be nominated. With 14 TDs and 3 Senators, they are three short of the 20 Oireachtas members which would nominate a candidate. They could appeal to certain members of Fianna Fáil, particularly as they are not running a candidate, and that there are Fianna Fáil senators who owe their seats to Sinn Féin voters. I’m not sure what the relations are now between their former party colleague, Independent TD Thomas Pringle, but he would be a possibility.

Even at the 10% Sinn Féin achieved at the general election in February, it would be 10% more than Fianna Fáil will receive in this election. Add to that Socialist and People Before Profit voters who would be glad of a left-wing anti-bailout candidate, and they would probably reach around 15% at a first reasonable estimate.

To my mind, this misunderstands what a free society and the free exercise of religion means in its traditional sense. Or at the very least, is not the most classical interpretation of the republican ideal.

The principle of a free and equal society is characterized well by Atticus Finch, who in response to his daughter’s query of the meaning of democracy in To Kill a Mockingbird answers “Equal rights for all, special privileges for none”. In other words, law must apply to every citizen, without a rational basis for distinction such as age. What is lawful for one, is lawful for another; what is wrong for one person to do, does not become right when done by a group.

What does the principle of not prohibiting the free exercise of religion mean in conjunction with the equal right of all? In the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, where it was first most clearly formulated in a legal context, it is linked with the right of free assembly and free speech,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This should be considered in its context in 1789, and in the context too of John Locke’s Letter Concerning Toleration of 1689. The case then was against the established Church of England and the establishment of particular religions in some of the US colonies. Coupled with establishment had been a legal intolerance for the religious assembly of dissenters.

The free exercise of religion guarantees that a meeting of a community which would not otherwise be challenged cannot be prohibited simply that it is a religious meeting. It does not give a cleric the legal right to evade prosecution for not reporting a crime because of the strictures of canon law, just as it would not give an imam the right to oblige members of their community to be subject to Sharia law to their detriment.

As outlined in the Constitution of Ireland, this is even clearer, with a qualification for public order and morality:

44.2.1°

Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion are, subject to public order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen.

It is apparent to me that the code that would allow for the horrific incident outlined in The Irish Times editorial on Thursday, where a priest received absolution on 1,500 occasions for sexually abusing children, lacks basic concepts of morality. But we need not go as far as Australia to find a cleric who would have been charged has a law such as is proposed been in place.

As Carol Hunt recently reminded us, in comparison with another case, Sean Brady was in 1975 party to swearing two children not to reveal that Brendan Smyth had abused them, a man who continued to rape and abuse children until his arrest in 1991, after the Roman Catholic Church moved him from parish to parish. Brady’s fears of the implications of such a new law holding everyone, be they priest or layman, equally accountable for crimes they are aware of, have to be seen in the context of his own digression. It is indeed difficult in this context to understand how he can lay claim to speak with any authority on the subject of morality, or more importantly, how it is that continues to receive an audience.

Presidential campaigns are not easy for any candidate, as Brian Lenihan and Adi Roche found because of how their past actions were interpreted, or as Mary Robinson, Mary McAleese and Mary Banotti found simply because of who they were. A candidate should be prepared, however unreasonable and unjust it may seem, to have their actions during their public career scrutinized, if not those of their entire working life.

But was David Norris subject to extraordinary scrutiny because he was gay? He certainly encountered homophobia, from a councillor in my home town who said that he wouldn’t support David Norris because a man should have a wife, to the caller the Pat Kenny show felt worthy to entertain saying he had a problem with the idea that Norris might bring a man into the Áras as his partner. So yes, part of the extra questioning he went through was plain bigotry, and because something relating to those not close to the mean citizen form a good tabloid headline.

But just because he was under more scrutiny because he was gay, it doesn’t mean it was homophobic. It was inevitable because of his attempt to become the first openly gay elected head of state in modern times. We are still in a place in society where young gay people look for role models, where gay people are conscious how few others there are in public positions, so someone seeking such a position of prominence will receive extraordinary attention.

There was extraordinary euphoria about Norris’s candidacy in part because of the symbolism his election would evoke, as visualised by Jason O’Mahony in his mock-up Time cover. That was bound to evoke corresponding extraordinary skepticism, as people would seek to be sure that he was fully a good candidate in his own right, apart from the headline that would make it worthy of a Time cover, that he wasn’t being let away with something because it was too good a headline to miss. We had to be sure that the aim didn’t become electing a gay president whatever the cost.

With any of the candidates remaining, the only international coverage Ireland will get is possibly in the short snippets of The World this Week at the start of The Economist. They could have said anything during their political careers, and no one outside the country would care. Had David Norris been elected, with the increased global focus came a concern, if subconscious, of what would be in paragraph three of such a story (“His campaign, however, did not avoid controversy …”).

Is this fair. Probably not. A candidate should be judged on their own merits as a candidate, but when he had become the story of the campaign, this was never going to happen. In any case, even it the controversy would not have emerged without a vast right-wing Zionist homophobic conspiracy, we still had to deal with the facts of the case after they emerged.

I very much do not believe that the events of his campaign demonstrate that Irish politics is still a cold place for gay people. Perhaps the reverse, as he himself acknowledged yesterday. The new Dáil began with two openly gay TDs, Dominic Hannigan and John Lyons, as Maman Poulet alluded to this morning. This is a good sign. This got barely half a day’s coverage. This is also a good sign. Bigotry is not dead in Ireland, as Muireann O’Dwyer laid out excellently writing for Tea and Toast, but neither should we believe to think it is truly inhibiting.

I have great respect for his long fight for the decriminalization of homosexuality in face of very conservative opinion of the time, and indeed gratitude that because of his challenge, I would not myself be classed as a criminal. But my hesitancy about Norris probably began when I read his Magill interview in 2002. He was at best careless with his words. Then 15, I found the idea of making excuses for “an older man introducing a younger man or boy to adult life”, talking in terms of his own desires at that age of “an older, attractive, mature man taking me under his wing, lovingly introducing me to sexual realities”, difficult to take. I was disappointed that this is all I was getting from gay public figures.

When this interview resurfaced in recent months, as it surely would, an analogy was made by some that we wouldn’t bat an eyelid if a man said that he wouldn’t have minded being introduced to sexual life by an attractive older woman. But whatever about the desires of the boy, we would surely question the position of such a woman? And what if we hold the sex of the older person constant instead. If the discussion had been about older men introducing girls to adult life and sexual realities, would the controversy have been greater or smaller?

Having said that, I was willing to accept his recent explanation that this was merely an academic discussion, and attribute it to his having had too much wine over dinner. An error of judgement, which could be counted against him, but not something to damn his campaign outright.

In his letter to the Israeli judges, he appeals to the fact that laws against homosexuality had only recently been overturned as a mitigating psychological factor. I find this a disturbing case to make. According to Wikipedia, and I would be happy to be corrected by a more authoritative source, homosexuality was decriminalized in Israel in 1988, while the Attorney-General had in 1963 declared that the law would not be enforced. The event in question happened in 1992. It is true that the criminalization of homosexuality pushed all gay behaviour underground, inhibiting the development of norms of acceptable sexual behaviour. With all sexual acts illegal, the difference of age was just an additional factor in that mix. I could plausibly accept such a factor if it was the first time a man had acted on his gay feelings after a lifetime of repression, while still holding such an adult responsible for their actions. But not when it was after both a ten-year relationship with Norris and decriminalization in Israel.

This also puts in context his claim that his Magill discussion was an academic one about Ancient Greece, and his view that children can be more damaged by the condemnation of the act. He knew in 2002 from events in his own life that these events did not just happen in ancient times.

It does to me highlight the importance of full societal normalization of gay life. A gay boy should not be introduced to sexual life by an older man, but their classmate, after sitting beside him a few times, walking home together, going to the cinema, and what not. And with cautions from society as much in their case as their straight classmates of the risks in sexual activity, of making the right choices, and that they shouldn’t rush into anything. Because they long for their own youth, or plain lust after youthful attraction, older people do find younger people sexually attractive. Be that as it is, societal institutions and norms should correct against this.

We have moved on from Death in Venice situations, where an older man late in life, after heterosexual relations, realizes he is tormented by feelings towards a teen boy, and the teen in turn finds himself intrigued by this whole idea. Some older gay men used the prevailing culture as a justification for seeking to seduce young men, to introduce them to the gay world, having been through the wars themselves, as they might put it. But someone in that situation, perhaps unsure of their own sexuality or of others’ reaction, could be less likely again to tell others of an uncomfortable situation. I myself found at the age of 20 in a situation where someone over 30 years my senior attempted to seduce me; while nothing serious happened, it affected how I saw personal relations for a time after, and I felt it was too easy for him to justify it in his own mind that he was doing me a favour. It was this event that made it difficult to take seriously Norris’s claim that his Magill discussion was merely an academic one.

Other politicians have courted controversy through representations on behalf of those involved in criminal cases, from Kathleen Lynch, Trevor Sargent, Charlie Flanagan, Tony Killeen and Bobby Molloy, facing political consequences depending on their political office at the time. Unfortunately for Norris, this is just one more event in a series of controversies in a poorly managed campaign, that have shown a severe lack of judgement and nuance. Some of the coverage is doubtless motivated by anti-gay feeling or presumption, such as today’s Sunday Independent poll asking whether he should be allowed bring a partner with into the Aras, but it is now much more than that. This is, right or wrong, par for the course for a presidential candidate, as the last two elections attest to. If it was difficult for him to find more than 15 Oireachtas members now, it seems impossible that he will now reach his required 20, and it seems the best option for him to withdraw sooner rather than later.

A final comment, I am glad that we are now in a cultural position where this is unlikely to have any serious effect on the debate for equality in marriage or elsewhere in law, as it might have done a decade ago. We have many more openly gay public figures, with three others currently in the Oireachtas, Dominic Hannigan, John Lyons and Katherine Zappone, and Colm O’Gorman very briefly a Senator a few years ago, to take only political examples. Ultimately, as favourability on these questions depends most on people having gay friends and family, the progress in this regard should continue along strongly.

The most notable call was for the party whip to be relaxed for non-budgetary votes. This was to be on our agenda before Denis Naughton lost the whip for his vote against the government on Roscommon hospital, but the incident served as a concrete example in people’s minds. My own reasoning is that for debates in the Dáil to mean something, there should be times when those speaking should be trying to convince others, and genuinely hope to change their fellow TDs’ minds. There are times watching TDs traipse in to vote by party line on an amendment to a private members’ bill, and then by the same numbers on the new motion, that we may as well have trained monkeys to press the right button. With a government majority so large, this is the perfect opportunity to allow TDs have a say for themselves.

In an effort to strengthen the role of county councils, we passed motions calling for the abolition of town councils, and to remove the right of Oireachtas members to be treated as county councillors at a local level. The latter provision would clearly delineate the distinct roles of local and national politicians, and could be achieved simply by amending the Local Government Act 2003, deleting Section 3. It wouldn’t eliminate TDs acting locally, but it would reduce their capacity to do so.

A motion opposing the government’s proposal on gender quotas was carried. While the participation of women in politics in Ireland is incredibly low by European standards, t is a very blunt instrument, that does not address the deeper structural problems limiting participation. There are ways around it too, such as parties adding women to the ticket where there are already established TDs.

The only proposal that would require a referendum was to lower the age of office for all positions to 18. I can’t imagine a rush of young adults rushing to be elected, but throughout history, and in different countries, there have been those who have led at young ages, whether William Pitt, Michael Collins or Alexander the Great. As any candidate has to be nominated and seek a popular mandate, the constitutional bar seems unnecessary.

This is a full summary of the votes in this political reform session of summer school:

1. Young Fine Gael believes that Town and Borough Councils should be abolished. – Carried
2. Young Fine Gael believes legislation should be brought forward to outlaw members of the Oireachtas making official representations at council level on behalf of individual constituents. – Carried
3. Young Fine Gael calls for the voting age for local elections to be lowered to 16. – Defeated
4. Young Fine Gael calls for the electorate to the presidency to be extended to all Irish citizens, with voting in embassies and by postal vote across the world. – Defeated
5. Young Fine Gael calls for a universal age of 18 for eligibility to serve in political office. – Carried
6. Young Fine Gael opposes the Governments position on the introduction of gender quotas whereupon a political party will have its funding reduced if it does not have a minimum number of female candidates. – Carried
7. Young Fine Gael calls for the whip system to be relaxed in the case of non-budgetary votes. – Carried

Those of you at summer school last year, or that I’ve talked to since or last night on this, know that this is important to me.

For me, this is fundamentally about the hope that I might settle down one day into happily married life, hopefully in a lifelong relationship. The same reasons anyone wants to marry.

Studies on this, and just plain common sense, will tell you that those who are married in committed relationships live longer, healthier and happier lives. Of course having a constant, loving companion can be such a comfort in life, there for each other, for better for worse, in sickness and in health.

In voting in favour, you simply acknowledge that the care and love a couple show each other should be recognised in a way that they believe best reflects their commitment.

We’re now ten years since gay couples in a growing number of places around the world first had the opportunity to marry. How could allowing more people commit to each other send anything but a positive message about the value of marriage?

As to children, don’t forget that there are currently children in Ireland being raised by gay couples; it would give them too added security and protection if their parents could marry, such as in a situation if anything was to happen to their birth parent, where under current law their other parent would currently be treated as a stranger.

There is civil partnership. But these beneficial effects have so much a firmer backing with the authority and tradition of marriage. Further, justice requires that conditions of people’s lives determined by government be provided equally for all.

This has proved successful in other countries; it will enhance the comfort and security of gay couples, it will make gay children and teenagers growing up in Ireland feel more included in society; it will provide Constitutional support too to children being raised by gay couples, and it will give peace of mind to the parents and wider family of gay people. With all this, I really think there is no social benefit in preventing me and others from marrying.

Thank you.

It was followed by an excellent speech from Maeve Howe, chair of Dublin South-East YFG, who stressed that this is a human rights issue, not an LGBT issue, and then by an informed discussion from the floor.

There were other motions this weekend which I was proud of, which I will summarize tomorrow. There have been some great moments since I became active in the party in autumn 2009. But the support the motion received yesterday, such a reversal in twelve months, was one of the most satisfying for me at a very personal level, and something I was proud to play a part in.

Here below is a list of all motions in the general policy section of Summer School:

1. This Summer School calls for the development of a viable nuclear power option for Ireland. - Defeated
2. This Summer School calls for the removal of the offence of blasphemy as it is contrary to the ethos of free speech and assembly, which every modern republic should strive for. - Carried
3. This Summer School calls for the privatisation of CIÉ. - Defeated
4. This Summer School calls for newly trained teachers to be given priority for substitution over retired teachers. - Carried
5. This Summer School calls on the Government to lower the corporation tax rate to 8.2%, bringing it in line with the average effective rate of corporation tax in France. - Defeated
6. This Summer School calls on the Government to suspend Overseas Development Aid for the duration of EU/IMF programme. - Defeated
7. This Summer School supports allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry. - Carried
8. This Summer School calls on the Government to exempt renewable energy from budget cuts. -Carried
9. This Summer School opposes changing Sunday pay arrangements in Joint Labour Committee agreements. - Defeated
10. This Summer School calls for the introduction of compulsory Information Technology modules to Junior Certificate and Transition Year as well as the introduction of a full Information and Communication Technology subject at Leaving Certificate. - Carried
11. This Summer School calls for a cap on public sector pensions of €50,000 a year. - Defeated

Having said that much, I do hope Pat Cox secures our party’s nomination, which I’ve made no secret of in comments on Twitter and Facebook. It will surprise few given our common background in the Progressive Democrats, though he left the party in 1994. That is more an indication of a common core set of beliefs. As someone who secured the position of President of the European Parliament in 2002, and without the support of a domestic party, I think he has shown an ability to compete in Europe. It also is important to me that he secured the position because of his leadership of the European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party, the group of modern European liberals. As a general rule, I would be inclined towards ELDR member parties, with clear exceptions such as responsibility for a country’s economic collapse in Fianna Fáil’s case, or tolerance for extremism in the Dutch VVD’s case.

While I understand the frustration that the party would consider an outsider, the presidency is not quite like other political offices determined through the party system, parties have recently at times selected candidates not then an active members or office-holders, but one who represents a particular vision or message a party wishes to promote, as was the case in different ways with Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese.

Of course the other two candidates are current MEPs, so I would not at all understate their experience on the world stage. But even in that context, I believe Pat Cox’s own knowledge and experience are particularly to his credit, and that his candidacy and presidency would promote the idea of modern Ireland competing confidently in the wider world.

I remain quite realistic about his chances, and his chances and those of the other two candidates are not something I believe worth getting into too much this close to the actual result. As a final note of disclosure, my support for him is all the stronger as he is someone I know personally, having worked with him in Ireland for Europe. Therefore, it is really at this personal level, as much as politically, that I wish the very best of luck in tomorrow’s convention.

I met him again in October 2009, in City West at the count centre as the positive result of the second Lisbon referendum was being counted, where he talked generally about the day with myself and two others there from Ireland for Europe.

But the day I will remember most was very early days of January 2010, we met in Hodges Figgis, where he was buying among other things, Skidelsky’s biography of Keynes. My Trinity scarf was what triggered familiarity, he approached me, and we talked for a few minutes, about what I was doing since we last met, and all that was going on in the world.

Brian Lenihan came to cabinet relatively late, because of the lack of cordiality between himself and Bertie Ahern. This meant that he wasn’t tainted by decisions made during those years. Unfortunately, he seemed unprepared at first for the position of Finance, with the global recession occurring so early in his term of office, such that he bears responsibility for one of the most costly decisions the state has made, and governments from now should take this a guide of what never to do again. But he did not lack integrity and commitment to resolving the country’s difficulty in what seemed to him the best way and he will be a loss to Irish politics.

We must get back to Declan, he told me. I did not agree, and told Garret that we must start looking elsewhere for a new leader. “Who?” asked Garret, to which I replied, “You”. Garret said, “How many votes would I get in the party tonight?” I replied, “One, however the vote will not be taken tonight, and tomorrow is a new day. Declan is a clear-thinking lawyer and he has made up his mind. When the party needs a new leader you will have to be ready”.

Garret was the unanimous choice when Liam Cosgrave retired in 1977.

The Just Society was, of course, a document written nearly fifty years ago, and those mindful of the positive influence they had on the party would pay tribute best by seeking to start again with reference to their broad principles than any direct emulation. But we should be sure that despite their deaths, their influence remains, however much or little of specific policy we carry forward.

SIR – You said that unlike Elizabeth II, Henry II did not receive an invitation to Ireland (“Irish, and British, eyes are smiling”, May 21st). This is not quite accurate.

The Norman invasion of Ireland was instigated at the invitation of Diarmaid Mac Murchada, King of Leinster, who was dispossessed of land by the High King of Ireland, Ruaidhri Ó Conchobair. Diarmaid met Henry II in Aquitaine in 1166. Henry agreed to send a force led by Richard de Clare, Earl of Pembroke (nicknamed Strongbow), who was married to Aoife, Diarmaid’s daughter. They arrived in 1169, and when a dispute arose over the succession to Leinster on Diarmaid’s death in 1171, Henry II claimed fealty of the entire island of Ireland.

Naturally, this invitation from Diarmaid for foreign assistance started centuries of English involvement in Ireland, and it has earned Diarmaid a place of infamy in the gallery of rogues of Irish history.

William Quill
Bray, County Wicklow

He was an inspiring figure, who truly had a vision of modern Ireland, taking its place in the world. He showed that politics can be used to bring change to a country.

While customary to mention such a figure in isolation at a time as this, I do see him with Sean Lemass and Des O’Malley in particular as political figures who shared this commitment, who understood ahead of their time the need to engage with Unionists if we truly believe in a united Ireland, and who fought against the orthodoxies of their parties in many respects.

Garret understood that a truly republican society would be a pluralist one, confidently patriotic but not aggressively assertive in its nationalism, and not tied in its morality to any one faith. He was courageous in leading the movement of the constitutional crusade when he clearly did not have a guarantee of success, as seen in the defeat of the divorce referendum in 1986.

From the perspective of Fine Gael, he led the party to its highest-ever share of votes, with 39% in November 1982. Despite his clear differences with some of his parliamentary party, he did not hold grievances, as seen in the 1989 election. Contesting two years after stepping down as party leader, in excellent and enviable vote management he encouraged Fine Gael voters to support his constituency colleague Joe Doyle, a conservative who had opposed his liberal agenda, and had the humility to be pleased with the fact that he polled behind him.

He led a rich and varied life, coming to politics relatively late by some standards. He taught economics in UCD to his future Finance Ministers, John Bruton and Alan Dukes, saying later that he only appointed First Class students to the position. Elected a senator in 1965 at 39, four years later in 1969, he was first elected as a TD in Dublin South-East; four years later in 1973 appointed Minister for Foreign Affairs; four years later in 1977 he became party leader; four years later in 1981, he became Taoiseach. A short term, lasting till February 1982, he was re-elected November 1982, forming a coalition with Labour that lasted till January 1987. He stepped down that year as party leader, and in 1992 retired from the Dáil. Throughout his life he provided expert analysis from the opinion pages of The Irish Times, and on air particularly at each election, and he continued to show an active interest on our engagement with the European Union.

It was a privilege and pleasure to meet him on a number of occasions; the first at a book launch in Bray when I was 11, and then years later, particularly recalling inviting him to speak in a debate in the Hist on the Lisbon Treaty in 2008, and meeting him the following year as I was canvassing on the Lisbon Treaty a second time, and he was continuing work from his time as Minister for Foreign Affairs in the very early years of our EEC membership.

It is a sad day that we have lost him, but he will remain an inspiration in politics to me and many others.

But then as I was at home, I started watching, and properly felt why it mattered. That Eamon Gilmore was there to greet her at Baldonnel, as our Minister for Foreign Affairs would with any visiting head of state. Our governments have worked closely at various levels, certainly since the 1950s, when they jointly negotiated entry to the European Communities. Eventually from 1985 with the Anglo-Irish Agreement, they acknowledged the joint interest in Northern Ireland and have worked together up the present day, with the Downing Street Declaration in 1993, the Belfast Agreement in 1998 and the St Andrew’s Agreement in 2006.

So this should have been possible before now, but because of the nature of the monarchy and its hereditary link with centuries of the past, it was naturally more sensitive. It may be customary for a visiting head of state to acknowledge our history by visiting the Garden of Remembrance, but it is of a different order for the head of state of the country from whom we won independence to do so. For Elizabeth to lay a wreath there as she did today is one of further steps in the reconciliation between our countries, continued today with her visit to one of the most notorious sites of British military outrage on the people in this part of the country, when she visits the site of Bloody Sunday ninety years ago in Croke Park.

Her visit to Trinity College, while not explicitly alluded to, should remind us of how our countries are entwined in cultural as well as political history. While two of the constituent universities of the National University of Ireland, UCC and NUIG, were originally Queen’s Colleges, established under royal charter of Victoria in 1845, as a college which in its long title¹ still refers to its foundation by her namesake in 1592, Trinity was an obvious stop on her visit. Though English-speaking Irish culture is clearly distinct from that of Britain, the influences from one to the other are undeniably strong. True too of course of American culture, but proximity naturally affects the degree. And of course as with any country, we should be particularly proud of our native culture, we should promote the distinctiveness of Gaelic culture, and its continued vibrancy, without it being seen in competition with acknowledging our links across the Irish Sea. From a personal level, it was nice to see the Hist represented there as one the few student bodies within college.

We should also be mindful of this visit with an eye to the longer-term political project in this country. In the words of the amended Article 3, “It is the firm will of the Irish Nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, in all the diversity of their identities and traditions”. For the Unionist community, Elizabeth is their queen. That our president and government would welcome her can only serve to bring the people of this island closer. I hope that there will come a day when Northern Ireland will become part of this state. While that would mean that Unionists would lose the political connection with the British monarchy, it will be important that they would not feel that the cultural ties would thereby be lost. In this way, the visit is not just about how the two states themselves relate, but about all the people of Ireland.

Of course, the visit necessitated a major shutdown of activity in the capital. This will be a small temporary setback for those working there, and of course it would be better if Elizabeth weren’t presented with a ghost town. We won’t know how much of this was truly necessary, but from the scenes of the small numbers of violent protestors, some of whom who could find no more suitable attire than a British football jersey, there clearly had to be something measure of this. They constitute a miniscule proportion of the population, and cannot even claim to represent more than that, and in what little impact they have, in what small way they are ultimately counter-productive in achieving their stated aims, this will be overshadowed by the wider welcome she has received.

–

¹ College of the Holy and Undivided Trinity of Queen Elizabeth, near Dublin

There really is no better analyst on Northern Ireland elections than Nicholas Whyte, son of historian John Whyte, so check out his blog and site. Slugger O’Toole is good too. But rather than just present a neat table, I might as well add a few thoughts of my own.
The big story is really the further ebbing at support of the Ulster Unionist Party, which is dependent for its second seat on the Executive on bringing back into the fold an MLA who was deselected but then elected as a Independent. Otherwise, as things stand, it will lose out to the Alliance Party. The party’s active membership and outside commentators will ask how much Tom Elliott, who beat the moderate Basil McCrea to the leadership last year, should be blamed. There was a contrast between the leaders of the two Unionist party leaders between Elliott’s tribalism, talking of Sinn Féin scum and foreign flags, and the dignity of Peter Robinson, First Minister and leader of the DUP, who in his victory speech quoted the words of the mother of constable Robert Kerr, the hope to have a united community and a shared society that we might go forward with real hope and real opportunity. While it’s certainly good that there is a continued presence of moderates like Basil McCrea and John McCallister in the UUP, will they be able to bring the party from the position Elliott has brought it, somewhere to the left of the Traditional Unionist Voice.

The SDLP will also need to continue to work to maintain its base. It will continue to have a presence on the Executive, but they are in danger of losing their Westminster seat in South Belfast to Anna Lo of the Alliance Party. They will need to keep trying what they have been doing, to find a new way of winning votes back from Sinn Féin, understanding that at this stage more and more see their history of violence as no longer being a deciding factor in voting.

The election also saw the two Independent Unionists in the last Assembly lose their seats, Alan McFarland in North Down, elected for the UUP, and an ally of Sylvia Hermon and who left the party when she did, and Dawn Purvis, elected as leader of the PUP, who left because of their continued slowness to disavow paramilitarism. Two who could be in the British Labour Party, if of the New Labour and John Prescott types respectively.

According to a well-publicized poll in The Irish Times last year, 67 per cent of people feel gay couples should be allowed to marry. Despite this high number, it shouldn’t be taken for granted that such a measure would pass if it has to go to a referendum as the same poll showed a figure of only 46 per cent in favour of gay couples being given the right to adopt children. Those campaigning against would undoubtedly focus on this aspect, as happened in California in 2008 and in Maine in 2009.

So that figure of 67 is soft by at least 20 per cent. Political messaging should be geared then towards convincing those on the middle rather than rallying those who are already on side. Yet LGBT Noise decided to veer towards sensationalist slogans. Of the four on the ad, only one is a convincing message:

• Break traditions, not hearts
  Not the idea as I see it. Better surely to talk of allowing gay couples take part in a tradition, rather than breaking it?
• There’s nothing civil about inequality
  Cool
• Jesus had 2 Dads and He turned out fine
  Where to start with this one? Complete and wilful misunderstanding of the Biblical account, and who is going to be won over with this level of flippancy about the Bible?
• Can’t even get married in Vegas!
  This debate is in Ireland, not Nevada. And with the less than holy connotations Vegas brings to mind, this works because?

I have criticised LGBT Noise before for tying themselves with a trade union march. Of course, an organization is free to do as they wish, but as one of the few organized primarily on this issue, they have at least some responsibility to present a case that will win over those who are uncertain where they should stand on the issue.

OK, Barack Obama is now quite likely to be re-elected, though there’s little chance he’ll keep the lead of 56 to 38 he polled yesterday. While he will have this in the background, the Republicans will soon begin to focus entirely on the economy. Compare this to George H. W. Bush, who seemed a shoo-in in 1991 after his Gulf War victory, but was beaten by Bill Clinton in 1992.

And what does this mean for who the Republicans are more likely to choose? Again, this isn’t clear. Tyler Cowen reckons that they will give up on trying to win from the centre, pick an extreme candidate and lose badly. Sort of like how they picked Barry Goldwater in 1964 when Lyndon B. Johnson seemed unbeatable. The Economist’s Democracy in America blog on the other hand that it will move them towards the centre, with former Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman in the strongest position. It really is far too early to look at poll numbers for any of these to asses any such impact.

Possibly the biggest thing this will do for President Obama, if even at a subliminal level, is to enhance his reputation for being cool-headed, which was one of the things during the final months of the 2008 election that strengthened him against John McCain, in his reactions to events such as the financial crisis or violence in Georgia. People will remember that he kept a poker face on Saturday night while he was roasting Donald Trump at the Correspondents’ Dinner, throwing his attempt at a campaign completely out of the water. That he dealt with the serious business of the budget and possible government shutdown, with the frivolity of whether he would release his birth cert, all while knowing this was coming down the line.

This week on EconTalk, Russ Roberts interviewed his collaborator on this project, John Papola, and as ever, it’s worth listening to, here for an introduction to the ideas discussed. While there, subscribe to the podcast. It covers a wide range from week to week, and while Russ has an openly Austrian instinct, his guests come from across the spectrum, if with a bias in the regulars.

The one fault I’d find with the video is that I think Keynes’s lines would have been more interesting had they been scripted by a Keynesian, and they would have avoided what small accusations they got, and discuss in the interview, that his lines are not properly representative. But I do think Hayek’s case does not get a proper airing, so this video is a good addition to the debate from the Hayekian perspective, with the message that the only way we get prosperity is by producing things other people care about, and that this can best be determined by the free market. Any fair-minded assessment of the economy in either Ireland or the US over recent decades, cannot describe the system of government schemes and tax breaks, particularly in housing, as the free market.

And if you didn’t know this was a sequel, here’s part one:

At its simplest, it would simply present fifteen figures, one for each government department, though with a little extra effort, it would make sense to itemize further, to separate Environment from Local Government, Tourism from Transport, etc.

There are two broad appeals to this. One is a matter of fairness, if people are paying in some cases over 50% on some of their income, it should be clear to them how that is spent. The other is that voters would then be better informed in public debate, arguments at election time about spending and taxation would be much more concrete for them.

There is a recurring theme in his responses which I would like to respond further to. He takes any admission of a benefit of marriage to children as a concession that it has no further primary purpose, and that any other purpose to marriage can only undermine the benefit to children.

I would put the case that with this it is in fact Richard who is attempting to redefine marriage by presenting a far narrower definition than we are commonly accustomed to thinking of. Outside of this particular debate, it is not asserted that marriage exists solely for the benefit of children. Had that been the case, one could imagine a scenario where none of the legal recognition for marriage kicked in until the birth of a couple’s first child.

Richard addressed the question of infertile couples (in rebuttal 3). One of his arguments was that it would be intrusive, suggesting that if there were an non-intrusive way of determining fertility, there would be less of an issue in denying such couples the right to marry.What is more to the point is that no one thinks twice but that older couples can marry, where the woman is over 40. As a class of couples, they are around as likely to raise children as gay couples. Of course it would not be a biological child of the gay couple, but the same is true of those who adopt. And there are those who are so much older even than that. Without appealing to a Biblical miracle as in the case of Abram and Sarai, there is no reason on Richard’s grounds for such couples to be allowed to marry. We don’t think they’re taking advantage of the system, that it’s something that should only exist for those planning to raise children. What of others we know won’t raise children, like Joseph Mary Plunkett and Grace Gifford, who married in Kilmainham Gaol days before he was executed for his part in the 1916 rising? Theirs was a marriage that couldn’t have tended towards child-raising. Society does see wider benefits to marriage than for the sake of children alone, and we shouldn’t start pretending otherwise now.

Our common view of marriage is as something that strengthens all bonds of family life. By confining the focus to the benefits to children, Richard is undermining the benefits to the adults (which in many cases in turn are the crux of why marriage does provide a good environment for children). Even viewed in this encompassing fashion, marriage is still an institution which provides a good environment for children, and Richard has not shown how allowing gay couples to marry changes that. What actual negative impact does he predict? He should be clearer on this, why does he believe children will be worse off, in what situations will decisions be made against them on the basis of this. Is his perception of the need for marriage to be tied to procreation enough to continue to deny the children being raised by gay couples the same Constitutional protection as in other families, or the ability of two lesbian women to be legally considered as married wives?

Richard talks of where the burden of proof lies in terms of the impact on children, claiming that it lies with those proposing a change. I would argue that it lies with the conservatives in this case. Given that we now recognize that society was wrong to have criminalized homosexual behaviour and to have widely discriminated against gay people, any remaining aspects of discrimination deserve particular scrutiny. Richard and others presenting a similar case should be able to present a clear compelling harm if they want us to accept that this discrimination is justified.

I know gay people who wish to get married because they want to raise children, and want them to have full protections. I would be surprised if Richard has not also met people who would put a similar case. What is his answer to them?

Last year in the United States District Federal Court in California, in the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, equality advocates were successful in seeking to rule unconstitutional Proposition 8, which had in 2008 banned same-sex marriage in California. It was a high-profile case because of the legal team for the plaintiffs, which included the counsel for both Bush and Gore in Bush v. Gore. A courtroom debate differs from the broader political debate, where on a campaign trail, in parliament or in the media, because evidence is presented, and witnesses examined until counsel are satisfied. Under such conditions, those against equality could present little or no evidence to support their position. A single reputable survey from anywhere in the world that showed that children raised by a man and a woman fared better than those raised by a same-sex couple would have done. But they had none. Richard addresses me specifically because I omit any reference to a benefit to having both a mother and a father. I do so only because it had not been shown that there is one, counter-intuitive as that might seem to some.

To my mind then, this narrow redefinition of marriage seems constructed to exclude gay couples, as if determined to find a reason to oppose a change.

First off, his point that it should be irrelevant to a debate of this nature whether one is gay.

I am not a big believer in people making arguments on the back of who or what they happen to be. When I last made the case in these pages against gay marriage, about a year ago, I didn’t feel the need to mention that I am gay myself. Arguments stand on their own two feet, or don’t, but not on the strength of who happens to be making them.

It is wrong to think that life experiences are irrelevant to a social issue of this sort. For most gay people, myself included, it is a grievance to a greater or lesser extent, that we cannot hope to get married in this country; how is it an irrelevant fact that this is at least tempered by those such as Richard Waghorne who do not take it as such? This is not a theoretical issue, it matters because of the people involved. Imagine a situation where no gay person wanted to marry, but the idea was proposed. It would surely then be relevant for Richard to mention his sexuality. Why less so now?

Richard proceeds to argue that as marriage is recognized because of the protection it provides for children, it is selfish of gay couples to look for it.

The support and status that marriage entails is not a societal bonus for falling in love and agreeing to make a relationship lasting. That is not, of course, to say that love and romance are not an important part of marriage. But they are not the reason it has special status. If romance were the reason for supporting marriage, there would be no grounds for differentiating which relationships should be included and which should not. But that is not and never has been the nature of marriage.

Marriage is vital as a framework within which children can be brought up by a man and woman. Not all marriages, of course, involve child-raising. And there are also, for that matter, same-sex couples already raising children. But the reality is that marriages tend towards child-raising and same-sex partnerships do not.

The substance of my criticisms are two-fold, and covered by his side comment acknowledging the exceptions to his general rule.

While raising children is an important reason to recognize marriage, it is not the only one. We also recognize the importance personal bonds are to people. The obvious example is of an elderly couple, who are past child-bearing age, and who have no desire to adopt. No one begrudges them the right to marry. We feel instinctively that by making the commitment to be with each other in all circumstances, they will be the better for it. They have that emotional security of the other’s bond that they will be there for each other. There are benefits not just to the couple, but to society at large, to people not being isolated.

Indeed, the marital vows themselves emphasize only this part of marriage:

…. will you take …. to be your husband?
Will you love him, comfort him,
honour and care for him,
and, forsaking all others,
be faithful to him as long as you both shall live?

It seems wilful denial then to consign this aspect of the commitment to a side issue.

On the question then of children, it is certainly relevant to the discussion that there are same-sex couples raising children. This can happen because of adoption, artificial insemination or a child from a previous relationship. And it will happen, parental instincts exist among all to some degree, regardless of sexuality. At present in Irish law, only one of the parents can be officially recognized as such, and the other treated in law as a stranger. This would change as of right if gay couples could marry.

Even were the Civil Partnership Act amended to acknowledge this and take account for these situations, the children would undoubtedly be better off if their parents could marry. Conservatives like Richard Waghorne are quick to trumpet the benefits of marriage in general, that it increases stability in the home, which is good for children. On the whole, I would agree with them. But this should not become any less true for children raised by gay couples. Does Richard believe a couple raising a child is no less likely to dissolve their relationship if they are in a civil partnership than if they were married? I find it difficult to see how he can consistently hold this view.

The reality is that the distinction is part of a legacy of centuries-old discrimination against gay people. Had we continued from classical times to the present with no discrimination, different terminology might not be an issue. Given the possibility of questions, it would mean so much more to such children that they could respond to any question from curious friends by simply saying, “My parents are married”.

So I differ with Richard’s premise, that marriage is near exclusively about children, and hold that even if it were, children would be better off with marriage equality. I also find it odd that ten years after the first gay couples married in the Netherlands, he feels no need to back his claims with evidence of harm from there or other countries and territories. I’ll finish in questioning his overall critique, that gay couples would fundamentally change the institution of marriage, by quoting John Corvino from last month,

So why do conservatives think that this tiny minority will undermine the norms of the vast majority, rather than vice versa?

It’s hard to escape the answer: because that view fits their preconceived objections better, evidence and common sense be damned.

Edit: Do read as well an excellent response from Conor Prendergast, signed “Proud son of two loving mums”.

Ferguson could possibly be described as a Westernist, and in its broad scope, it is an ideology that I could comfortably identify with. But it has two strands, two ways we can emphasize its value. I see the Enlightenment project that slowly led to the growth of free inquiry, individual ingenuity and self-government, against subjection to the general will, as something to be proud of, while cognisant of the difficulties in achieving this along the way. It is also something we should be happy to export, because of our sense of common feeling for our fellow man. Unfortunately, as Ferguson presented the case, its value seems to rest in the case that one of our own, a Western country with individualist values, whether it be Prussia, Great Britain or the United States in a given century, is number one.

Yesterday’s segment was ostensibly on the subject of science. I was looking forward to an expostulation of the development of the scientific enlightenment, the great stories of the correspondence between scientists across the Continent, and the series of their inventions and discoveries. We could follow through to the wonders of the modern world, how much our standard of living has improved through a series of inventions, even how much we can do with a small handheld device these days, and how that depended on a culture of discovery through the centuries. Though I have had no education in science beyond taking physics and chemistry for the Leaving Cert, it is something I maintain a small interest in. My idea of a date has been to go to an amateur production of the life of Galileo.

Instead, Hooke, Newton and Wren got no more than a cursory mention from Ferguson. What science seems to mean for him was the military advantage one nation had over another. He ended, with very little segway, with praise for the development science and innovation in Israel, besieged by its backward neighbours. Whatever positive developments in the country, the state of Israel cannot be seen as the epitome of Western civilization today. The rights and wrongs of this question could not have been explained in the ten minutes he had left for himself, but the situation there is tied to one of the negatives of Western civilization, the idea that those in more nomadic, less technological societies, without our concept of property, can be relocated without compunction. This was true before of the Enlightened Revolutionary American colonists, most of whom felt free to relocate native tribes further west, not to mention the stain of colonization throughout past centuries by Europeans.

Not that we should feel obliged to continually apologize for a whole list of grievances when we devote books and programs on great historical developments, but to touch on a continuing part of the harmful part of the legacy and assume Westerners must be on the side of Israel shows poor judgement in trying to convince viewers of the value of Western dominance.

He also glosses over the difficulties scientists had at times faced with a comment that religion was by then less of a obstructive force. Just as in the history of political liberty, part of the glory is in the struggle. To appreciate the historical importance of the era of the Royal Society, we should be conscious of the execution of Giordano Bruno in the 16th century and imprisonment of Galileo Galilei in the 17th century for their work on the cosmos.

Let us celebrate the developments of science, for its practical impact on the daily lives of so many across the world, and for the glorious fact that we know so much about the world, from the working of an atom to the development of species and the nature of far-off galaxies. We do need to guard ourselves against undue skepticism of science, and reminding ourselves of this legacy is dearly valuable. But the noble part of this legacy is the increase of our knowledge, not national advantage.

Not only that. As Shane Ross referred to yesterday, Sean Barrett retired from the Dáil in 2002, deciding not to contest that election, having been elected in 1981 and aged 57. He returned in 2007. If the coming two Dála continue for their full term, he could end up retiring for the second time close to nineteen years after first leaving politics.

At cabinet level, parties should of course focus on picking their best TDs for the job, regardless of other factors. They also seemed to ignore geography as a major factor, with a high concentration from both parties of Dublin TDs in cabinet. But this is not to say that some others of women mentioned like Róisín Shortall or Jan O’Sullivan wouldn’t be as good as one Labour’s former leaders.

Of course, we should recognise the first female Attorney General in Máire Whelan.

The proportion of women in the 31st Dáil is up marginally on the last Dáil. There has been only marginal change in the proportion of female representation in Ireland, and in any analysis it is our position relative to the rest of the world, not an absolute proportion that is worth considering.

There are 25 women in the current Dáil, including 11 of Fine Gael’s 76 TDs, 8 of Labour’s 37 TDs, 2 of Sinn Féin’s 14 TDs, 2 of the 5 United Left Alliance TDs and 2 of the 14 Independent TDs. Significantly, no women were elected for Fianna Fáil.

The women in the 31st Dáil are:

• Joan Burton, Labour, Dublin West
• Catherine Byrne, Fine Gael, Dublin South-Central
• Áine Collins, Fine Gael, Cork North-West
• Joan Collins, United Left Alliance/People Before Profit, Dublin South-Central
• Ciara Conway, Labour, Waterford
• Marcella Corcoran Kennedy, Fine Gael, Laois–Offaly
• Lucinda Creighton, Fine Gael, Dublin South-East
• Clare Daly, United Left Alliance/Socialist Party, Dublin North
• Regina Doherty, Fine Gael, Meath East
• Anne Ferris, Labour, Wicklow
• Frances Fitzgerald, Fine Gael, Dublin Mid-West
• Heather Humphreys, Fine Gael, Cavan–Monaghan
• Kathleen Lynch, Labour, Cork North-Central
• Mary Lou McDonald, Sinn Féin, Dublin Central
• Nicky McFadden, Fine Gael, Longford–Westmeath
• Sandra McLellan, Sinn Féin, Cork East
• Olivia Mitchell, Fine Gael, Dublin South
• Mary Mitchell O’Connor, Fine Gael, Dún Laoghaire
• Michelle Mulherin, Fine Gael, Mayo
• Catherine Murphy, Independent, Kildare North
• Jan O’Sullivan, Labour, Limerick City
• Maureen O’Sullivan, Independent, Dublin Central
• Ann Phelan, Labour, Carlow–Kilkenny
• Róisín Shortall, Labour, Dublin North-West
• Joanna Tuffy, Labour, Dublin Mid-West

The Programme for Government has proposed linking party funding to a minimum gender balance. Any decision on this needs to be conscious of how parties distributed male and female candidates in this recent election. Such a proposal would not come without difficulty and the ability to find loopholes around, and I don’t think it would tackle the underlying cultural problems. I think if such a proposal is implemented, it should only be at the council level first, as that is the pool for most Dáil candidates. This table shows the male to female ratio by party in each constituency, with instances of winning female candidates in bold. It shows among other things that men are much more likely to stand as no-hope Independents in an ego-boosting exercise, which skews the overall ratio.

Compiled from Elections Ireland.

As the campaign began in early February, I was reading David Laws’ recent book, 22 Days in May, his account of the negotiations between the Liberal Democrats and both of the two larger parties after last year’s election. Their choices were a minority Labour-LibDem coalition, supporting a minority Conservative government in a confidence and supply arrangement, or  full coalition with the Conservatives. They explored all options, but given the perceived need for stable government, a full coalition with a comfortable majority seemed the safest and most likely option, whatever hesitance there was within their party to forming a coalition with the Tories after years of hoping for a centre-left alignment.

In the Irish situation, it was the largest party that had the advantage. Fine Gael came out of the election with 76 seats, short of the 83 required for a majority. As in Britain, full coalition was always the most likely given the perceived stability from a majority government. Unlike the Liberal Democrats, Fine Gael did not explore the other options at all. While it mightn’t have hurt to have tested the possibility of Independent support, coalition seemed the inevitable outcome.

I’m pleased enough with the Programme for Government, but it really is too early to tell it will be like. We will be able to start to judge by the summer, when we have seen the first initiatives from each Minister. But importantly, how well the new government be at renegotiating the interest rate on our EU/IMF loan, and whether Ireland will have to concede on our corporation tax base. This we cannot know from the Programme.

Fine Gael identified a reduction of 145 quangos through consolidation of functions. Let’s hope this is implemented. Both parties had clear commitments to political reform, which will be hard for them to avoid now, which will be at least one area that the new government should be remembered for. I look forward to the social reforms which are to be discussed in the Constitutional Convention, and I would hope to get involved if possible.

It is a compromise between two parties. Of course it would be, such is the nature of coalition. The number of voluntary public sector redundancies, is a compromise between the two manifesto commitments, as is the target itself for deficit reduction of 2015. Fine Gael measures on competitiveness are in the Programme, with the proposed lowering the 13.5% rate of VAT, cutting the travel tax and halving PRSI on low-wage workers.

Aside from headline economic commitments, any Programme for Government will have statements on some interesting side issues. In defence, it commits the government to “enforce the prohibition on the use of Irish airspace, airports and related facilities for purposes not in line with the dictates of international law.” Fair enough, there should have been checks on flights through Shannon to ascertain whether they were being used for transportation of torture victims. But I would also liked to have seen a review of our Triple Lock system, which deprives Ireland of an independent foreign policy by tying it to that of China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States, through their UN Security Council veto?

On bioethics, there is a commitment to formalise parental responsibilities arising from assisted reproduction, something which is of growing importance to clarify. There is also a commitment to change organ donation from an opt-in to an opt-out system, which will be welcome to some, depending on its implementation.

So I look forward to these years, an interesting time for the politics of this country. Though it will all be to small avail if we cannot get a significantly better deal from the IMF and ECB.

For those interested in the history of Dáil alliances, this spreadsheet details the votes for and against the candidates for Taoiseach by parties and Independents in each Dáil. I divided these first by Dáil and then in the last two sheets, summarised the support or opposition other parties have given to Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. Tomorrow also looks likely to be the first time since 1932 that Fianna Fáil will decide not to propose a candidate for Taoiseach. There were quite a few occasions that Fine Gael proposed no candidate, or that there was no vote on the Fine Gael candidate because an outgoing Fianna Fáil government was returned, so the Fianna Fáil list is more comprehensive.

These do show a few interesting features, such as that Labour did not oppose Fianna Fáil in the vote until 1944, or the support the Progressive Democrats gave Fine Gael in 1989 and 1992, both coalitions that could have become standard had numbers fallen otherwise. Or the shifting support of James Dillon (TD 1932–69) and Noël Browne (TD 1948–54, 1957–65, 1969–81) for the nominees of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, the former of whom was to become Fine Gael leader in 1959.

Inter-Party government 1948–51

Comprised of 31 Fine Gael, 14 Labour, 10 Clann na Poblachta, 7 Clann na Talmhan, 5 National Labour, with the support of 8 Independents. Fine Gael had been on a downward trend since its first election in 1937 and the government gave it a real lease of life.

National Labour folded back into Labour in 1950.

After the fall of the government in 1951, Fine Gael increased to 40 (+9), while all smaller parties lost seats. Labour got 16 (-3), Clann na Talmhan 6 (-1) and Clann na Poblachta 2 (-8).

Inter-Party government 1954–57

In 1954, 50 Fine Gael, 19 Labour, 5 Clann na Talmhan.

In 1957, all parties lost seats: 40 Fine Gael (-10), 12 Labour (-7), 3 Clann na Talmhan (-2)

Fine Gael–Labour 1973–77

In 1973, it started 54 Fine Gael and 19 Labour.

In 1977, both parties fell: 43 Fine Gael (-11) and 17 Labour (-2).

Fine Gael–Labour 1981–82

Started in June 1981 with 65 Fine Gael and 15 Labour. Was always a minority government, it initially had the support of Jim Kemmy, while four Independents and small party representatives tactically abstained, until the January 1982 budget vote.

In the February 1982 election, Fine Gael fell to 63 (-2), while Labour had no change at 15.

Fine Gael–Labour 1982–87

In 1982, 70 Fine Gael and 16 Labour.

In 1987, a dreadful result for both parties, 51 Fine Gael (-19) and 12 Labour (-4). The emergent Progressive Democrats took support from Fine Gael and pushed Labour into fourth place.

Fianna Fáil–Progressive Democrats 1989–92

In 1989, 77 Fianna Fáil and 6 Progressive Democrats.

In 1992, the PDs became the first junior coalition party to increase its seats after an election. Between the two parties in 1992, they had 68 Fianna Fáil (-9) and 10 Progressive Democrats (+4).

Fianna Fáil–Labour 1993–94

Fine Gael–Labour–Democratic Left 1994–97

The 27th Dáil saw two governments. Political legend has it that Labour lost support because they went into government with Fianna Fáil. But according to Pat Leahy’s Showtime, their support was still high in November 1994. If this is true, then it was their political promiscuity rather than their support for Fianna Fáil as such that hurt them.

Overall figures for 1992 saw 68 Fianna Fáil, 45 Fine Gael, 33 Labour, 10 Progressive Democrats, 4 Democratic Left, 1 Green and 5 Independents.

In 1997, Labour and the PDs lost out: 77 Fianna Fáil (+9), 54 Fine Gael (+9), 17 Labour (-16), 4 Progressive Democrats (-6), 2 Green (+1), 1 Sinn Féin, 1 Socialist and 6 Independents (+1)

Fianna Fáil–Progressive Democrats 1997–2002

After a full term, both parties increased their seats: 81 Fianna Fáil (+4) and 8 Progressive Democrats (+4). Again the PDs proved the only junior party to increase seats after government.

Fianna Fáil–Progressive Democrats 2002–07

Of course, the PDs were not so lucky the third time they entered an election while in government. In 2007, both parties fell to 78 Fianna Fáil (-3) and 2 Progressive Democrats (-6).

Fianna Fáil–Green Party–Progressive Democrats 2007–11

Bertie Ahern formed a government in 2007 comprised on 78 Fianna Fáil, 6 Greens and 2 Progressive Democrats and the support of 4 Independents. The PDs were on our last legs anyway at the formation of the government, and we voted to dissolve in November 2008. And then nine days ago, Fianna Fáil fell to 20 seats (-58) while all six Greens lost their seats.

So across all coalitions, only twice had the junior party made gains at the next election, the Progressive Democrats in 1992 and 2002. And that party’s later electoral record is probably not something anyone would wish to cling to as a hopeful outcome. Having said that, none of this can inform of the counterfactuals, how a party would have fared at a subsequent election had they stayed out of government.

A site value or land value tax is economically attractive because it does not disincentivize further investment in one’s property. And other than occasional changes to the amount because of improvements in amenities like a new Luas line, it is a fairly steady source of revenue. A transaction tax, whether it be stamp duty or sales profit tax, would be dependent on vagaries of the market.

Labour did, however, acknowledge that because there would need to be a preliminary survey of property, it couldn’t be introduced till 2014. There should also be relief for those who have recently paid high levels of stamp duty. If we do get a pledge on such a tax in the Programme, and if that’s the timescale we get, I will be pleased, particularly so if over time more is raised through a land tax and progressively less through taxing income.

Below is a speech by Zach Wahls, a 19-year-old University of Iowa student speaking about his family during a public forum on House Joint Resolution 6 in the Iowa House of Representatives, which seeks to end recognition of marriage. In the words of Tom G. Palmer on Facebook, “A truly remarkable speech. The young man who gives it would have been a success in the Roman Senate, or the British Parliament, or the U.S. Senate. His moms must be very proud.” Those opposed to marriage equality must be able to present an identifiable harm strong enough to counter the benefits it brings to gay couples and their families. It’s not good enough to say that it is good policy to support male/female marriage as if that is diminished by also supporting gay marriage.

As an aside, Tom Palmer, from whom I got this link, and is gay himself, is one of the libertarian scholars I most admire because of how he puts his beliefs into practice. As well being a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, he spends much of his time travelling to developing countries, creating links between those seeking greater freedom. A reminder that what little grievances we grudge in western countries, real liberalism should have an international outlook, where individuals’ daily security and survival are at stake.

His blog and Twitter feed are worth following for those who like links on the free market and cats.

• Stephen Donnelly for Wicklow
  Studied Engineering in UCD and MIT and Public Administration and International Development at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. Worked for McKinsey, an international management consultancy firm.
• Luke ‘Ming’ Flanagan for Roscommon–South Leitrim
  Ming has been standing for election since 1997, when he stood in Galway West, against his then landlord Frank Fahey. He contested the 1999 European election and the 2002 general election unsuccessfully, but was eventually elected to Roscommon County Council in 2004. He became Mayor of the Council in 2010. He first became noted for his campaign to legalize cannabis, and from an interview this week, his focus will be on cutting the cost of government while making local government more meaningful.
• Tom Fleming in Kerry South
  Fleming was a lifelong Fianna Fáil member, a councillor since 1991. He ran as John O’Donoghue’s running mate in 2002 and 2007 and left in January of this year when Fianna Fáil decided to run only one candidate.
• Noel Grealish in Galway West
  Grealish was elected as a Progressive Democrat councillor in 1999. He became a TD in 2002 after Bobby Molloy did not contest the election. He acted as leader in 2009 when Ciarán Cannon left to join Fine Gael after the party had voted to dissolve. After the dissolution of the Progressive Democrats, he continued to formally support the government until September 2010. He will be voting for Enda Kenny on 9 March.
• John Halligan in Waterford
  Halligan was elected to Waterford City Council as member of the Workers’ Party in 1999. He left the party in 2008 to vote in favour of service charges.
• Michael Healy-Rae in Kerry South
  Son of Jackie Healy-Rae, who was an Independent TD and supporter of Fianna Fáil since 1997, Michael has been a councillor since 1999.
• Michael Lowry in Tipperary North
  Elected first for Fine Gael TD in 1987, he was Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications from 1994 to 1996. He was dismissed as a Minister when it was revealed that Ben Dunne had paid for an extension to his house. He has contested every election since as an Independent, topping the poll on each of four occasions. He supported the Fianna Fáil/Green government from 2007 through to the vote on the Finance Bill earlier this year.
• Finian McGrath in Dublin North-Central
  Elected as an Independent councillor 1999, he was first elected to the Dáil in 2002. He supported the Fianna Fáil/Green/PD government from 2007 to 2009.
• Mattie McGrath in Tipperary South
  McGrath was a Fianna Fáil councillor from 1999 to 2007, when he was elected to the Dáil. He left the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party in 2010 in opposition to their support for the ban on the Meath stag hunt.
• Catherine Murphy in Kildare North
  Murphy was a member of the Workers’ Party, but broke away to form Democratic Left in 1992, joining Labour in 1999. She has been an Independent since the 2004 local elections. She was a county councillor from 1991 until her election to the Dáil in 2005, in the bye-election caused by the appointment of Charlie McCreevy to the European Commission.
• Maureen O’Sullivan in Dublin Central
  O’Sullivan is a schoolteacher and was Tony Gregory’s election agent. She was co-opted to Dublin City Council in 2008 and won the bye-election in 2009 caused by Gregory’s death.
• Thomas Pringle in Donegal South-West
  Pringle was first elected to Donegal County Council in 1999 and was re-elected in 2004 and 2009. He was a member of Sinn Féin from January 2004 to November 2007. He is a patron of the left-wing Eurosceptic People’s Movement. He will be remembered in this election as the man who unseated Tánaiste Mary Coughlan.
• Shane Ross in Dublin South
  At the time of his election on Friday, with the second-highest vote in the country, he was the longest serving Senator, having represented Trinity graduates since 1981. He was a member of Fine Gael in 1990s, being elected to Wicklow County Council for Bray in 1991 and unsuccessfully contesting the 1992 general election for the party. He is well known as a Sunday Independent journalist and as the author recently of The Bankers and Wasters.
• Mick Wallace in Wexford
  Property developer and soccer manager who has supported left-wing causes. He has urged Labour to stay out of government with Fine Gael.

Of these, and to generalize just to get an idea of which of them will work together, Stephen Donnelly, Ming Flanagan and Shane Ross are most focused on efficient government spending, Tom Fleming, Noel Grealish, Michael Healy-Rae, Mattie McGrath and Michael Lowry would be centre-right or conservative constituency champions with backgrounds in centre-right parties, while John Halligan, Finian McGrath, Catherine Murphy, Maureen O’Sullivan, Thomas Pringle and Mick Wallace are broadly left-wing.

Ceann Comhairle by secret ballot

Already we’ve names mentioned for the position of Ceann Comhairle, as something to be divided in the spoils of government. But in the New Politics document, Fine Gael have called for the Ceann Comhairle to be elected by secret ballot by all TDs, as is the case with the Speaker of the House of Commons in Westminster. It can’t be done straight away, as the first order of business in a new Dáil is the election of Ceann Comhairle. But Enda Kenny could propose someone while declaring that he intended to appoint them as a Minister of State, someone who would be credible as an interim Ceann Comhairle. Within the first month, the standing orders could be changed, the interim Ceann Comhairle would step down, to be replaced by secret ballot.

A role for all TDs

A few times on Saturday and Sunday, I heard radio commentators ask Independent TDs what the point was of them in the Dáil if they would not hold balance of power. A Dáil election forms the legislature, which has a function in its own right, apart from being a sort of electoral college to elect the executive. Backbenchers, whether government or opposition, should have more power and part of this means being able to propose motions or legislation in private members’ time and reasonably expect that it will be open for a free vote of the Dáil. There are many issues, like stag hunting, which shouldn’t be considered a matter of a confidence vote but a free vote of all members.

In Britain, it is an embarrassment, but not the end of the world, if a government loses a vote it has proposed. Given the majority this government has, and the fact that there will inevitably be backbenchers unhappy with certain government proposals, this could be an opportunity to relax the party whip system, so that it wouldn’t be seen to be such a big deal if they were vote against. In Britain, when they had a vote last year on the introduction of deferred payments for college fees, there were members of both government parties who voted against or abstained.

Fewer but stronger committees

There have also been proposals to strengthen the committee structure, to give it greater powers of scrutiny over legislation and over appointments to state boards. Though Fine Gael intends to give permanent Constitutional recognition to certain committees, the structures could be put in place before such a referendum. The number of committees could be reduced and then strengthened in their power. A distribution of chairs by a d’Hondt or rotational system would reflect the diversity within the Dáil. It is fair that the positions in executive, at cabinet or junior rank, to be composed only of those who have formed the government, but that isn’t undermined by sharing this in the legislature. In the US House of Representatives, the current Chair of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy is the radical Republican presidential hopeful, Ron Paul, who would like to shut down the Federal Reserve, something that made Majority Leader John Boehner wary of his appointment. Imagine if Shane Ross or Joe Higgins were to chair our own Banking and Financial Regulation Committee.

There were many other proposals on political reform proposed by the two incoming government parties, these are just a few of them that have most relevance to the Dáil itself which could be started straight away.

This result, in the order elected, mirrors the result in Dublin South, where Independent Shane Ross, one Labour and three Fine Gael were elected.

I did fear through the count, delayed by Dick Roche’s demand for a recount in the unsuccessful hope that he might escape the ignominy of coming tenth, that Sinn Féin’s John Brady might get the fifth seat. Donnelly eventually passed out Brady on the 16th count, on the distribution of Tom Fortune’s votes, a Labour councillor who, like Donnelly, lives in Greystones. On the last count, Donnelly had a margin of 112 votes, and I’ll give credit to Brady for not requesting a partial recount even after they’d become the fashion here. I was impressed with Donnelly’s short campaign focused on the important national economic issue and he will be an asset to the Dáil.

I am glad from a party political level that Wicklow will be one of five constituencies to elect at least three Fine Gael TDs. Our three have a great balance between them in terms of personal strengths, backgrounds and geography. I’ve got to know them since joining the party in the summer of 2009, and am really pleased to see them get in. I remember saying at a meeting in Greystones before Christmas that to get three seats, the party would probably have to poll at least 38%. They got 39%, with a brilliant division of the vote, at 14%, 13% and 12% respectively.

And I have a personal fondness for Anne Ferris, as the candidate standing anywhere in this election whom I’ve known the longest, when I met her in the time coming up to the 1999 local elections, when she was a councillor and office manager for Liz McManus, then the only TD with a full-time constituency office in Bray (new TD Simon Harris has one as well now too).

Don’t mean to sound too gushing, I just am quite pleased, not many constituencies that returned just the ones I’d have picked myself.

The RDS is probably the place where it balances out to a degree. There are enough counts going on that one can get a decent feel for what’s going on and with supporters from around Dublin there, there’s a good buzz around too. One of the best things about count centres is the cordiality between members of different parties. I was tallying for the first time, for Dublin South-Central, and was standing next to a group of Sinn Féin talliers, chatting the odd bit when not concentrating on the votes in front of us. In general party activists can get along well, we can all respect the commitment we have to our different, but the day of the count is the one day when all sniping can really be put aside, as we all experience the emotions of ups and downs, seeing effort pay off or not.

I liked the chance to meet those from the particular cross-party networks I’d built up from my political activity before Fine Gael, those in the PDs and those I’d met through the Lisbon campaign. As someone who experienced the feeling of a count day on the collapse of a party, I appreciated the disappointment of the Green Party members. To a lesser extent too, I can sympathize with Fianna Fáil supporters. I think given everything, they deserved to lose badly in this election, as Mary O’Rourke acknowledged again on Pat Kenny this morning, but one shouldn’t yet dismiss or sneer at the good intentions of their members. I think anyone active in a political party should have found themselves nodding with Conor Lenihan in his reaction to Vincent Browne last month.

I arrived at the RDS just as I heard the results of the exit poll, putting Fine Gael at 36%. After polls putting us a bit above that, I was disappointed given that opinion polls had suggested we could reach our previous high of 39% in November 1982. I knew though that we would at least pass that year’s result in terms of seats, and it was clear soon enough that Fianna Fáil would hold only one seat in the capital.

Though we had a modest result in Dublin South-Central, I was delighted to see Paschal Donohoe win in Dublin Central, well deserved after a few years hard slog, winning the seat the party had held till Jim Mitchell was defeated in 2002. And in Dublin South-East, where I had done most work, it was great to see Eoghan Murphy coming in second place behind poll-topper Lucinda Creighton, ahead of the two Labour candidates. After leaving the count centre in the evening, I returned for around one in the morning to see Eoghan elected to the third seat, then back to the Burlington till it closed, not back home till near 12 Sunday morning.

Whatever about the ambitious hopes of the party during the campaign, it was a great result overall, with 17 seats across Dublin where we had only 3 in 2002. It will be interesting to see the dynamic in constituencies like Dublin South-East and Mid-West, where all TDs are from Fine Gael and Labour. I had hoped Dún Laoghaire might join that group, that Ivana Bacik might pip Richard Boyd Barrett for the fourth seat. Of all candidates from other parties, she was possibly the one I was most disappointed not to see elected.

And great for Fine Gael nationally, an all-time high. Fine Gael will be in coalition with Labour from next week, we’ll see how the spoils of government and ministerial positions work out over the weekend and next Wednesday, and I’ll comment on this again. Though it shouldn’t be a surprise that I think we should take Finance and control the economic debate while giving way to Labour on certain social issues.

After every general election now though, more people take up political offices than are elected to the Dáil, as there are co-options to replace those who were city, county or town councillors or MEPs. We know already the two new MEPs, taken from the lists published at the time of the June 2009 election.

Edit: Ruth Coppinger did not accept the position, so it fell to Paul Murphy to represent the Socialist Party as MEP for Dublin.

This gives a final prediction from Paddy Power, with a comparison to 2007, of 78.5 Fine Gael (+27.5), 33 Labour (+13), 22.5 Fianna Fáil (-55.5), 14 Sinn Féin (+10), 4 United Left Alliance (+4), 2 Green (-4) and 12 Independents (+7).

In any case, how accurate this is will stand as an indicator of how reliable a measure Paddy Power is for these purposes.

Between all constituencies, the seats estimated by this measure fall as follows:

Constituency	FG	Lab	FF	SF	ULA	Green	Oth
Carlow–Kilkenny	3	1	1
Cavan–Monaghan	2		1	2
Clare	2		1				1
Cork East	2	1	1
Cork North-Central	1	2		1
Cork North-West	2		1
Cork South-Central	3	1	1
Cork South-West	2	1
Donegal North-East	1		1	1
Donegal South-West	1		1	1
Dublin Central	1	1		1			1
Dublin Mid-West	2	1		1
Dublin North	1	1			1	1
Dublin North-Central	2						1
Dublin North-East	1	1		1
Dublin North-West	1	1		1
Dublin South	2	1				1	1
Dublin South-Central	1	2		1	1
Dublin South-East	2	2
Dublin South-West	2	1		1
Dublin West	1	1	1		1
Dún Laoghaire	2	2
Galway East	2		1				1
Galway West	2		1				2
Kerry North–Limerick West	1	1		1
Kerry South	2						1
Kildare North	2	1					1
Kildare South	1	1	1
Laois–Offaly	2		2	1
Limerick	2		1
Limerick City	2	1	1
Longford–Westmeath	2	1	1
Louth	2	1	1	1
Mayo	4		1
Meath East	2	1
Meath West	2		1
Roscommon–Leitrim South	2						1
Sligo–Leitrim North	2		1
Tipperary North	1	1					1
Tipperary South	1				1		1
Waterford	2	1	1
Wexford	2.5	1	0.5				1
Wicklow	3	2
TOTAL	78.5	33	22.5	14	4	2	12

These figures include Séamus Kirk returned automatically for Fianna Fáil in Louth.

The campaign has highlighted five key facts:

1. At least 1 in 5 young people in Ireland are experiencing a mental health problem at any one time.
2. In any given year, at least 1 in 10 young people in Ireland will self-harm.
3. International studies are now showing that as many as 1 in 2 of us will experience a mental health difficulty at some point, and we know that the huge majority of these problems begin by age 24.
4. 60% of young people report that they would not seek help from a mental health professional if they had problems.
5. Over 80 % of young people in Ireland use or would use the Internet as a source of mental health info – so we’re using the internet to get our message out!

Mental health is an important issue at all stages in life, but as with anything, the earlier addressed, the better to prevent long-term problems.

For those who have mental health difficulties or know someone who could benefit from help, Get on Board acts as an umbrella campaign group for four organizations:

• Reach Out
  Reach Out is a web-based service that inspires young people to help themselves through tough times and find ways to improve their own mental health and well-being.
• Foróige
  Foróige is the leading youth organisation in Ireland, working with approximately 50,000 young people aged 10-18 every year through volunteer-led clubs and staff-led youth projects.
• Belong To
  BeLonG To is a national organisation for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered (LGBT) young people, aged between 14 and 23.
• Headstrong
  Headstrong was established four years ago with a vision where young people feel connected to their community and have the resilience to face challenges to their mental health.

Candidates from all party have got on board. This campaign has to continue in the weeks till 9 March, to make sure it is highlighted in the Program for Government, and further during the years of government itself.

People can fail to appreciate that Fine Gael has long managed to maintain within it different points of view. While the strengths of different wings ebb and flow, the party does contain a strong diversity of opinion. In the 1960s we had the strong conservatism of Gerard Sweetman, the moderate fiscal conservatism of James Dillon and the social democracy of Declan Costello. Throughout Garret FitzGerald’s leadership, liberals and conservatives worked together, with clearly defined differences in many Dublin constituencies.

So while I strongly disagree with the views expressed by Lucinda Creighton over the weekend when she stated that she did not support gay marriage because she believed the purpose of marriage was for children, I do not feel disheartened. The party was right to state that this was her personal point of view, not something she was saying in her capacity as junior spokesperson on equality. While the party has not supported marriage equality, it hasn’t opposed it either. There has been no attempt, for example, to make any commitment as official Fine Gael policy to oppose equality in this matter. There is no agenda, as some have tried to imagine, to reverse civil partnership rights; the Fine Gael manifesto commits the party to completing the elements of the civil partnership process stalled by the dissolution of the Dáil.

I feel there are some, particularly online, who like to target Fine Gael for comments such as those by Lucinda while ignoring the opposite point of view from members of the party. I saw no reference in the criticisms in the last few days to the speech by Charlie Flanagan on the first day of the debate on the Civil Partnership Bill in December 2009. Speaking as Justice Spokesperson, giving the first response from the party, he talked of the advances in a liberal society, brought a human element to the debate, and expressed a wish that civil partnership would be a step towards equality. I have extracted portions of this speech here before, but crucially Flanagan expressed his view, “While many welcome [the civil partnership bill], others believe it does not go far enough. To those people I would say that change is incremental and I hope that full equality is not far away.”

This was his own personal opinion here again, just as it was Lucinda’s on the weekend, yet few jumped to equate his words with Fine Gael policy. Even within Lucinda’s own constituency, there is diversity within the party on this question. Eoghan Murphy, also standing for Fine Gael in Dublin South-East,  affirmed in answer to an online query that he believes gay couples should be allowed to marry.

In 2004, before the issue was seriously on the agenda in any form, and before other parties have drafted their proposals, Sen. Sheila Terry and Alan Shatter published a comprehensive policy on civil partnerships. The party deserves some credit for that and cannot be characterized as regressive. Realistically, a change in the law to end to end the current discrimination will require the support of a broad-based party like Fine Gael. The day Charlie Flanagan made the above speech, I was in the public gallery, and heard a member of the Labour Party there sneer that whatever Flanagan might think, that wasn’t party policy. But to get real movement on an issue like this, it has got to the stage where it needs to be pressed from within.

I do not think it is good enough that gay people like myself can not aspire to get married, while I could in a fair few other European countries. I believe this change would make gay children growing up feel they would be accepted, normalize their relationships and reduce bullying. Gay couples would truly become part of each others’ families, as in-laws, integrating them into the familiar structures we all relate to. Children raised by gay couples would have greater security. And the couple would have the comfort and dignity of a happily married life. Fine Gael matches most closely my political outlook in broad terms, and it makes most sense for me then to make this case from within the party.