The Irish booze and politics cocktail

There are senior politicians in Ireland who have problems with alcohol use near enough to the level experienced by Charles Kennedy, ousted leader of the Liberal Democrats in Britain. Two things protect them from suffering his fate: an understanding media and a cultural acceptance of alcohol use within politics, writes Matt Cooper.

But that doesn't mean either should be taken for granted as certain to continue.

The media is slow to engage in discussion of alcohol use for many reasons – the notable exception in this country being that of Jim McDaid (even before his drink driving conviction) because of many public comments made by his estranged wife.

Notwithstanding the low opinion in which some of the media is held – particularly after the inaccurate reporting of the circumstances of Liam Lawlor's death – there is often a genuine reluctance to breach the privacy of individuals when it comes to drink.

This lack of intrusion applies even to those who hold positions of genuine power and influence, unless it can be stated conclusively that enjoyment of alcohol has degenerated into an illness that affects the ability of the person to do his or her job.

Just because a politician gets sozzled occasionally does not mean he or she has a drink problem: if many journalists and broadcasters were judged by such a censorious criterion, then many of them would be out of work. It is even possible that the knowledge of a politician's alcohol habits derives from the company of the reporter in the same activity, which tends to inhibit disclosure.

There is also a fear of asking questions that would be judged by peers or public to be intrusive – Jeremy Paxman was vilified in 2002 for asking Kennedy what clearly were highly pertinent questions on BBC's Newsnight. They also do not want to jeopardise future access to important figures who might refuse interviews for fear of similar questions.

The cynics might say that all this reluctance is not so well motivated but stems from a fear of legal consequences should a libel be committed. Proving someone to be an alcoholic – which would be the burden in a libel trial – might be near impossible.

As it is, there are two very senior Fianna Fáil figures whose drinking habits could be the subject of legitimate inquiry because of fears it could compromise their ability to act – although both have the protection of being known to control their intake for lengthy periods.

It could be an issue if either – highly likely in one case – were to challenge for leadership of the party. Yet the circumstances in which such questions would be posed would be exceptional – just as much of the media censored itself over questioning Taoiseach Bertie Ahern about his domestic relationships.

Ahern's own relationship with alcohol is much better known and has lent to his "Bertie, Man of the People" image. There's his love of Bass, his old Hot Press interview about driving home after pints of the stuff, his regular evening time sessions with friends in two now well-known Dublin pubs and coverage of his two "dry periods each year" – at lent and in November. It is clear that nothing interferes with his legendary capacity for work; he uses alcohol as most people do, for relaxation.

But Ahern failed notably to discipline McDaid and GV Wright for their very serious drink driving indiscretions. Alcohol use does not seem to disqualify from progression within Fianna Fáil or result in disciplinary action. Instead, there is sympathy when serious offences occur while under the influence.

Road deaths are rising sharply and tobacco use is up, despite expensive and extensive advertising campaigns on road safety and the damage to health caused by tobacco. There are some interesting possibilities as to why this is happening.

One is that it is a factor of population growth, particularly the arrival of immigrants to fill the near 100,000 new jobs that were created last year.

Many of them are driving, increasing the number of new cars on the road and the chance of accidents. So maybe the 399 deaths on Irish roads in 2005 – the second year of increase after decreases in previous years – is not quite as scandalous as it seems. But then again, maybe it's not that simple: Sweden has a population of 9 million and far worse weather conditions, yet it had only 440 road deaths last year.

Government tax revenues were improved in 2005 by a take of an estimated €40 million more than in the previous years arising from cigarette sales. But anecdotal evidence suggests that many, particularly from eastern Europe and China, are heavy smokers, although it is doubtful that this could explain the consumption of an extra 3.2 million packets of 20 during 2005.

The behaviour of Irish nationals must be behind both rises. And that raises interesting questions about the decision to invest heavily in recent years on shock advertising campaigns – involving vivid pictures of car crashes or disgusting images of hearts clogged by the residue of smoking – to promote better behaviour.

It would appear that it doesn't work as well as it should, if it is emphasising the negative; people simply tune out.

That's not to suggest that advertising doesn't work. Clearly it does if it is pitched towards people's desires (which seemingly don't include good health) and has to seduce to succeed. Otherwise, the alcohol industry would not be so desperate to safeguard advertising as has been shown in studies published recently.

It's clear that road deaths fell in this country when drivers feared detection for misdemeanours and the impact of penalty points that could cause the loss of a licence. When it became clear that the number of Garda checkpoints is so few as to make the possibility of detection low, people resumed their bad behaviour on the roads.

The Government, influenced by Micheal Martin as Health Minister, had two major initiatives against cigarette use: the workplace ban and major annual increases in taxes to make the product less affordable. The last two Budgets have abandoned the latter policy so is it any surprise that usage has climbed so quickly again, once people began to regard the new price point as affordable?

It all suggests that when it comes to behaviour, even when bad behaviour can cause death, people react better to the stick than the carrot. But this Government has put the stick away in the long run-up to an election.

Pat Rabbitte believes Bertie Ahern's much trumpeted excellent relationship with the trade union movement is a myth the media has propagated. He doesn't like it; he sees Bertie as being closer to big business than is often acknowledged or Fianna Fáil likes to present it.

Maybe it's because he's an old union official himself and he doesn't like having what should be his natural position as the union movement's best political friend usurped by Bertie.

Or maybe it's because he needs senior officials in the union movement to support him in his position as leader of the Labour Party as it is under attack from Fianna Fáil.

There is no doubt but that Fianna Fáil regards Labour as a potential partner for government after the next election. Rabbitte has made it almost impossible for himself to enter coalition with Fianna Fail. Therefore, Fianna Fail wants to subtly undermine Rabbitte so that he could be replaced by someone like Brendan Howlin after the next election.

This is the subtext of Rabbitte's Irish Times interview in which he bemoaned the displacement of sections of the Irish workforce by foreign workers and spoke of a possible need for work permits, even among EU citizens.

In this he immediately became the strongest political supporter of SIPTU in particular and of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. He has accepted the anecdotal evidence presented to him by the likes of Jack O'Connor and David Begg that some unscrupulous Irish employers are taking advantage of legislative loopholes and are replacing Irish workers with cheaper foreign labour. It contrasts with Ahern throwing his hands up and saying he can do nothing, as his most telling contribution to the Irish Ferries row will be remembered.

The response from Fianna Fáil has been to insinuate racism on Rabbitte's part, as much as attacking the weak economic arguments he has advanced (because the anecdotal evidence on which he relies is far less substantive than the overall figures).

This has been cheap politics but then Rabbitte started this particular episode of the row. There will be much more of this sort of thing over the next 18 months, and in the next few months in particular as Ahern tries to get the unions to buy into a new national pay deal.

As the chant from the stands might have it: "Steve Staunton for Ireland manager, you having a laugh?"

The reaction to the selection of Ireland's most capped player – 102 appearances and present at all three World Cups in which Ireland has taken part – has been largely negative. The presence of Bobby Robson – a successful former manager of England and many continental clubs – has not reassured the critics.

But who else could the FAI have got once it was clear that Martin O'Neill was not available? Did people really want Terry Venables, as the bookies and media had speculated, a man who was available and ready to do the job within the FAI's budget? Had Venables been appointed, it would not have been near remotely funny.

Many reports suggested that Venables had meetings with Football Association of Ireland officials in London, although that has never been confirmed. Certainly, somebody was willing to give plenty of "information" to certain newspapers, suggesting that Venables would have been willing to take the job for a mere stg£400,000, much less than his usual salary. And there were conditions: Venables would have continued with his media work and with a Spanish property development in which he is involved, to reflect what was "merely" a salary befitting a part-time job.

While it might not be directly relevant to managing an international football team, Venables has a very dubious off-field record, including being disbarred as a company director for 19 offences committed while in charge of Tottenham Hotspur.

Since then he has been engaged in some colourful business dealings at Crystal Palace and Portsmouth and his successes there were limited to liberating money from his employers in the most exceptional and dubious of circumstances. He also failed to get Australia to the 1998 World Cup.

The suspicion must be that he saw the FAI as the latest soft touch; that an organisation with a poor reputation would be seduced by his reputation as an innovative coach, his near success with England in 1996 and his perceived popularity among players. He may have hoped that the FAI would be so glad to get him that it would allow him to continue with all his extra-curricular activities.

Venables has always been most successful as a self-publicist, but has traded on his reputation for years, based on just one major achievement – a Spanish title with Barcelona in 1985 – in 30 years of management.

The 63-year-old has not worked as a manager since being dismissed from his job at Leeds United in March 2003 – and that's telling. His friends claim he was the victim of circumstances there, but the majority of player sales took place after he brought Leeds down the Premiership table and after he had made many dreadful player purchases. He also admitted that he no longer was able to influence highly paid professionals in the way he once had.

Yet several pundits, mainly of his generation, spoke positively about him as a possible Irish manager, nodding approvingly about this "football man". Nobody seemed to care about his character. The tabloids had him appointed on a couple of occasions. Thankfully, the back-page gossip had it wrong.

Steve Staunton may have no managerial experience and limited coaching experience, but at least he has character – proven in the heat of Saipan when he was the most important figure in rallying the team after Roy Keane's walkout – that is worth supporting. In that he is a much better choice than Venables if the cheeky chappy Cockney was only the real alternative. That said, it raises further questions as to why FAI boss John Delaney was so keen and quick to axe Brian Kerr.

*********************************************************************

Readers of Village are probably glued to nightly broadcasts of Celebrity Big Brother on Channel Four, to see how Reform MP George Galloway is faring in his confinement. So this report is for those few of you who are not so occupied – fans of the programme can look away now.

Alas, poor George is struggling for a lack of intellectual debate. It was distressing to see him pour out his heart to actress Rula Lenski on Monday night's programme, despairing at how glamour model Jodi Marsh and others such as American former basketball star Denis Rodman had no interest in anything other than emoting or discussing sex graphically.

They might, he had thought, ask him about Tony Blair and thereby allow their television audience to learn more about politics – which, he said, was his ambition in going on the programme. But no, they had no interest, he noted ruefully. (What will he say when he discovers that his efforts to discuss Iraq and other issues have been edited by Channel 4?)

His housemates just don't appreciate what they have in their midst. On Sunday, he complained to Rula, the 11 inmates had been given two minutes to organise themselves in a row according to their level of fame. Galloway, given the task of organising this, immediately put entertainer Michael Barrymore into the number one position. He was met with opposition from others who said Rodman was more famous internationally. Galloway was furious – this is about who is more famous in Britain, for a British programme, he said.

He reflected the following evening that the others, whom he implied were fools, did not realise that if the celebrity listing was organised on an international basis he would have "won". After all, as he said himself, he is famous to about one and a half billion Muslims. It seems this prophet will not be appreciated until al-Jazeera broadcasts its own Celebrity Big Brother.

The Last Word with Matt Cooper is broadcast on 100-102 Today FM, Monday to Friday, 5pm to 7pm