Wigmore - Christmas 1983

IT is shocking that not one voice has been raised in defence of the poor turkeys of Monaghan. This is the only species of bird that to our knowledge has been repressed by the full might of a modem army. Look at the poor, helpless creature:
The front page of the Evening Press blared out triumphantly: "Army strangles 6,000 turkeys in Monaghan".

Strangled.

"Troops Out!" is what we say.

Were it necessary at all to slaughter this noble fowl, is there not a more humane answer? And is the slaughhter necessary? In whose interest is this blood-lust? So what if the turkeys are ill? Have they not a right to all the help we can give them? Euthanasia for turkeys: is this the thin end of the wedge? Patsy Buckley - where are you now that we need you? Where are the legions of SPUC? Where the sermons from the pulpit? Are the Knights gathering in secret to mount a last-minute rescue?

Are the turkeys to blame if they catch some disease? Perhaps they merely drink some milk containing antibiotics. Perhaps they ate some meat containing God knows what. Perhaps they drank some water in Dublin and got a belt of some phenol. Is it their fault? Who are we to inflict this terrible vengeance upon them?

Where is Barry Desmond now? A.nd Adrian Hardiman? And Dean Victor Griffin and all the rest of the pinko liberals who were so vocal a few short months ago?

As a mark of solidarity this departtment hereby resolves to abstain from turkey this festive season. Chicken is your only man.

* * *

CORRECTION: In the Magill Book Of Irish Politics 1984 the entry regarding Willie O'Brien, Fine Gael TD for Limerick West, says that he voted for both forms of wording in the Connstitutional Amendment debate. The voting details were taken from the official Dail record of April 27. We have been informed since publication that the official record was in error. Consequently the entry in the Magill book is in error. Willie O'Brien voted for the Fine Gael wording only. We apologise for any misunderstanding arising.

* * *

THE practice of injecting large sums .of public money into the art business via the Arts Council has long intrigued this department. We have been waiting breathlessly to swoop on the first silly initiative by the new head of the Arts Council, Adrian Munnelly. Our stm;;gers have spent many hours supping pints in the appropriately arty-farty pubs where such initiatives are decided. Not a cheep. Weeks have gone by, months, and Mr Munnelly sits on his hands. We await, poised. It is very frusstrating. Do something.

THOSE who have any doubts about the uselessness of pol corrs - indeed, their dangerousness - need look no further than the very entertaining Dail debate on the TDs' salary inncreases (November 3, Dail Report Vo1.345, No.7).

"Some people", said Paddy Gallaagher, referring to the population at large, "have been very critical of these increases, but any reports by political correspondents who normally work in this House have given a very impartial view and they have been very fair in their comments."

And Ben Briscoe. "In fairness to the political correspondents, everyone here will agree that not one of them has knocked this increase, to my knowledge. The members of the press who have been knocking it are outside the political arena and therefore do not know very much about what TDs do." The "political arena", apparently, embraces TDs and political corresspondents. All outsiders need do is vote and shut up.

Reporters who are "outside the political arena" are those who do not have to sniff around the corridors of Leinster House picking up the political droppings of the TDs, who do not depend on TDs to feed them tit-bits and in return print nice PR pieces and otherwise defend their interests.

Those "outside the political arena" (and doesn't it sound such a cosy club?) know too bloody well what the TDs do, what they don't do and all their little tricks and scams.

When the correspondents whose job it is to report on the politicians are being praised by those same poliiticians it's time they checked their consciences.

* * *

BEN BRISCOE again. This charming gent deserves some sort of award for his statement on the Criminal Justice Bill. He said that if his son became a heroin addict he would shoot him. We don't know quite what to say about this but we have a feeling that something should be said.

* * *

RAY SMITH of the Independent has written a book on Charlie Haughey, "Charles J Haughey - The Survivor". We have not read it yet but will do so over Christmas.

Ray, affectionately known as Congo because of his enthusiastic coverage of that story back in the old days, achieved the distinction of being the first journalist to get hold of transcript of the MacSharry /O'Donoghue tapes and get it into print. His book was serialised in the Indo a week before the Joe Joyce and Peter Murtagh book, "The Boss", was published. If that had been done by any of the back-scratching political corresponndents it would have been hailed as a major scoop. They had been sniffing around in pursuit of the transcript and failed miserably. Because Congo is a working journalist his scoop was given less than its due. It is worth noting that the best work on that whole Haughey mess was done by another working journalist, Peter Murrtagh, who revealed the phone tapping. The story was then taken up by the political correspondents with the sharp lapels - who promptly made a pig's mickey of it.

THERE's something else about Ray Smith that has been annoying us for some time. At the press conference during the last three elections Ray had a habit of asking long, rambling, easy-to-evade questions. They often involved important issues such as health care and Ray's concern and integrity were palpable. Both Haughey and FitzGerald on occasion took addvantage of the loose nature of the questions and dismissed them with some crack. Disgustingly, certain pointy-headed political correspondents aided and abetted the politicians' evasions by responding to the gags and joining in. If these smart-ass people were as good at their own jobs as they are at screwing up other peoples' Ray Smith wouldn't have beaten them hollow in the race for the transcripts.

* * *

BELFAST Council appoints its counncillors to sub-committees, as is normal, and these sub-eommittees in turn appoint members to outside bodies. A People's Democracy councillor and a Sinn Fein Councillor received such appointments recently, to sit on bodies dealing with community serrvices and citizen's advice bureaux. Ratification of such appointments is usually a routine matter. On this occasion the DUP, OUP and (Oh, dear, isn't our slip showing) the Alliance voted them out. The SDLP and Paddy Devlin, although vehementtly opposed to the two councillors, to their credit voted against the motion. Democracy either works both ways or it doesn't work.

* * *

GIVEN the support accruing to Sinn Fein these days and the political drift of that party it is not out of the quesstion that they will have representation in the Dail before the decade is out. Think of the problems this will cause for RTE. The Section 31 prohibition will prevent interviews with the new TDs, but that's small beer. What happens to the proposals to broadcast Dail proceedings? Will the broadcasts be edited? In which case the Provos could have great fun intervening every ten seconds, so that the edited tape sounds like a series of hiccups. If a Provo is elected to the Dail will John Bruton drop his proposals?

* * *

THE most disturbing thing about the Cluskey resignation is not the fact of his going but that it should have been such a surprise. This casts a disturbing light on the behaviour of the media.

There was a clash between two schools of economic thought within the Cabinet. The Bruton school won. There was a passage of several days and, as Cluskey pointed out, precious little debate on the Cabinet decision. r Cluskey resigned, and the political correspondents were given their heads - how will this affect the Coalition, will Cluskey challenge Spring? The media, whose job it is to inform public debate, had fallen down on the job.

Suppose the result of the clash had gone the other way? Suppose the Cabinet decided on nationalisation and John Bruton subsequently resigned? In the intervening period the media would have been climbing all over the

story, probing the nationalisation prooposals, questioning the political effects of the decision, writing editorials about the victory of dogma over commmon sense. The pol corrs would have needed buckets to collect the leaks from the Fine Gael side of governnment.

Instead, the media treated the Cabinet decision as a right and proper act to be reported without undue agggression, without rousing public deebate.

The reason being, of course, that the media is dominated to an alarming extent by one school of economic thought - which happens to more or less coincide with the thoughts of John Bruton. Even supposing that this was the "correct" economic" line (and there is no such thing as a scientifiically correct line in economics - only lines which favour one or another poliitical force) it still wouldn't justify the behaviour of the media.

It is an appalling comment on the media that it took the resignation of a Minister to create any controversy about the decisions being taken on natural resources. If the media persist in campaigning for one economic point of view, not merely reporting it and subjecting it to the same examiination as was given, for instance, to Haughey's line, credibility drains.

* * *

CERTAIN prominent personages who have had extensive experience in dealing with both Charlie Haughey and Garret FitzGerald have arrived at some conclusions about their different styles. For obvious reasons we can't name these people (it's a long road) but their analysis seems to us more accurate and succinct than anything else published.

Charlie Haughey, it is said, is a great believer in letting (certain types of) bygones be bygones. "Let's not dwell on the past", he says. "If Charlie Haughey was responsible for starting a nuclear' war", says one observer, "he would be quite capable of calling the survivors together next day and saying, with a wave of his hand, 'Let's not dwell on the past'."

Garret FitzGerald has a different approach to negotiating. Garret has an image of a befuddled professor - odd shoes, not sure what exactly is going on, full of good intentions, determined to muddle through. Not true, says one who has had dealings with him. Garret is as tough and ruthless as any of the other hard chaws. So great is the difference between his public image and his behaviour behind closed doors that in certain circles his public image is referred to as "his Columbo act".

* * *

THE STRAIN within the Coalition was telling for some time before the Cluskey resignation - most sharply during the Clondalkin Paper Mills dispute. As the hunger strike lenggthened there was a desperate urge to find a solution. It was in fact Cluskey who pushed a formula for ending the dispute.

This was worked out over two meetings with union leaders from the Trade Union-Labour group and the four Labour ministers. The main strain at those meetings was between Cluskey and Barry Desmond. Dessmond, according to one source, "made John Bruton look like a liberal". So often did he repeat that he would vote with the government (there was a Fianna Fail motion pending on the Mills' reopening) and how the governnment could not give in to a hunger strike, that at one point Dick Spring turned to him and said, "Look, if you can't say something helpful, don't say anything at all."

Desmond resisted any softening on the Clondalkin issue. "I won't", he said at one point, "be a party to any dishonesty". Cluskey , who had been strongest in seeking some way out of the impasse, rose to his feet and growled, "Are you accusing me of dishonesty? "

* * *

PADDY SMITH, Kevin Boland and Frank Cluskey have very different politics, but they are of a very select band - they forsook the goodies and resigned for the sake of principle. That such acts are so few and are considered so odd (the Sunday Tribune used the word "betrayal" in describing Cluskey's action) speaks volumes for the regard in which principle is held by p oli ticians.

Cluskey's action helps the image of politicians and in particular the image of the Labour Party, in the short term. His deliberate distancing of himself from the party dissidents and anti-coalitionists is not so healthy. By insisting on playing a Gary Cooper role, making his action a personal gesture, he reduces its political conntent. Inevitably the action will be seen, whatever its intentions, as merely a personal power play.

* * *

CLUSKEY's resignation on principle puts him in the reckoning for Poliitician of the Year. But a lot more chips have yet to fall before the siggnificance of the action becomes totally clear. In the meantime, by far the best parliamentary performer has'

been Gene Fitzgerald. '

Proinnsias de Rossa is due an accoolade for his use of Question Time Ðin particular his exposure of The Great Pension' Scandal. But Fitzgerald quiettly and systematically used Question Time to probe the Coalition's "adviser" syndrome. He's a noisy and often obbnoxious performer in the Dail, but he actually gets down to some work, which is more than can be said for most.

* * *

THERE is no competition at all for the worst performance of the year. Michael Noonan, Minister for Justice, wins hands down.

For some reason, certain backkscratching political correspondents (Wigmore passim) have been acting as this man's PR agents. They have immputed to him a charisma, style, depth and efficiency which empirical eviddence indicates he just does not have. We have been told he has the makings of a Taoiseach. Perhaps - there's not much competition around these days. But what qualities he possesses which would entitle him to that position have yet to be made clear.

He bumbled through the Amendment issue, introducing the Bill before he could produce the wording. The Dail found itself in the extraordinary position of debating a Bill, the wordding of which it did not have before it. He sought the sanction of the bishops and then misinterpreted their stance, creating even more embarrassment for his party.

He made misleading statements during the bugging and tapping scandal - as to the relationship between Doherty and the two senior gardai who retired over the affair and as to alleged "safeguards" against wrongful tapping.

He insulted the Supreme Court, referring to it as a "back door". For a Minister for Justice to deliberately undermine the country's superior court is no small thing. He has not apologised, neither has he been chasstised by his Taoiseach. We must take it, then, that the Cabinet shares this view of the Court.

He introduced the Criminal Justice Bill. There is a problem of crime  Noonan has no intention of tackling it as the complex, deeply rooted probblem it is. Instead, he has produced a short-term populist Bill which will leave organised crime alone and prooduce conflict between the gardai and certain definable sections of the community. The crime rate will inncrease and the gardai will become furrther politicised. At a press conference to announce the Bill Noonan demonnstrated an appalling ignorance of the law, repeatedly making a distinction between arrest and detention which does not exist in law. At an Ard Fheis a couple of years ago Garret FitzzGerald made a very good speech on crime in which he demonstrated a knowledge of its complexities and the different forms it takes and the different approaches needed. That has been thrown aside and Noonan allowwed to make a political gesture.

* * *

WHILE we're on the subject of Michael Noonan. A few months back he adddressed the British-Irish Association at Oxford. He delivered a cogent, thoughttful speech on the North. Much was made of it by his PR friends in the media - great speech, marvellous inntellect, 0 bviously carefully considered. In fact, the speech was badly delivered, as though Noonan had never seen it before rising to his feet.

Which may well be the case. The speech was actually Dick Spring's.

Spring was scheduled to speak but got into a huff when details of his speech at a closed session of the Forum were leaked. Spring got up on his high horse and rode back to Kerry. Noonan was despatched post haste to Oxford. He's been basking in the glory ever since.

* * *

NOONAN again. We do not know if Nicky Kelly is innocent. We have seen evidence which indicates that he is, but innocence is difficult to prove. Noonan has said he will release Kelly if he sees new evidence of innocence. In theory, one is not supposed to have to prove one's innocence. The eviddence that sent Kelly to jail is discrediited. New evidence of his innocence has indeed emerged. Releasing Kelly would be an embarrassment. Noonan does nothing.

It would be possible to go on at length about how the courts and the gardai and the politicians have been brought into disrepute by this case, bu t why bother? The politicians don't give a toss so why should we? All that matters now is that Kelly faces another' Christmas in prison. Open the gates.

* * *

WE note from the Sunday Times that there is a new movie version of George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-four on the way. The authoritative ST tells us that Orwell was not at all happy with the first movie version of the novel, starring Edmond O'Brien and released in 1955. We stand in awe of the ST's marvellous feat of investigative journaalism in extracting this critical opinion from Orwell, who was dead five years before the movie was made.

* * *

HEAVY GANG of the Year Award goes to the Provos. There have been too many instances of hard men with fists like hams taking people into the basements of police stations and doing what they please with them. People have been hurt, people have been framed. In at least one case a suspect in custody died from injuries received. The causes and conduct of the war in the North can be discussed until the Forum comes home, but kidnapping people and subjecting them and their families to obscene stress - as in the case of Raymond Gilmour's father or Don Tidey - is the work of a heavy gang.