Labour vents anger at Hogan
The first meeting of the Labour parliamentary party following the Dáil’s Easter recess saw numerous TDs and senators vent anger at how the water charges issue had been handled.
“People want to rally around the minister. But it’s pretty hard to do if he keeps committing faux pas like this,” said one TD.
“There’s an issue here about us becoming error-prone on message… There is grave concern about how we’re retailing things.
“Everybody in the Labour Party is scratching their heads and wondering why it’s happening — it’s so unnecessary and we’re building resentment towards us.”
Another TD said: “Are people pissed off?
“The obvious answer to that question is yes.”
Mr Hogan, he added, seemed to be “the guy who couldn’t shoot straight”.
Both pointed out that water charges had been well flagged and the Government should therefore have been able to communicate its message much more effectively.
They said there were “good news” elements to the story which had been lost, such as the creation of 2,000 construction jobs during the meter rollout.
It is understood Tánaiste and party leader Eamon Gilmore listened to the views expressed and addressed the meeting.
He acknowledged that the manner in which the story emerged over the weekend had been “unfortunate” and “didn’t make it easy to deal with”.
However, sources said he made no personal criticisms of Mr Hogan.
One TD, meanwhile, said that while it was perfectly legitimate for colleagues to express their frustrations in a private party meeting, there was nothing to be gained in going public with them.
“There’s no dividend in us talking up the conflict. We need to get on message and release facts when we have them, not speculation or sections of reports.”
Labour’s Senator John Whelan did go public with his criticisms. He claimed Mr Hogan’s department was now guilty of a “trio of cock-ups” following the household charge and septic tank controversies.
Like others, he also said water charges could have been a “good news story” if handled properly because of the overdue investment that would be made in the water system and the environmental benefits that would accrue. Instead, a “good strategic decision” was “badly communicated”.
