Coalition of chancers evading responsibilities

ONE of the deficiencies in our Constitution is that there is no mechanism for dumping a government which has stolen power by perpetrating a massive fraud on the people.

If there were, then the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats would be indicted for being a coalition of chancers who, post the general election, palpably committed one of the biggest con jobs the electorate has ever been subjected to.

The PDs could, possibly, get off on the grounds of diminished responsibility. Alzheimers, presumably, is a condition which can reduce, or void, culpability, and the party that once promised to be the conscience of FF quite clearly can claim that.

Now, they’re quite happy in the knowledge that their collaboration to aid and abet the rape of the ballot box to get returned to power paid off, and all they have to do is to aid and abet for the next five years.

So, in the absence of a constitutional remedy and the unlikelihood of a rebellion, the prospect of escape from one of the most economically repressive regimes this country has seen since the foundation of the State, looks depressing.

It is economically repressive because of its own profligacy with the economy, having managed to turn a surplus of 2 billion into a deficit of as much.

Like a script from a Mel Brooks movie, insofar as a putative rebellion is concerned, there was a whimper from some Fianna Fáil backbenchers during the week. What brought on this phantom attack of indignation at their parliamentary party meeting was the contents of the Estimates and the fact that they hadn’t a clue beforehand as to what the maverick McCreevy was about to dump on the people.

So outraged was the public response to Charlie McCreevy’s Book of Estimates, that even some FF backbenchers realised there was something radically wrong with it.

Some, of them, probably with a bit of prompting, even rang local radio stations and said they disagreed with the removal of the grant for first-time buyers, that it was unfair and should never have been dreamt up. There was some public outpourings from a handful of the rank and file TDs in Fianna Fáil and briefly - very briefly - the bizarre notion descended that Bertie might have a little problem on his hands. Was it just a little bit possible that there might be the semblance of a backbone in the party?

Yes, the notion was bizarre.

The parliamentary party meeting on Wednesday was, essentially, a group therapy session. Those who wanted to, gave vent to their anger at being told the bad news in the Estimates at the same time as the rest of us. They were allowed do so.

Then they marched into the Dáil and voted for the very same Estimates which they know in their hearts and souls are unjust and will affect unfortunate house purchasers and the most vulnerable in our society the most.

Had any one of them followed their conscience and done the right thing by voting against the Estimates, or even abstained, they would have been automatically expelled from the parliamentary party.

One of the generally held misconceptions about Fianna Fáil TDs is that they are elected to represent the people who voted for them, whereas they know that this is not the case.

An elected representative of the Soldiers of Destiny has to blindly do what he or she is told to do by the party chiefs, even if those orders are inimical to the interests or well-being, or both, of their constituents. The only exception is that they are also to follow the diktat of the Progressive Democrats.

Since the breathtaking u-turn performed after the general election, the Minister for Finance has come in for a storm of criticism, and quite rightly so. But the deceit we have witnessed is something that was perpetrated by the entire Government and the principle of collective Cabinet responsibility applies.

As Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern holds a greater degree of responsibility and, presumably, he agreed with all the measures which McCreevy announced in the Estimates. In the same way he must also countenance what looks like another attempt by the Minister for Finance to interfere with one of the most effective and relevant institutions in this country - the credit unions.

The Irish League of Credit Unions has voiced strong resistance to what it perceives to be attempts to change the way it is regulated. A spokesman for the Department of Finance has denied they are trying to undermine the voluntary ethos and the non-profit motives of the movement.

But, he added, they have obligations to properly regulate a movement which has grown by such large proportions to a multi-billion euro business.

Now, we know exactly the worth of denials that emanate from the Government. So, if the ILCU is worried, then the chances are that they have every right to be so.

Mr McCreevy has shown in the past that he’s not too worried about credit unions. The fact that they have 2.6 million small savers in 535 branches around the country won’t prevent him from imposing, or trying to impose, changes on them against their will.

A bitter row erupted in 1998, and lasted two years, between the Minister and the ILCU over the method of applying DIRT tax on savings. Incredibly, Mr McCreevy absolutely refused to meet the leaders of the credit union movement because he believed they had betrayed him.

What’s even more incredible is that the Taoiseach indulged that sulk for so long. He eventually showed a bit of leadership when, with the help of Tánaiste Mary Harney, he intervened in 2002 to resolve the dispute.

When you think about the fact that the Government allowed a row fester for two years with a largely voluntary organisation which probably does more to help out people than that same Government, it’s easy to see the arrogance in their dictatorial policies.

What is causing nerves now is the application of controls by the new Irish Financial Services Regulatory Authority (IFSRA) to the credit union movement. This is an umbrella body established to regulate all financial services such as banks and insurance companies.

Because the board of the IFSRA were unhappy that a new Regulator of Credit Unions was not under sufficient supervision, the Minister changed the rules to suit them.

His officials insist that this does not equate to applying bank rules to credit unions, any more than the regulatory regime means applying bank rules to insurance firms.

Obviously, there must be a degree of regulating the credit unions, and they do not have a problem with that. In fact, they had discussions with the Government over the regulatory regime and everyone was happy.

Then Mr McCreevy changes the rules at the behest of the IFSRA.

The ILCU has every right to be concerned, and to take any assurances from the Department of Finance with a grain of salt.

It would be more in the minister’s line to take on the multi-millionaires in the bloodstock industry and let the credit union movement alone.