Will FF and FG call off their civil war in our interest? Ah, forget it

IN any other country it would be obvious.

Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael as reasonably like-minded parties, certainly far closer in political and economic outlook than any other sizeable parties in the Dail, would form the next coalition government, benefiting from the comfortable majority a series of recent opinion polls suggests is coming to them.

However, as this is Ireland such logic does not apply. Instead Labour, admittedly likely to be the largest party although this is not certain, seems set to lead a government for the first time ever with either of the two conservatively inclined parties as its junior partner.

This raises a unique dilemma for both FF and FG: could either stomach playing second fiddle to the once permanently junior political rival? You might think they couldn’t contemplate this, which should drive them into each other’s arms just to keep the “left” out of power. But they won’t do this. They’d rather coalesce with Labour instead of with each other because they just can’t stomach the sense of angst, bewilderment and loss that would arise from such a forced marriage.

And surely Labour would do a deal with either of the two conservative parties just to stop them coming together to form a new power bloc that would keep Labour out of power for another generation?

After all, what political party turns down the chance of power, even if in such desperate circumstances as any new government faces? But what good would a Labour alliance with a party with which it disagrees do us? Would the country not be better off with government made up of parties that possess a common outlook?

For example, how would a coalition government of FG and Labour form a budget if given the opportunity? Compromise would be reached, of course, if only for the parties to remain wedded in power, but would it give us the right combination of spending cuts and small tax increases to re-stimulate the economy? That’s doubtful.

And what about sorting out the mess at the banks? How would they come to agreement given that both have argued for very different strategies over the past two years? Or does it really matter given that the European Central Bank and European Commission are going to be calling most of the shots anyway in return for the money which is being supplied to keep the country afloat?

A new government could find it has no choice but to proceed with the established strategies on NAMA and the banks, because it is too late to do anything else, and that the parameters for dealing with the public finances would have been enforced by Europe. In which case what is to stop Labour sharing power with FF? While Eamon Gilmore has ruled it out everything changes once the votes in a general election are counted and the coalition permutations are being assessed.

FF can be more adaptable – you could say pragmatic – in its approach to dealing with coalition partners, although Gilmore is sufficiently clued in to realise an embrace with that party has damaged everyone – including Labour – who has been gripped by it previously. Surely Gilmore would also reckon much of Labour’s new-found support would evaporate were Labour to get into bed with the party most responsible for the mess we’re in.

This too would probably be one of the main reasons advanced by FG for refusing to coalesce with FF, although history too would play its part. FF and FG like to emphasise their differences, but to do so they have to rely on history. Very few, if any, of the voters care about the early 20th century civil war or the traditions out of which these parties sprung.

Both want to get to much the same place when it comes to economic issues: both prefer lower tax regimes than Labour and have similar beliefs about the amount of public spending required. Essentially, both parties pitch to the centre of the political landscape. No matter how much they like to argue otherwise, there are few differences between them.

However, more practical and personal reasons would be at play too. The bickering that would emanate from any coalition arrangement between FF and FG would be far from civil, especially as they jockeyed for positions. It would be tribal, but it is the personal that probably makes it impractical. Although the loyal foot soldiers, even though aging and falling in number, would not bear it, the real impediment is that such a union, even if on a temporary basis, would wreck too many careers among the officer classes.

Things may be desperate, but they are not so serious that FF and FG would consider coalescing in the national interest.

However, the day may not be far away when it is forced upon them, should current voting intention trends continue. While each party must be frightened by their own poll ratings – ironically and astonishingly, FG more so than FF – what is of great significance too is the erosion of their combined dominance of Irish politics. The days when they commanded more than 80% of the vote have long gone and will never return. If you were to believe the polls the combined vote for FF and FG in the next election could even fall to less than 50%. That would still be enough to give the combined parties enough seats comfortably to hold a Dáil majority. Is that what people would want?

* IF Labour’s Ruairi Quinn believes Mary Coughlan is a terrible Minister for Education, as he told me on Monday evening’s Last Word, then surely it would have been better to have facilitated FG in its desire to keep her in the country for the Dáil resumption? Quinn maintained that no matter how impressive she is, it is better for the country to display a minister at foreign functions than not. This played into FF’s hands in claiming FG’s move was “anti-patriotic” in that it would prevent her from assisting in bringing investment to Ireland.

I’M not so sure that sending her was a good idea. I’ve heard from enough people who have been present at Coughlan’s forays abroad for trade missions during her last job, as Minister for Trade, Enterprise and Employment, to believe she is not an impressive performer.

I saw her in action with business people at one major function in Dublin and I was not the only person to be underwhelmed. It should not be just a case of sending a minister, but of sending a good one. If we don’t have one, then send none.

But we have a major problem with the way ministers are selected. Many are picked for geographical reasons, some for gender and many for the loyalty they show to a party leader. They are not necessarily assigned roles for which they have experience or knowledge either, especially when, like Coughlan, they have never worked outside of politics.

The constitution allows for a Taoiseach to select two individuals from outside the Dáil to be ministers. This almost never happens because it would upset TDs with an eye on promotion. It would be great if the next Taoiseach would be brave enough to find a businessman and an academic to serve as ministers and, even better, if the constitution was amended to increase that number of people who could be appointed. But the chances of that, even if in the national interest, are probably as slim as that of FF and FG coming together.

The Last Word with Matt Cooper is broadcast on 100-102 Today FM, Monday to Friday, 4.30pm to 7pm.