Michael Clifford: How tone-deaf can one government be? 

All that tumbled out during the week would suggest that this government has turned a deaf ear to that which is being carried on the changing political winds, writes Michael Clifford

The outcome is Leo Varadkar's actions ultimately may have a negative impact on his, and by extension, the government’s capacity to govern in the realm of industrial relations. All for the sake of giving a friend a dig out.

Three times during the last week the current administration demonstrated that it is not tuned into changing political winds. 

It’s as if Brexit and Trump and the rise of a malignant strain of populism never happened. It’s as if the general election last February never happened.

The tone was set with the vote of confidence in Tánaiste Leo Varadkar on Tuesday. 

This was in response to the story in Village magazine that in 2018 when he was Taoiseach, Mr Varadkar sent a confidential report to Dr Maitiú Ó Tuathail. 

Mr Ó Tuathail was president of the doctors’ union, the NAGP. He was also a friend of Mr Varadkar.

Beyond the political theatre, one cogent point was made in the debate on the no-confidence motion. 

The Labour Party’s Aodhán Ó Ríordáin said the question was not only should the Dáil have confidence in Mr Varadkar, but “should any trade union have confidence that they can negotiate with this government in good faith or should any minister have confidence that they can share a confidential document with the Tánaiste in good faith”. 

The fact is, he said, “they can’t.” 

Mr Varadkar’s explanation that he passed on the document in the public interest does not stack up. 

Most people believe that he did so because the recipient was a friend of his. 

The outcome is that his actions ultimately may have a negative impact on his, and by extension, the government’s capacity to govern in the realm of industrial relations. All for the sake of giving a friend a dig out.

In a related case, it emerged on Thursday that the government’s nominee for a board position with the Standards in Public Office Commission (SIPO) is a former Fianna Fáil senator who has lobbied on behalf of Dr Ó Tuathail’s now-defunct union. 

SIPO has been asked to investigate the passing of the confidential document by Mr Varadkar for possible breaches of ethics legislation.

The nominee, Geraldine Feeney, served as a senator between 2002 and 2011.

She officially lobbied serving politicians on behalf of NAGP eight times in 2017 and 2018. The NAGP is now defunct. 

Ms Feeney would obviously have a conflict of interest if the Varadkar complaint comes before SIPO.

Ms Feeney was perfectly entitled to earn a crust lobbying. But to switch from that horse to one that is charged with policing ethics legislation for politicians raises questions about perceived conflicts of interest.

Her nomination was made to the cabinet on advice from Public Expenditure minister Michael McGrath. 

It is unclear whether he was told in recent days about Ms Feeney’s lobbying activities. 

If he was, why did he go ahead with the nomination? If he wasn’t, why is he still going ahead with it?

SIPO’s powers have been constrained by successive governments because many in the Oireachtas consider it little more than an irritant. Its board correctly has a slot for a former Oireachtas member. 

But surely it would be possible to find someone who could not have any perceived conflict of interest.

There are many former politicians out there who have not lobbied for anybody since leaving public office.

The appointment reeks of sorting out one of their own with a handy number.

This suggests, at the very least, that respect for the duties of the position to be filled are entirely secondary to the business of handing out goodies. 

That approach, in turn, does nothing to optimise the functioning of SIPO.

Then we come to our great and good friends, the beaks down in the Four Courts. 

The farrago around Seamus Woulfe, Golfgate and his colleagues on the Supreme Court, was well aired during the week. 

Yesterday, the Irish Times reported that three serving judges had expressed an interest in the Supreme Court job which was handed to Woulfe last July. 

The cabinet was not told about this ahead of the appointment.

Minister for Justice Helen McEntee knew, but the rest of the cabinet was not officially briefed.

We don’t know whether Leo Varadkar knew that his attorney general from the previous government was being appointed in these circumstances.

It is highly unusual for a lawyer to be appointed directly to the Supreme Court.

In the vast majority of cases serving judges are promoted to the position.

What would Micheál Martin have said if he’d been told that three serving judges were competing with Leo’s former attorney general for this position?

In 2017, there was controversy over the appointment of Woulfe’s predecessor as AG, Marie Whelan, to the bench of the Court of Appeal. 

This is the second-highest court in the land. More often than not it also tends to be filled by judges promoted from the High Court.

A tribunal had criticised Ms Whelan in her role as AG. She had not applied through the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board for the job, as was the usual route. Others had applied yet they got nowhere. Instead, Ms Whelan got the job.

Attacking the appointment at the time, then leader of the opposition Micheál Martin said, “it stinks”.

“This is not something that can just be gotten over with a casual ‘ah sure, we’ll do better the next time,” he said.

What would the Taoiseach have said if he’d been made aware last July that serving judges had applied for the job being handed to Seamus Woulfe?

Would he have kicked up with his new coalition partner? Or would he have accepted it on the basis that he might need a favour returned from Leo some day?

Mr Woulfe is regarded as a competent lawyer, but there is nothing to suggest he would have been a candidate for direct appointment to the Supreme Court had he not served as AG. 

A very cogent argument could be made that the Supreme Court was not best served by the manner of his appointment. 

That affects the business of the courts, which in turn impacts on the governance of the state.

Last February, the disillusionment with “politics as usual” that has swept various populists into power abroad landed on these shores. 

Sinn Féin reaped a huge electoral bounty because large numbers of voters were fed up with the politics of the previous decade.

The Shinners' strain of populism is not as malignant as the Trump-Boris Johnson brand. 

The party does, however, have questions to answer around party finances, attitudes to democratic norms and the true nature of its nationalist agenda. 

But voters are prepared to ignore all that because of the manner in which power was exercised by the civil war parties over the last twenty years.

Could you blame them?

The message should have been received loud and clear by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. 

All that tumbled out during the week would suggest that they have instead turned a deaf ear to that which is being carried on the changing political winds.