Has Michael Lowry made the case for gender quotas?

It was hardly his intention but Independent TD Michael Lowry may have unwittingly made the case for gender quotas in Irish politics.
 

The former Fine Gael Government minister has spent the past few decades embroiled in controversy. Not that it has affected his popularity – Mick can seemingly do no wrong with the good people of Tipperary North who must see something in him that eludes us ignorant Dublin Jackeens.

Lowry was back in the headlines this week for all the wrong reasons when he passed the Taoiseach a note in the Dáil seeking the reappointment of a former PR advisor to the board of the National Roads Authority – a grubby little gesture in itself that led to accusations of cronyism. But the fact that the note was infused with such nod-nod, wink-wink ‘sexist’ language made it worse.

STUNNER: A not bad looking Michael Lowry pictured in the 1990s. PHOTO: DUBLIN PEOPLE FILES

Lowry’s flippant comment that the woman – who by all accounts is an intelligent and capable candidate for the position – was "not bad looking either” could have come straight from the lovely girls’ contest in ‘Father Ted’. An unrepentant Lowry denied accusations of cronyism and sexism. His remarks, he said, were “unnecessary and light-hearted”.

Naturally, it’s all the fault of the politically correct media. Can’t a politician compliment a woman on a nice dress or a pair of shoes?

Lowry is not the only TD to have been accused of sexism in politics. Padraig Flynn damaged Brian Lenihan’s Presidential election campaign in 1990 by making unfortunate comments about Mary Robinson’s “new-found emphasis on her family”.

The late Taoiseach Albert Reynolds didn’t cover himself in glory either with his “that’s women for you” put down of Nora Owen in the Dáil in the early ‘90s.

There are more recent examples, too. It wasn’t so long ago that Mick Wallace landed himself in trouble with mna na hEireann when he was overheard referring to Fine Gael TD Mary Mitchell O’Connor as “Miss Piggy”, leading to much sniggering at the back of the classroom from his buddies in the manner of Beavis and Butthead.

We also had the embarrassing spectacle of Fine Gael TD Tom Barry pulling a female colleague, Áine Collins, onto his lap during a late night Dáil debate on abortion in 2013.

Even that champion of equality, Senator David Norris, came under fire for using inappropriate language when he accused Fine Gael’s Regina Doherty of “speaking out of her fanny”.

Despite there being a handful of women in senior Government positions - such as Justice Minister Frances Fitzgerald and Tánaiste Joan Burton - the fact remains that Irish politics is still largely a boys’ club dominated by a macho culture. 

It would be a pity if women were deterred from entering political life because of the behaviour of a minority of TDs as they can make a valuable contribution. Whether you agree with her or not, Sinn Féin’s Mary Lou McDonald is one of the best performers in the Dáil. And rising star Averil Power brings some much-needed energy to the Seanad, not to mention Fianna Fáil.

Michael Lowry may only have been speaking for himself but it was a telling insight into how women are still often judged on their looks rather than (or in addition to) their abilities.

In the next general election, at least 30 per cent of candidates will have to be women or parties will face State funding cuts. It remains up to the electorate to decide if the imbalance should be redressed in the next Dáil. While there is still an argument for voting for candidates on the basis of their credentials rather than their gender, there will be some formidable women on the ballot paper who will deserve to be elected on merit alone. 

The Dáil should be an inclusive workplace for women, not some political version of Jurassic Park where species we once thought were extinct still roam free.

Why Leo Varadkar's sexuality doesn't matter

So Leo Varadkar is gay. Who knew? Well, quite a few people, it seems. There were audible whispers about his sexuality within political circles. I had heard it from a journalist colleague just two days before the Minister for Health came out on Miriam O’Callaghan’s radio show. I didn’t care then and I couldn’t care any less now.

Because, quite rightly, Varadkar’s sexuality should be his own private business. But given the upcoming referendum on marriage equality, he felt he needed to share this deeply personal information with the nation.

The RTÉ interview was met with a mixture of positivity and apathy, which shows how we have become a more tolerant, inclusive society. In fact, much of the discussion on social media centred on Varadkar’s revelation that he was only 36. Not that he looks older; it’s just that he seems to have been a politician forever and has achieved a lot for such a young man.

Varadkar was praised for his honesty, a trait that sometimes lands him in trouble with the head honchos in Fine Gael. On this occasion, though, Enda Kenny was supportive, reportedly making quips about his recent visit to the Pantibar.

This further demonstrates how our attitudes to homosexuality have changed. Can you imagine a Taoiseach joking about being in a gay bar during Archbishop John Charles McQuaid’s reign of fear? There would have been a lot of hell-fire and brimstone. It’s a welcome sign that we are no longer in the iron grip of the Catholic Church when it comes to issues of morality.

Within days, the story about Leo Varadkar’s sexuality had virtually disappeared. Now, perhaps, the media can concentrate on the vital work that needs to be done to reform our dysfunctional health service. 

Just weeks earlier, his department was presiding over the worst hospital trolley numbers on record. It would be grossly unfair to lay the blame for the most recent crisis solely at the feet of Leo Varadkar, who is only in the job since last summer and, frankly, inherited a shambolic mess from his Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil and Progressive Democrats predecessors. 

The Department of Health was famously dubbed ‘Angola’ by Brian Cowen and it remains one of the most toxic ministerial portfolios. Given the perilous state of our health system and the multitude of obstacles that need to be tackled, it would be unrealistic for us to expect any discernable improvements between now and the general election.

Leo Varadkar may not have all of the solutions but he is an able, hard-working politician; a straight talker who is not afraid to ruffle a few feathers. All things considered, he is probably the best person – straight, gay or otherwise - for the job. Now that the distraction of his sexuality is out of the way, we should just let him get on with it.

Childcare suddenly matters as general election looms

Call it a happy coincidence but it’s interesting that the Government has suddenly turned its attention to the crippling cost of childcare as the spectre of the next general election looms large.

Taoiseach Enda Kenny has already put his troops on a war footing, despite insisting that his coalition will see out its full term until April 2016. But make no mistake: the election campaign got underway in earnest last October with Michael Noonan’s ‘neutral’ budget, designed to reassure us that the worst is over and we can start to look forward to the good times again. Not Celtic Tiger good, obviously, but good in a way that will leave families with more than €50 in their pockets each month after all the bills are paid.

You could sense an election in the air last week with the Government’s sudden interest in the issue of childcare affordability. It’s no surprise to hard-pressed parents that we’re the most expensive country in Europe when it comes to putting our children into a crèche. It was reported that you needed to earn €30,000 a year just to fund the cost of childcare for two children.

But Government sources revealed that this issue is to be looked at in detail by Cabinet with a list of proposals expected to be agreed before the next budget. There was talk of tax breaks, subsidies and a second year of free pre-school for under-fives. Even the older ‘latch key’ kids would be factored into the plan, with the Government either funding or heavily subsidising after-school study clubs and sports activities.

It all sounds promising. But here’s the catch: any agreed changes would need to be phased in over the course of successive budgets. In other words, the electorate would have to give the FG/Labour coalition another term to allow it deliver the goods.

The Minister for Public Expenditure, Brendan Howlin, was somewhat stating the obvious last week when he was quoted as saying that high childcare costs were impeding women’s progress in the workplace. He confirmed that the matter would be high on the Cabinet’s agenda in the coming term.

Any measures that provide some respite for parents are to be welcomed. But the Government’s belated acceptance of the financial burden placed on working families by exorbitant childcare costs should be seen for what it is. To me, it smacks of cynical opportunism in the run up to a general election in which Fine Gael and Labour candidates will be fighting for their political lives.

Expect more carrots to be dangled before the ‘squeezed’ middle-income earners in the months ahead. We won’t get fooled again - or will we?

My fruitless pursuit of Charlie Haughey

Oneof the most interesting aspects of RTÉ’s new television drama on Charlie Haughey was its retelling of the role that the Stardust disaster played in his spectacular fall from grace.

After his ruthless power grab from Jack Lynch in 1979, Haughey was keen to put his leadership of Fianna Fáil to the electorate for the first time. He planned to mobilise the troops with a triumphant Ard Fheis on St Valentine’s Day, 1981, with the leader’s main address to be a springboard for a snap election. There were even suggestions of Fianna Fáil securing an overall majority.

Haughey on the campaign trail in 1989. PHOTO: Stephen O'Reilly

However, in the early hours of February 14, harrowing news reports of a fire in a nightclub in Artane began to filter through, with 48 young people feared dead and hundreds more injured. The disaster occurred in the heart of Haughey’s Dublin North Central constituency. He held back tears as he visited the still smouldering remains of the venue, telling reporters that he knew many of the victims personally. As a mark of respect for the dead, the correct decision was made to postpone that weekend’s Ard Fheis and Haughey’s plan for an immediate election was abandoned.

By the time the general election was held the following June, Fianna Fáil’s popularity had plummeted. Political fallout from the hunger strikes, which saw two republican prisoners take Dáil seats at the expense of Fianna Fáil, as well as Haughey’s mismanagement of the economy, resulted in the party’s poorest showing in 20 years. Just two years into his tenure as Taoiseach, a humiliated Haughey found himself on the Opposition benches as a Fine Gael/Labour coalition entered Government.

In 2001, I co-authored a book (with Neil Fetherstonhaugh) on the Stardust disaster. Apart from documenting the story from the perspective of eyewitnesses and victims’ families, we wanted to explore if there was a State role in the tragedy and the investigation into it.

While Haughey had sanctioned a tribunal of inquiry within days of the disaster, it was criticised for having restricted terms of reference. When the tribunal issued its report in the summer of 1982, its central conclusion that the cause of the fire was probable arson was met with outrage by the affected families. Within the ranks of the Stardust campaigners, opinion was divided on Haughey’s response to the tragedy. To some, he was their champion, consistently raising the issue of victims’ compensation in the Dáil. Others viewed Haughey with deep suspicion, believing there had been a State-assisted cover-up into the cause of the disaster, even though no evidence existed to support this theory.

There were also attempts to link Haughey with the owner of the Stardust, Patrick Butterly. One newspaper discovered a connection between Des Traynor, who was involved with Haughey’s former accountancy firm, and a company where Patrick Butterly was one of the original directors and shareholders. However, Haughey had severed his ties with Haughey Boland and Company on his appointment as Minister for Finance in 1966, two years before Traynor became a director of the Butterly-linked company.

Haughey’s most public falling-out with the Stardust Victims’ Committee came in the aftermath of the 1989 General Election. He was accused of reneging on a pre-election promise to provide funds for a memorial park for the victims in Coolock. After a prolonged campaign by this newspaper and numerous protests outside Government Buildings by the Stardust families, Haughey finally relented in 1991 and agreed to a scaled-down version of the park plan. Not for the first time in his political career, Haughey had gone from villain to hero. He was even invited to turn the first sod on the site of the 26 acre park.

While researching our book, we wrote to Charlie Haughey many times, inviting him to respond to the conspiracy theorists’ unfounded claims of a Stardust cover-up. He chose not to accept our offer to set the record straight. While the late Patrick Butterly was a self-confessed Fianna Fáiler, there appeared to be no love lost between him and Haughey. In his privately published memoirs, Butterly gave the impression that he profoundly disliked him, writing that “Fianna Fáil was a great party until that Haughey fella got a hold of it”.

There’s little doubt that Haughey was personally devastated by the Stardust disaster and that his concerns for the victims were heartfelt and sincere. It’s also important to remember that Haughey spent much of the ‘80s in Opposition. He was hardly in a prime position to influence Government decisions in relation to the Stardust, let alone orchestrate a cover-up. Haughey, in his capacity as a local TD, had also objected to numerous licence applications by the Butterlys for their Silver Swan bar in the years following the tragedy.

In our book, we concluded that while Haughey had since been exposed as a cheat in his financial dealings and personal life, nothing – other than speculation and innuendo – has ever emerged to suggest any wrongdoing on his part in relation to the Stardust disaster or its aftermath.