How long more do the Government have in office?

THE appointment of Tony Killeen to the Government this week was long overdue. Since first elected to the Dáil in 1992 he was singled out by political commentators as one who was going to make his mark in Irish politics. But for geographical and other unknown reasons he was passed over for high office by successive Taoisigh.
While Defence might not be an important department in the pecking order of Government, it is at least a start. I am sure the vast majority of Clare people, no matter their political views, will wish their fellow countyman well in his new office.
There is, however, a big question mark over the prospects of the Government staying the full course and recent resignations, especially that of Willie O’Dea, paved the way for Killeen to finally get the recognition he deserves. But the Government may not last long enough for him to properly settle into his seat at the cabinet table.
The present industrial unrest among public sector workers has the capacity to bring down the Government at any time as the dispute threatens to worsen.
Labour leader Eamon Gilmore was right when he called on the unions to suspend their work-to-rule, particularly in relation to the impasse at the passport office.
But he was wrong to say that the public service workers had widespread support before they took industrial action.
Certainly there is a lot of sympathy out there for certain low-paid public sector workers whose incomes have been slashed in recent times but they are probably far better off working for the public sector than if they were working for a private company.
But when the Government appeared to be on the verge of an agreement with the unions before Christmas that would not involve pay cuts, there was uproar. Radio programmes that have their fingers on the pulse of the nation, were inundated with protest calls from angry listeners up and down the country.
Fianna Fáil backbenchers were so frightened by the backlash against any compromise on this issue that they forced the Government to stand firm in the face of union pressure. The outcome was the collapse of the social partnership and Budget 2010, which imposed severe cuts on public sector pay and the present public sector work-to-rule.
At the time of writing, the work-to-rule looks set to worsen and there is a serious threat of a complete breakdown in relations between public sector workers and the Government.
That is despite the reopening of talks between both sides. The fear is that the union leaders will lose control over their more militant members and that we are entering a prolonged period of strike action that will really hit the general public hard.
It is important, therefore, that the present work-to-rule be suspended so that the talks can go ahead between the two sides in a calm atmosphere.
Otherwise there is a risk that matters may get out of hand and go from the present bad to a future that will be far worse.
The major problem is that the Government cannot possibly restore the pay cuts and, at the same time, sort out the crisis in the public finances. The public sector workers do not seem to realise that, whereas the general public do.
Like most disputes, it will come to an end some time. There will have to be some kind of deal, possibly about future pay. But it would be better for everybody – the unions, the Government and the people as a whole – if the present work-to-rule were suspended to allow the union leadership to try and hammer out an agreement.
Otherwise there is a danger that the general public, and not just the Government, will turn completely against the public sector workers. It looks as if that is happening now at the passport office.
Meanwhile, everything appears to be going well in Fine Gael. The departure of George Lee earlier in the year has now been virtually forgotten and the man was hardly mentioned at the party’s very successful Ard Fheis in Killarney at the weekend.
The party continues to lead all the others in the polls and still looks set to form the next government with Labour after the next general election, whenever that occurs.
There is now no threat to the leadership of Enda Kenny and, barring accidents, he is almost certain to continue leading Fine Gael into the election and for the foreseeable future afterwards.
It is difficult to criticise the party’s promised reform of the political system. This column has consistently called for the abolition of the Seanad and for a reduction in the number of TDs.
The only problem I have is that I am not too sure of Enda Kenny’s sincerity in regard to the abolition of the Upper House. It is not too long since he was talking about serious reform of the Seanad. But then, a few months later, without consulting with anybody, he announced that Fine Gael would scrap it completely.
Still, we will have to take him at his word and that he will hold a “super” referendum within a year of taking office, leading to, among other things, the abolition of Seanad Éireann. To do otherwise should be a cause of major embarrassment for members of Fine Gael, given their leader’s firm committment to the cause of abolition.
But I am sure that’s a bridge they will be happy to cross after taking power. Political parties consistently make promises before elections that they just as consistently, for one reason or another, find they cannot fulfil after the election.