A novel feature of the post-election political landscape is that the new government’s life will coincide very closely with the five-year cycle for the local and European Parliament elections. This probably means that there will be few opportunities for voters to express their views or for new names to prove themselves on the political stage before the next general election which will most likely take place in summer 2029 — apart from the presidential elections in 10 months and perhaps in some referendums.
That consideration may loom large in the minds of some senior figures in the Labour Party such as its leader, Ivana Bacik, and two former officeholders, Ged Nash and Alan Kelly. I can well understand the lure of office for them.
But the problem with their entry into coalition with Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael is that from day one they would be under a sustained and thunderous leftist barrage from Sinn Féin, the Social Democrats, People Before Profit.
Election Daily: surprises, upsets and ousters as the final seats are filled
Moreover, they would be mostly preoccupied as coalition partners with their political survival and avoiding the grizzly fate of the Greens — a factor that might well result in them prematurely pulling the plug on some point of principle to restore left-wing credibility.
Given the fragmented state of the likely Opposition, the obvious, safer, and more durable alternative for Fianna Fáil is to lead a coalition with Fine Gael, having the committed support of a group of experienced, centrist independent TDs — with or without some of those Independents holding some ministerial offices. Most Independents are opposed to premature dissolutions of the Dáil and many will act accordingly.
There is always the danger that the Dublin establishment and media regard the demands of regional Independents as “parish pump” or “parochial” but regard the concerns of urban TDs for regeneration programmes as “progressive” and “socially concerned”.
This brings me to another phrase that popped up in the last 48 hours: “parity of esteem”. “Charity of amnesia” is perhaps what is needed. When Fine Gael was riding high in opinion poll ratings one week into the election campaign with 25 per cent support in this paper’s poll published on November 14th, there was no talk of parity of esteem for Fianna Fáil which appeared to be trailing them at 19 per cent. There was no talk of a rotating taoiseach then, and there was precious little political solidarity on display, to put it mildly.
But now is now. Fianna Fáil has 48 seats, Sinn Féin has 39 seats and Fine Gael has 38 seats. The two big parties have 86 seats between them, two short of a narrow majority. With support from a reliable grouping among the Independents, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael have the mandate that the majority of Irish voters have consistently favoured — to form a centrist government free from ideological tensions and pretensions.
Having come from a Fine Gael background and having served as an officeholder with Fianna Fáil for eight years, I think I have a good grasp of how those parties regard each other. They have far more in common than divides them. There is no substantial moral or ethical gap between their values, as some of their supporters like to believe.
Where they have most notably appeared to struggle is in the area of housing policy. With a five-year clear run, that is an area where they could make a huge difference — if they grasp the nettle of constraints on housing supply. That is an area which needs radical change. Reliance on the hapless combination of the Custom House and the prefectures that masquerade as our system of local government to solve our housing supply problem is hopeless.
Is housing policy nowadays regarded as the “Angola” that was Brian Cowen’s description of the health portfolio? Reading Eoghan Murphy’s memoir, Running From Office, I came across an interesting reference to a wistful utterance from a senior Custom House official to the effect that life had been simpler when they had only to deal with the environment and local government rather than responsibility for housing policy. Unless radical steps are taken to accelerate home-building supply, and unless a minister with an appetite and an ability to drive that change is appointed, the new government will be regarded as a failure.
We need compulsory purchase reform very badly. We need to free up development land and tackle urban dereliction and underdevelopment. The new administration badly needs to join the debate on asylum-seeking at European Union level to end the racket that conflates asylum-seeking with migration — a racket that continues to cost billions of euros. We simply cannot deal with a housing crisis if we receive 30,000 asylum seekers each year in addition to other migrants. Forget about fanciful electoral promises. Get on with the day job.