As the title suggests the programme was a debate between the three presidential hopefuls in the Twenty-Six-County presidential election hosted by Kieran Cuddihy*. The three hopefuls were Fianna Fail's Jim Gavin, Fine Gael's Heather Humphreys, and Independent TD Catherine Connolly, the hope of the ‘left’ in the campaign, and for me she was the marginal winner on the night. She could, and should, again in my opinion, have scored a lot more points against her rivals but failed to land the killer punch despite countless opportunities to do so! That may be easier said than done sitting at home watching the debate unfold on the television.
The host asked many probing questions of all candidates and appeared to hold an impartial line by the standards of the day. Both Jim Gavin and Heather Humphries continued the ridiculous take ‘the piss out of the electorate’ line that the position of President is a ‘non-political’ post which of course is not the case. Catherine Connolly did not pass comment on this question but both other candidates despite not being asked their position on whether the role of President is political or not chose to give their opinion regardless! How they can say this is not a political role and keep a straight face is beyond me. Perhaps I’m not such a great bullshitter! Jim Gavin claimed he is “not representing any political party!” So how come Fianna Fail, a leading party of government, has endorsed you, Jim, as their candidate? Jim Gavin also claimed he “is not there to criticise the government, that is not the Presidents job”. Well Jim, I think the incumbent Michael D. Higgins, has driven a coach and horses through that theoretical nonsense!
All three candidates had something to say on a number of issues, though whoever taught Jim Gavin the art of body language should perhaps not give up their day job, it had phoney written all over it (no offence Jim, get a new teacher!). Catherine Connolly, minus artificial body language, said she “as President and working together we can build a new Ireland.” She has done much work with communities in the North of Ireland to compliment her claim. Heather Humphreys wants to bring her “life’s experiences to the Presidency” which includes the political position of being both in government and a Fine Gael TD. Jim Gavin stated “over the last four decades I have served my country in peace keeping roles. I will be a President for all sections of society”. All pretty straight forward pitches and all appeared to agree “Russia are the aggressor” in Eastern Europe and Ukraine. This in itself is a geopolitical statement from people seeking a ‘non-political’ position? Catherine Connolly on the issue of twenty-Six County neutrality claimed; “our best form of defence is our neutrality” and on this one she is almost certainly correct. Jim Gavin is a former twenty-six-county Defence Forces officer so his views would by experience be more militaristic than those of his opponents. The President is the ‘Commander in Chief’ of the defence forces, a political role if ever there was one!
Kieran Cuddihy then offered a point of observation and a very relevant one at that: he suggested; “on your way here tonight you will have noticed a proliferation of tricolours” - referring to the emulation of the flag protest in England against immigration. He suggested that this increase in flags flying from lamp posts may be a message to immigrants “Ireland is full” and he then asked for opinions. Jim Gavin entered the field first with his interpretation, not a very in-depth one but certainly not false, of what the Irish Tricolour means. “I’m very proud of our tricolour” he said, the flag is one of “inclusion” representing the “two traditions” on the island, “Orange and Green” which, back in 1848 this was the case. He emphasised the white band separating these two traditions as meaning “inclusion and equality”. He said, “people have the right to put the flag where they wish”. Heather Humphreys, in her pitch on the flag, said; “our flag is a symbol of unity the meaning of the flag is a symbol of unity” which is perfectly correct. “The Orange and the Green with the white band of peace in the middle”. All factual and back in the day of Thomas Francis Meagher the only real point of relevance. Today things are somewhat different and mentioning these two traditions on the flag is an incomplete and inadequate answer and one which the racists could destroy.
The racists listening to this debate - and I’m sure there are some who possess enough intelligence to have watched the programme - may turn round and say; ‘yes, the two traditions, Orange and Green, not Orange, Green, Ukrainian, Somalian, Palestinian, Syrian’ and so on. This could be one argument the far-right could put forward, and both Gavin and Humphries left themselves wide open for such a reply, on purpose? It was at this point Catherine Connolly, in my view, could have made mileage on her opponents incomplete and inadequate answer. She could, and should perhaps, have pointed out that today not withstanding history and the origins of the Tricolour, we have many more than two traditions on this island. Today we are a multicultural society incorporating many different traditions from many different lands which the Tricolour represents all. India, for example, and the Indian community celebrated their independence-day recently and that is also part of the tricolour’s inclusion alongside the Indian national flag. She could also have referred back to the host's remarks about some people claiming the flag is to tell people “Ireland is full” which is not the case. She could have emphasised that countries far smaller in land mass than “Ireland” have far larger populations and even more numerous migrants. This would have pulled the ground from under the racists who may retort with the above argument which is not an argument at all with the minimum examination! Catherine could have made mileage over the flag issue and did not. Instead she appeared to follow the all “inclusive” role of the flag with few more specifics but not enough. That is my view. On the issue of housing, an argument used by the racists who insultingly fly the Tricolour, who claim migrants are taking ‘Irish homes’. To counter this Catherine could have said that a housing problem due to various government policies has existed in the Twenty-Six-Counties since the formation of the state back in 1922. This was long before any immigrants arrived and to scapegoat migrants is at best misleading and at worst a lie.
Jim Gavin emphasised Russia’s right of ‘veto’ at United Nations level and how wrong this is. He appeared to be using it as a lever to remove the ‘triple lock’ on peacekeeping. He reluctantly very, very quickly and quietly mentioned the US also exercising the same ‘veto’ omitting to mention it was they, the US, and not the Russians, who ordered the UN to end UNIFIL (United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon). It was the US and their mates, the Israelis, who demanded this UN operation comes to an end. Catherine Connolly did emphasise this fact stealing some ground on her timid opponents.
All three candidates had something to say on a number of issues, though whoever taught Jim Gavin the art of body language should perhaps not give up their day job, it had phoney written all over it (no offence Jim, get a new teacher!). Catherine Connolly, minus artificial body language, said she “as President and working together we can build a new Ireland.” She has done much work with communities in the North of Ireland to compliment her claim. Heather Humphreys wants to bring her “life’s experiences to the Presidency” which includes the political position of being both in government and a Fine Gael TD. Jim Gavin stated “over the last four decades I have served my country in peace keeping roles. I will be a President for all sections of society”. All pretty straight forward pitches and all appeared to agree “Russia are the aggressor” in Eastern Europe and Ukraine. This in itself is a geopolitical statement from people seeking a ‘non-political’ position? Catherine Connolly on the issue of twenty-Six County neutrality claimed; “our best form of defence is our neutrality” and on this one she is almost certainly correct. Jim Gavin is a former twenty-six-county Defence Forces officer so his views would by experience be more militaristic than those of his opponents. The President is the ‘Commander in Chief’ of the defence forces, a political role if ever there was one!
Kieran Cuddihy then offered a point of observation and a very relevant one at that: he suggested; “on your way here tonight you will have noticed a proliferation of tricolours” - referring to the emulation of the flag protest in England against immigration. He suggested that this increase in flags flying from lamp posts may be a message to immigrants “Ireland is full” and he then asked for opinions. Jim Gavin entered the field first with his interpretation, not a very in-depth one but certainly not false, of what the Irish Tricolour means. “I’m very proud of our tricolour” he said, the flag is one of “inclusion” representing the “two traditions” on the island, “Orange and Green” which, back in 1848 this was the case. He emphasised the white band separating these two traditions as meaning “inclusion and equality”. He said, “people have the right to put the flag where they wish”. Heather Humphreys, in her pitch on the flag, said; “our flag is a symbol of unity the meaning of the flag is a symbol of unity” which is perfectly correct. “The Orange and the Green with the white band of peace in the middle”. All factual and back in the day of Thomas Francis Meagher the only real point of relevance. Today things are somewhat different and mentioning these two traditions on the flag is an incomplete and inadequate answer and one which the racists could destroy.
The racists listening to this debate - and I’m sure there are some who possess enough intelligence to have watched the programme - may turn round and say; ‘yes, the two traditions, Orange and Green, not Orange, Green, Ukrainian, Somalian, Palestinian, Syrian’ and so on. This could be one argument the far-right could put forward, and both Gavin and Humphries left themselves wide open for such a reply, on purpose? It was at this point Catherine Connolly, in my view, could have made mileage on her opponents incomplete and inadequate answer. She could, and should perhaps, have pointed out that today not withstanding history and the origins of the Tricolour, we have many more than two traditions on this island. Today we are a multicultural society incorporating many different traditions from many different lands which the Tricolour represents all. India, for example, and the Indian community celebrated their independence-day recently and that is also part of the tricolour’s inclusion alongside the Indian national flag. She could also have referred back to the host's remarks about some people claiming the flag is to tell people “Ireland is full” which is not the case. She could have emphasised that countries far smaller in land mass than “Ireland” have far larger populations and even more numerous migrants. This would have pulled the ground from under the racists who may retort with the above argument which is not an argument at all with the minimum examination! Catherine could have made mileage over the flag issue and did not. Instead she appeared to follow the all “inclusive” role of the flag with few more specifics but not enough. That is my view. On the issue of housing, an argument used by the racists who insultingly fly the Tricolour, who claim migrants are taking ‘Irish homes’. To counter this Catherine could have said that a housing problem due to various government policies has existed in the Twenty-Six-Counties since the formation of the state back in 1922. This was long before any immigrants arrived and to scapegoat migrants is at best misleading and at worst a lie.
Jim Gavin emphasised Russia’s right of ‘veto’ at United Nations level and how wrong this is. He appeared to be using it as a lever to remove the ‘triple lock’ on peacekeeping. He reluctantly very, very quickly and quietly mentioned the US also exercising the same ‘veto’ omitting to mention it was they, the US, and not the Russians, who ordered the UN to end UNIFIL (United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon). It was the US and their mates, the Israelis, who demanded this UN operation comes to an end. Catherine Connolly did emphasise this fact stealing some ground on her timid opponents.
In my view Catherine Connolly had a slight advantage on the night which could have been much greater. The debate was not great and perhaps had more characteristics of a ‘damp squib’ than heavy presidential politics!
*This article is about the Presidential debate aired on Virgin Media on 29th September and not any discussions which may have taken place since.
*This article is about the Presidential debate aired on Virgin Media on 29th September and not any discussions which may have taken place since.
 |
| Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent Socialist Republican and Marxist. |
No comments