# Joan Burton and all that



## Latrade (11 Mar 2011)

Wouldn't consider myself her biggest fan politically, but when it comes to expertise within the Labour Party surely after 9 years as spokeperson she carries a far better CV than Brendan Howlin? 

And then there's Ruairí Quinn comment that “women know more about children than men because they spend more time with them” regarding Frances Fitzgerald. As pointed out in the [broken link removed], there's more women in the teaching profession, so who got Education? Women are the primary users of health care, so who got Health? Etc, etc.

In the main I do think there are some good choices to the cabinet and junior roles, but within a few days we're facing the same old boys club as we always faced. Jobs for the boys and not jobs based on ability.

Even Lucinda Creighton gets handed a good role for Europe, a role she has experience and knowledge in, but the appointment is marred by an FG spokesperson who also has add the caveat "the party was also conscious of gender balance" on her appointment. Basically, we needed a token woman. 

I don't care about gender balance I care about competency to do a role, yet both sides display the FF mentality of "scratch my back and I'll scratch yours".

And despite my first statement regarding Joan politically, she is the most competent of all her colleagues for that role and I actually think it would have been interesting if not successful her working under/alongside Noonan.

So there we are, it seems only the blokes are capable of sorting out the economic mess and the women can deal with the silly domestic stuff like kids and child benefit. I'm surprised the didn't introduce a Minister for Stick The Kettle On Love, There's A Dear And Ironing Portfolio.


----------



## Purple (11 Mar 2011)

+1 Latrade, it is utterly bizarre that someone with no experience or qualification in finance gets a finance portfolio whereas the person who was Labours finance spokesperson for 9 years gets side-lined.

I don’t like having anyone from Labour in government, let alone in a Finance ministry but if there does have to be one then they should pick the most qualified and experienced person. While I find Joan Burton dishonest in how she presents information and very subjective in order to skew the facts to suit her socialist dogma she’s still by far the best of the labour bunch for the role.    

On a side note; have Labour been handed a poisoned chalice with the Public Sector reform portfolio?
If they make the necessary cuts and reforms they will alienate their new supporters within the public sector. If they don’t make the necessary cuts and changes and play to their supporters they will incur the anger of the wider public. It’s a lose-lose scenario.


----------



## Shawady (11 Mar 2011)

I don't find Joan Burton impressive. I think she was let down by her media performances. Not only the recent VB show but she was on that show about a year ago and he was practically begging her to say how Labour would reduce the deficit and she point blank refused to answer him. Brendan Howlin has experience as a former minister and as a negoiator. I would actually see him as a safer pair of hands. 
I don't know why Joan Burton is complaining. She has got a full ministry. Maybe it's because she doesn't want to be the one to cut social welfare in case she loses her seat at the next election.

Does anyone know if the director of the women's council (Susan McKay) that wrote the letter in the IT, has ever run for political office? She seems very passionate about correcting the gender imbalance in politics.


----------



## Latrade (11 Mar 2011)

Shawady said:


> I don't find Joan Burton impressive. I think she was let down by her media performances. Not only the recent VB show but she was on that show about a year ago and he was practically begging her to say how Labour would reduce the deficit and she point blank refused to answer him. Brendan Howlin has experience as a former minister and as a negoiator. I would actually see him as a safer pair of hands.


 
Personality and media performance-wise, I would agree. However, haven't members here argued against personality politics? I have no doubt at all that she is more than competent and able to be very successful in a Finance role. Her media perfomances should not have affected this.

Purple, I'm not sure the PS reform is such a poisoned challace for Labour. Their policy effectively hinted something close to the McCarthy report, the main differences were in the timescales for reform and numbers to leave (IIRC). So the measures were already there for people prior to the election. 

Though the Croke Park agreement is supsiciously absent from the Programme for Government.


----------



## Sunny (11 Mar 2011)

Latrade said:


> Wouldn't consider myself her biggest fan politically, but when it comes to expertise within the Labour Party surely after 9 years as spokeperson she carries a far better CV than Brendan Howlin?
> 
> And then there's Ruairí Quinn comment that “women know more about children than men because they spend more time with them” regarding Frances Fitzgerald. As pointed out in the [broken link removed], there's more women in the teaching profession, so who got Education? Women are the primary users of health care, so who got Health? Etc, etc.
> 
> ...


 
I agree. I don't remember Brendan Howlin facing all the media on banking and public finances. If Labour were to have someone in Finance, she deserved the shot even if I don't agree with much of what she has said in the past. Even Pat Rabbitte would have made more sense.


----------



## Ceist Beag (11 Mar 2011)

I'm with Shawady on this one. My understanding of this new ministry is that it will very much involve negotiation with the unions and bringing the public sector along with them on reform. So to me it requires someone with skills in this area - and Howlin seems better suited than Burton in this regard. It isn't the minister for Finance we're talking about here so it's not the same role Burton has been performing in opposition for 9 years. I think the gender issue is getting in the way here - it should be about the best person for the role and to my mind Howlin is better suited for the role. Disappointing to hear the comment from the FG spokesperson on the junior ministry tho, that does smack of exactly the opposite viewpoint (appointing based on balancing things up rather than the best person for the role).


----------



## Shawady (11 Mar 2011)

Latrade said:


> Personality and media performance-wise, I would agree. However, haven't members here argued against personality politics? I have no doubt at all that she is more than competent and able to be very successful in a Finance role. Her media perfomances should not have affected this.


 
I think if the role was a pure Finance role, I could understand why Burton would feel shafted but my take on it is that this a new role. The area of banking and budget policy is still going to be Noonan's job.

It might just be that when push came to shove it was decided by Gilmore that Joan Burton was not suited to this post. Or maybe FG did not have confidence in her and prefered another labour minister. I don't think it is a gender issue.


----------



## Shawady (11 Mar 2011)

Sunny said:


> I don't remember Brendan Howlin facing all the media on banking and public finances.


 
Michael Noonan will still have the responsibility for banking and public finances as far as I know. It is not the responsibility of the new Finance position.


----------



## Sunny (11 Mar 2011)

But the role isn't just public sector reform. It is ALL public expenditure so it covers more than just reforming the public sector. It runs into every department so of course she got shafted.


----------



## TarfHead (11 Mar 2011)

Politics is not a meritocracy, it's a dirty business.

No-one has a right to Ministerial portfolio. Any TD should be honoured with the trust placed in them by the Taoiseach and not be showing/expressing dissatisfaction.

If, based on her background, she would be the ideal person for the portfolio given to Brendan Howlin, should we expect Dr. James Reilly to be the ideal person for the Health portfolio ? Is Jimmy Deenihan the ideal person for the Sport portfolio cos he has captained Kerry to the Sam Maguire ?


----------



## cork (11 Mar 2011)

Joan Burton sold the public a message.

The Labour party then doubled their 1st preference vote.

They are now in govt.

Past banking policies by them are out the window.

They probably needed somebody new.


----------



## Sunny (11 Mar 2011)

TarfHead said:


> Politics is not a meritocracy, it's a dirty business.
> 
> No-one has a right to Ministerial portfolio. Any TD should be honoured with the trust placed in them by the Taoiseach and not be showing/expressing dissatisfaction.
> 
> If, based on her background, she would be the ideal person for the portfolio given to Brendan Howlin, should we expect Dr. James Reilly to be the ideal person for the Health portfolio ? Is Jimmy Deenihan the ideal person for the Sport portfolio cos he has captained Kerry to the Sam Maguire ?


 
It's not even that. I am not a Labour supporter but if I was, I would be pretty annoyed. Labour used Joan Burton during the campaign to front up on economic issues. They didn't use Howlin. They used Roisin Shorthall for social protection issues. For many voters, she was Labour's voice on the economy and banks. She got elected with a huge vote on the first count and I think a large % of that vote was on the assumption (naively I agree) that she would be involved in economic policy.

I don't have a particular problem with it but when parties use particular spokespeople on big policy areas during an election and then from nowhere, choose someone different for the role of Minister, then questions need to be asked. Talking about political reform is great but rewarding peoples loyalty or geographical location or using someones gender to balance things shows that FG and Labour are no different to FF when it comes down to it. Appointing 15 junior ministers to please the people that didn't get full ministries proves that. 

Also why does the chip whip get a junior minister position?


----------



## Shawady (11 Mar 2011)

Sunny said:


> But the role isn't just public sector reform. It is ALL public expenditure so it covers more than just reforming the public sector. It runs into every department so of course she got shafted.


 
But the role is very different to her brief in opposition. It might be that when it came to appointing ministries Gilmore/Kenny just thought ther were better people suited and had to be clinical in their selection. That post is going to be very politically sensitive.
Who knows what went on behind closed doors but I don't think it was a gender issue.


----------



## Latrade (11 Mar 2011)

TarfHead said:


> If, based on her background, she would be the ideal person for the portfolio given to Brendan Howlin, should we expect Dr. James Reilly to be the ideal person for the Health portfolio ? Is Jimmy Deenihan the ideal person for the Sport portfolio cos he has captained Kerry to the Sam Maguire ?


 
To be honest: yes. To me background and experience is important.

The Howlin role will have significant financial work. As I understand it, effectively Noonan will determine overall public expenditure and then it will be up to Howlin to do the numbers based upon that freeing up Noonan to look at the wider financial issues. 

As each Department will, as they do, put forward figures showing that they can't possibly face any cuts in expenditure, it's going to need someone financially knowledgeable to cut through the figures. In addition, why have Burton as the spokesperson if Gilmore didn't intend to give her any financial role.

Sure, there's some honour that comes with a Ministry, but it's akin to being in line to be Financial Controller of your employer and suddenly being told you're now Director of Catering while the previous IT manager is the new financial controller. It's still a job, it's still an executive role but it's one heck of a kick in the pants.


----------



## Sunny (11 Mar 2011)

Shawady said:


> But the role is very different to her brief in opposition. It might be that when it came to appointing ministries Gilmore/Kenny just thought ther were better people suited and had to be clinical in their selection. That post is going to be very politically sensitive.
> Who knows what went on behind closed doors but I don't think it was a gender issue.


 
Not saying it is a gender issue at all. Simply wondering why for something like public expenditure, you wouldn't use a qualified accountant. I am by no means a fan of her but do feel sorry for her considering the work she has put in over the past couple of years. Unless I am mistaken Kenny, Noonan and Howlin are all teachers aren't they? Got to love the Irish political system!


----------



## Latrade (11 Mar 2011)

Shawady said:


> Who knows what went on behind closed doors but I don't think it was a gender issue.


 
I honestly don't know. I really do think there was a sense of bottling it when it came to giving a female such a role or at the very least it had nothing to do with gender and was more to do with the bigger jobs going to Gilmore's friends. In effect I'm not sure that that is any better given it stinks of FF politics.


----------



## TarfHead (11 Mar 2011)

Sunny said:


> Talking about political reform is great but rewarding peoples loyalty or geographical location or using someones gender to balance things shows that FG and Labour are no different to FF when it comes down to it.


 
Loyalty and geography will always be factors for consideration, regardless of the political party. To have Joan Burton and Roisin Shortall in Cabinet when they're in neighbouring constituencies was never going to happen. And to have a second LAB woman in Cabinet would mean just 3 other seats for the Tanaiste to allocate. As it is, his choices were limited, hence getting a rural LAB TD, Willie Penrose, the '_high chair_' at Cabinet.


----------



## Sunny (11 Mar 2011)

TarfHead said:


> Loyalty and geography will always be factors for consideration, regardless of the political party. To have Joan Burton and Roisin Shortall in Cabinet when they're in neighbouring constituencies was never going to happen. And to have a second LAB woman in Cabinet would mean just 3 other seats for the Tanaiste to allocate. As it is, his choices were limited, hence getting a rural LAB TD, Willie Penrose, the '_high chair_' at Cabinet.


 
I agree but then spare us the rubbish about real political reform and a new way of doing politics.


----------



## Latrade (11 Mar 2011)

Sunny said:


> I agree but then spare us the rubbish about real political reform and a new way of doing politics.


 
+1

And the media is as much to blame as it gave a lot of attention to regional disparity in selection of ministers and junior ministers. Who cares if nobody North of Balbriggan gets a Minister (apart from Enda) if we ended up with the best people for the job? I couldn't care less if the entire cabinet was from Munster as long as they were the best for the job.

If people are electing TDs on the idea that it'd be some kind of status symbol that they're a Minister or give them a greater opportunity to get their passports fast tracked, then even more reason to bring about change.

It was the perfect time to make a statement on Ministerial appointments not only for the Irish Public, but also to install some international confidence. We've just broadcast to the World we're still only interested in handing jobs to people we like to go for a pint with.


----------



## liaconn (11 Mar 2011)

It was a very bad foot to get off on. It made Gilmore look as if he is all over the place, chopping and changing his mind at the last minute and causing ructions in the background as half the country sat in front of their tellys awaiting the delayed Ministerial announcements. 
I think Joan Burton has been very badly treated. She has been Labour's finance spokesperson for years and had every right to expect an economic portfolio. I really thought the coalition were going to hand out jobs based on expertise and suitability not personalities or who shouts loudest or who's pals with who.


----------



## liaconn (11 Mar 2011)

TarfHead said:


> Politics is not a meritocracy, it's a dirty business.
> 
> No-one has a right to Ministerial portfolio. Any TD should be honoured with the trust placed in them by the Taoiseach and not be showing/expressing dissatisfaction.


 
That does not make sense. Of course people are going to have expectations based on their previous roles, qualifications etc. Why should someone widely tipped to take a highly prestigious post be 'honoured' to be offered a lesser one?


----------



## Firefly (11 Mar 2011)

Purple said:


> I don’t like having anyone from Labour in government, let alone in a Finance ministry but if there does have to be one then they should pick the most qualified and experienced person. While I find Joan Burton dishonest in how she presents information and very subjective in order to skew the facts to suit her socialist dogma she’s still by far the best of the labour bunch for the role.


Like you I wouldn't want anyone from Labour near Finance, so isn't it good that their best person for Finance isn't in the Finance ministry? 



Purple said:


> On a side note; have Labour been handed a poisoned chalice with the Public Sector reform portfolio?
> If they make the necessary cuts and reforms they will alienate their new supporters within the public sector. If they don’t make the necessary cuts and changes and play to their supporters they will incur the anger of the wider public. It’s a lose-lose scenario.



All Labour have to do is leave PS reform/cuts alone as much as they can. Their core voters will be happy and will elect them again the next time.


----------



## Shawady (11 Mar 2011)

Firefly said:


> All Labour have to do is leave PS reform/cuts alone as much as they can.


 
That would have some credibility if the IMF/EU weren't running the show. If it gets to the stage where cuts have to be made, they will be, no matter who is minister.
Same in social welfare. If the IMF think rates have to be cut again, it will happen.


----------



## Staples (11 Mar 2011)

The whole thing is a non-issue.  All you hope for a politician in government is that they will have an interest and enthusiasm for the brief to which they're appointed and the capacity to grasp and deal with the various issues that come before them.  

If the prerequisite for appointment to a ministry was direct expertise, politicans wouldn't be appointed.   I doubt if Brendan Howlin's capacity to deal with public expenditure (or any brief) is necessarily worse than Joan Burton's.


----------



## Purple (11 Mar 2011)

FG have an economist who studied Irish national debt and Labour have an accountant who spent 9 years as their finance spokesperson... and neither of them are in Finance.

Reform, what reform?


----------



## TarfHead (11 Mar 2011)

liaconn said:


> Why should someone widely tipped to take a highly prestigious post be 'honoured' to be offered a lesser one?


 
Then let her resign. Over a principle.

I wonder has 'HarangueGate' damaged her ? Apparently that appearance on #vinb was at the end of a day when she was shown the books by the Department of Finance.


----------



## DerKaiser (11 Mar 2011)

Purple said:


> FG have an economist who studied Irish national debt and Labour have an accountant who spent 9 years as their finance spokesperson... and neither of them are in Finance.
> 
> Reform, what reform?


 
I'd agree that Richard Bruton should get a look in on finance, hopefully if Enda is the good captain they say he is, he'll utilise all the skills at his disposal across the board. 

From experience though, I don't think being an accountant (Joan Burton) qualifies anyone for what is required from a finance minister.

Quinn and Howlin are very solid and have that bit of experience. Frankly I feel reassured to see them in as they always speak common sense as opposed to Joan, who does not. Common sense goes a long way further than accounting skills in my opinion.


----------



## Staples (11 Mar 2011)

DerKaiser said:


> Common sense goes a long way further than accounting skills in my opinion.


 
Exactly.  An ability to listen and make sense of the arguments presented is much more valuable than a half-baked knowledge of economics (or whatever) garnered from the bluffer's guide.

Ministers don't fail from lack of advice, just the inability to act on it and be brave where necessery.  

There is no shortage of good advisory bodies acting in the public interest but when they go unheard they become known as quangos and everybody wants them closed.


----------

