Sir, – The media’s love-in with Leo Varadkar is disappointing and unedifying. Whatever the merits or demerits of either candidate, it is imperative that the media remain objective in their coverage of the Fine Gael leadership contest.
The current media coverage of the contest gives the distinct impression that a politician’s ability to “schmooze” is all that matters to the media. It gives the further impression that journalists now just want to be entertained and couldn’t be bothered asking any “hard” questions. The real and very serious issues that now face this country simply don’t matter any more.
In this worldview, everything is right with the world, as long as a politician can “do the rounds” of media interviews and “spin” himself or herself out of a crisis, without ever actually dealing with that crisis in any substantive way. In this mindset, anyone who can do that is well qualified to lead their party, and by extension, their country. This is the approach that partially led to the morass in the health service, which was formerly the domain of Leo Varadkar.
Mr Varadkar did nothing of any substance in any of his previous departments and has done nothing of any substance in his current department.
:fill(white):background_color(white)/static.themebuilder.aws.arc.pub/irishtimes/1647534191476.png)
Neither has Simon Coveney, for that matter.
“Schmoozing”, “spin” and “doing the rounds” may be enough for the membership of Fine Gael to make one of these two politicians their next leader, but the people of this country deserve much more and much better. In short, we deserve real leadership. – Yours, etc,
TIM BUCKLEY,
Cork.
Sir, – While reading and watching the absolute tsunami of information on this latest power struggle in and around the Dáil, one cannot help but think of the old saying, “Some are born great, some have greatness thrust upon them, others spend a fortune on PR consultants”. – Yours, etc,
RICHARD BARTON,
Tinahely,
Co Wicklow.
Sir, – Fintan O'Toole notes that both contenders for the Fine Gael leadership were born into neoliberal Thatcherism and Reaganomics, the only economic system they have ever experienced ("Leo or Simon? It doesn't matter much", Analysis, May 20th). Us (relative) oldies, by contrast, remember social democracy, the Keynesian socio-economic model that brought stability and prosperity to Europe after the second World War.
Treading a middle way between capitalism and socialism, social democracy supports business and entrepreneurship, while providing vital infrastructure such as housing, healthcare, education, energy, water, transport, postal services, etc, via the state, funded by general taxation.
This concept of balancing individual and social needs may not even exist in the minds of people who have grown up since the 1980s, when the mantra of privatisation, commercialisation of public services and (latterly) austerity has been the only game in town. The dialectic between public and private has been completely lost, to the extent that any suggestion of it is derided.
A central function of social democracy is to both support and delimit all sections of society, so that no-one is discriminated against, and equally, no single grouping becomes too powerful. The failure to delimit the banking industry since the 1970s means that it now sets the terms of any debate, skewing public discourse away from social needs and towards the primacy of the private sector. – Yours, etc,
MAEVE HALPIN,
Ranelagh,
Dublin 6.