COMING up from the backwoods this week, Drapier and his colleagues understood that we would have a short and snappy debate on the Nora Owen issue. Apparently, the original diktat from the Government was that the debate would finish at 10 p.m. on Tuesday evening, but after pressure from the Opposition they gave in and agreed that the debate would go on all day Wednesday as well.
Drapier thinks this was a good decision in that a lengthy debate tends to tire out the Opposition. And so it was on Wednesday as the day dragged on. Speaker after speaker went in but nothing new of any substance was revealed. The Government saw off the combined Opposition by weight of numbers. While they may feel they have weathered the storm there is no doubt that the consensus is that the Minister is severely damaged and that the Attorney General's star has dimmed significantly.
The Taoiseach's credibility has taken a hammering in that so many "over the top statements" that, in future, anything he might say may be taken with a pinch of salt. The speeches of the Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern and Mary Harney on the motion were in Drapier's opinion, not up to standard.
Bertie Ahern and Mary Harney seemed ill at ease with their centre stage roles. Perhaps the best speeches were made by the two main protagonists, both the Minister herself and John O'Donoghue, her opposite number in Fianna Fail. Mrs Owen made the very best of an extremely difficult position and while she published the correspondence from Judge Lynch she did not see fit to publish the correspondence which she had received from the Attorney General on the matter, leaving her open to further questioning.
John O'Donoghue gave an incisive and well researched speech and let a few pertinent questions hang in the air.
Early on, the Tanaiste, from afar, let it be known that he was less than happy with the turn of events, particularly the Minister's revelation that she had, in fact, seen a letter before she went into the Dail which she had not disclosed initially. This, for Dick, had too many shades of November, 1994, when he locked horns with Albert. However, even the most anti Spring in here did not for one minute believe that he was going to jump ship.
No one around the House really believes that the inquiry will make us any the wiser nor is it really felt that anyone will be held responsible either at political or official level. There is no doubt that this issue has severely damaged the Fine Gael element in this Government and has hampered their chance of recovering in the polls.
Similarly, the Labour Party and Democratic Left do not come out of this unscathed. The fact that they were obliged to back Nora Owen in a very public way will most definitely lead to renewed accusations about hypocrisy on their behalf.
On Wednesday night the debate was wound up by the Tanaiste who made a speech which was light on specifics regarding Nora Owen but heavy on history, mainly about November, 1994, and the fall of the Fianna Fail/ Labour government. It seemed to Drapier that Dick was in some way endeavouring to justify his decision to back Nora Owen by pointing out what he saw as differences between 1994 and now. Significantly both Bertie Ahern and Mary Harney snubbed the Tanaiste by not being present when he spoke.
The position of the Minister and the Attorney General are safe for the time being but there may be repercussions down the line. It is common cause of everyone in the House that if any of the 16 accused are released as a result of this debacle, the Minister for Justice and the Attorney General's positions are untenable.
One good thing that may come of this debate is that forever more we may not hear references to "Government by a pane of glass".
IT anyone felt the election was a long way off, this week certainly put everyone on red alert (if they weren't already).
The lines of demarcation are well and truly put down. The electorates, after all, going to be given the option i.e., the present Rainbow Coalition against a Fianna Fail/PD alliance. This is despite all the parties' best efforts to keep their distance in advance of an election so as to keep their options open. But this is not to be. Within the Government there will be an increased awareness of having to look after their own party position or colleagues.
Drapier already hears that Labour has succeeded in convincing the others of the need to make a major announcement early in the New Year on a crucial issue which has a resonance in the Dublin West by election. By doing this, the Government parties, but particularly Labour, feel they can head off unnecessary electoral damage. Readers can be assured that there are many more goodies in the pipeline.
Echoes of the auction politics of 1977 are beginning to be heard. Drapier would warn his colleagues that while the people in 1977 may have been fooled by the lavish promises he is convinced that the voters now are a much more sophisticated and discerning bunch. They will want to know if something is given with the one hand, how will it be taken by the other.
THERE has been much comment in some of the media recently regarding the ethics of politicians suing for libel. While generally Drapier does not believe that politicians should be running off "at the drop of a hat" to court on this type of issue, he does feel that it is somewhat hypocritical of these - correspondents to be berating politicians from defending their name. These writers cannot have it both ways. They seem to want to be able to have carte blanche to say what they like against politicians but then they try and deny the same politicians their right to clear their name.
These writers have a very important and powerful role in Irish society. A couple of minutes from them on a word processor can herald the death knell of a public figure. Because of this, there must be a corresponding duty on the part of these people not to "go overboard" in their comments. Not everyone can adopt the imperial type aloofness of the likes of Charlie Haughey who never issued proceedings in this regard despite many vilifications of his character both as a politician and in his personal life.
All in all there needs to be some balance on both sides and if this is in place both sides will treat the bother with respect. Readers will know that it has often been a hobby horse of Drapier to criticise those Dail commentators who poke fun at deputies' short comings whether intellectual or otherwise including appearance and/or accents.
Drapier feels that this type of comment from these is all the more abhorrent in view of the fact that these commentators are themselves no "oil paintings". Nor, of course, do these "armchair politicians" put themselves - to the ultimate test of any democracy: in an election before the people.
Drapier has challenged some of the commentators, notably Gay Byrne, over the years to put their names forward, but to no avail. {CORRECTIONS} 96111500052