Enda Kenny has become Taoiseach. Election results and recent polls suggest that the vast majority of Irish citizens regard him as being more than up to the task. His handling of the first set of Leader’s Questions has received generally positive media coverage.

This is in sharp contrast to earlier perceptions of Enda Kenny as being unsuitable, including, as late as December 2010*, when a third of Fine Gael voters expressed a preference for Eamon Gilmore as Taoiseach. Only six months previously, nine members of the Fine Gael front bench didn’t have confidence in him to lead the party into the General Election. The generally held belief, by most media commentators, that Kenny was a “lame duck” leader was accentuated in Vincent Browne’s ill-advised suggestion involving a darkened room, a bottle of whiskey and a revolver.

Enda was accused, by those supporting Richard Bruton, that he didn’t “connect” with the electorate; that he was a poor media performer; that he wasn’t good on policy detail. Kenny’s political obituary has been written and re-written many times in recent years. Commentators have, more recently, damned him with faint praise as being “more Chairman, than Chief”.

Not only have the reports of Enda’s demise been greatly exaggerated, but it would appear that despite the misgivings of many, the public have already warmed to the notion, now reality, of Taoiseach Enda Kenny. Perhaps Enda has changed beyond recognition since he was written off as Taoiseach material, or perhaps the perception of Taoisigh is in the eye of the beholder?

*Red C poll 13-15 Dec 2010

While previous Irish budgets have been portrayed as one-armed-bandits, this budget may be far closer to that analogy than we would ever have imagined.
The role of independent Dáil Deputies would appear to be crucial in determining the final numbers for the vote on the budget and the subsequent Finance Bill. However, as has been the practice, independent deputies appear to be bargaining on behalf of their constituencies, regardless of clichéd “national interest”. Although Michael Lowry insists that his support is not dependent on Government support for the Tipperary Venue, including a revision of gambling legislation, news reports suggest that the report on gambling legislation is being fast-tracked through Cabinet. This is presumably so that any new Government will have the published report in their In-boxes.
Michael Lowry, like Jackie Healy-Rae, Finian McGrath and other independent Deputies, answer directly to their local constituents, but too often put local issues above the priority of national issues. A cursory examination of the distribution of the ill-fated decentralisation of Government departments demonstrates the local clientelism with which those departments were relocated. Similarly, the favouritism shown to parts of Kerry for sports and tourism grants during the Arts, Sport & Tourism Ministerial supervision of John O’Donohue
The Dail is a national parliament. We need a system which prioritises the national interest for all the members of that parliament. Until that happens, we have situations such as will happen tomorrow: the decision on the adoption of a national budget may ultimately depend on the whim of the proprietor of a one-armed-bandit emporium.

Given the furore over Brian Cowen’s interview on RTE’s Morning Ireland and the ensuing media meltdown, one might be forgiven for assuming that our Prime Minister might have more quickly understood the nature of the difficulty in which he found himself.
However, given the Taoiseach’s initial reaction in describint the tweet as “pathetic and pitiful” and his very late apology for not giving his “best performance” on Morning Ireland, it would appear that he only came to this understanding after considerable rumination on the matter and, one assumes, much prompting on the part of his media advisors.
So, what was the Taoiseach’s crime? Simon Coveney, the opposition TD whose tweet became headline news, did not accuse Brian Cowen of either being drunk or of having a hangover, but of *sounding* halfway between the two. Brian Cowen’s initial response – and those of most of his Ministers “methinks protested too much” when they lept to the defence of “a new low in Politics”, i.e. the suggestion that the Taoiseach was either drunk or hungover.
As Brian Cowen initially dismissed criticism of his interview, Micheal Martin was the only Government Minister to acknowledge that the Taoiseach’s performance was less than should be expected of country’s leader. His cabinet colleagues, defaulted to defending the Taoiseach, come hell or high water. Their knee-jerk reaction displayed their shared lack of understanding as to what the Taoiseach’s real failure was that morning.
It really doesn’t matter whether the Brian Cowen was drunk, hungover, hoarse from singing, exhausted from running the country, or any other possible explanation for his poor performance on Morning Ireland. What is important is that the Taoiseach thought it acceptable to attempt to communicate with a significant portion of the electorate in a manner which was less than acceptable and without explanation.
When Cathal Mac Coille thanked the Taoiseach for “coming over before your breakfast”, Brian Cowen should have made reference to his poor voice and, perhaps, explained it as the consequence of singing the night before. Any comments subsequently made about the quality of the interview could be answered by the Taoiseach’s own explanation. The issue would never have become the media sensation that developed later.
This was an appaling communications gaffe, made worse by an inability to recognise it as such. This was the real crime – not the possible cause of the Taoiseach’s performance, or lack of it.