The Race for the Áras

by Tom Reddy

  The former Longford-Westmeath TD, Fianna Fáil minister and sister of former candidate Brian Lenihan (senior), Mary O’Rourke, who failed to retain her seat in the 2011 election, endorsed him, saying, ‘I’m in favour. He would handle himself and the country very well.’ A few days earlier she was quoted in the Examiner as ruling herself out as a possible candidate. A regular media contributor, popular among radio producers and commissioning editors for describing a political situation candidly, O’Rourke was against her party running its own candidate. In typical forthright fashion, and perhaps a bit exasperated, she said, ‘I just don’t see why we have to contest everything. We should give it a break, for goodness’ sake.’

  As shoppers in Eason’s at Mahon Point Shopping Centre in Cork, billed as Munster’s largest shopping centre, read the glowing endorsements of Gay Byrne in Wednesday’s newspapers, the Euro-pop superstars Jedward (the identical twins John and Edward Grimes) were signing copies of their newly launched album Victory a few yards away. Surrounded by hundreds of noisy fans, they were asked by reporters about the presidential campaign. They rubbished any ageism arguments and said they would give Gaybo their vote.

  Then they put forward a new political proposition: if they themselves were to run, they said, Gaybo would have no chance. ‘If we were allowed to contest the election we would totally win,’ Edward said. But at twenty, below the constitutionally required thirty-five years of age, they were excluded. ‘We need a referendum to get the age limit down to twenty,’ said Edward, excusing themselves from a showdown. Consequent discussions of the ‘what if’ variety were to centre on the old versus the new.

  The argument went that, if Gaybo ran, the question was who would vote for him: people aged over forty-five who probably remembered his television and radio programmes and welcomed his later sporadic return to the screen and Lyric FM; some younger people might vote for him for his work with the Road Safety Authority in reducing road deaths. Older people traditionally vote in far greater numbers at the polling booths.

  If Jedward were allowed to run, and if it was a text vote? No contest. A technology, pop-music and social-media savvy generation would swamp the vote—and it would be a shared Presidency—or not, if you could tell them apart!

  While the media continued to speculate about Byrne’s intentions there was growing criticism within Fianna Fáil of Micheál Martin’s solo run in offering to support him. The six-member committee established before the Dáil’s summer recess still had not met to consider whether or not to run or alternatively to support an independent candidate. On social media networking sites, Fianna Fáil members were equally divided into those critical and those supportive of the Byrne overture.

  However, the debate began to broaden out into the reason for senior members not being part of the selection process. Why, for example, were the former ministers Éamon Ó Cuív and Mary Hanafin and the MEP Brian Crowley not given the first option of party support, and why had Martin taken such a high-risk course of action?

  With this solo run, it was also being questioned why Martin would invest so much of his own credibility in making the overture. Surely an intermediary, such as Dooley, should not have been given the task of securing Byrne and then unveiling him once agreement had been reached.

  By approaching Byrne with almost unseemly haste, Martin ran a number of risks. He risked the ire of Fianna Fáil members who would prefer to see loyal party members put forward as candidates for selection by the parliamentary party. He also failed to secure a commitment from Byrne and consequently risked a public rebuff and the resulting difficulty in selecting a candidate who would inevitably be dubbed a second choice for the party. Were Byrne not to run, Martin could find himself unwilling to support any other candidate, or he could select a Fianna Fáil candidate—a decision likely to further divide opinion among the grass roots.

  Unless Martin was to allow the parliamentary party to endorse other candidates, Byrne would be seen as endorsed by Fianna Fáil. And, while not their candidate—as he would argue—their reputation hung on the shoulders of an unaccountable independent. In addition to these risks, even if Byrne was nominated there was no guarantee that he would win the election, so providing further collateral damage to Fianna Fáil. The news web site BreakingNews.ie reported that

  it is believed there is some argument within the Fianna Fáil party as to whether it should put forward its own candidate for the presidential election … Some members of the party are said to be angry Micheál Martin did not consult them beforehand when offering support to Byrne.

  A former Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Martin Mansergh—another victim of the general election cull, who had lost his South Tipperary seat—confirmed that a ‘lively discussion’ was under way in the party and that no decision had been made about whether it would put forward its own candidate. But he supported Byrne. ‘He is a national institution; I think he would be a very worthy candidate.’

  One party member posted on an online discussion page for members of Fianna Fáil, echoing the frustration of other contributors:

  A couple of posters have very reasonably asked why is stopping FG an end in itself, is it just tribalism? FG have been on a roll from 2004 to 2011 (starting from when they wisely chose not to contest the 2004 presidential election), they doubled their council seats, became the biggest local authority party in the country, beat Fianna Fáil in a national election for the first time, more than doubled their Dáil seats and won most first-preference votes than ever in their history.

  The one thing they have never won is the Presidency, and that is why it matters so dearly to them this time around. Psychology is as much a factor in electoral politics as is policy and if FF are to reverse our decline we must halt the myth of FG as the coming dominant force in Irish politics.

  The former minister Éamon Ó Cuív, who had announced an interest in the post, told the media of his disappointment about the approach to Byrne. Even though he was a member of the Presidential Election Committee (which had not yet met), he explained:

  I was not aware of it. Nobody contacted me about it, but I’m not making any further comment on that.

  The first decision Fianna Fáil needs to be making is whether we are running a candidate or not. We haven’t even got as far as answering that question. I would consider that issue if and when Fianna Fáil decided whether it will put up a candidate.

  A number of Ó Cuív’s party colleagues were also quoted and offered support to Byrne.

  Willie O’Dea, the former Minister for Defence, said that Byrne would be an ‘outstanding candidate and an excellent President’ and that the public were seeking someone outside the political system.

  In the neighbouring constituency to Ó Cuív, Galway East, Michael Kitt TD appeared to be ambivalent, saying the candidate didn’t necessarily have to be a party member and pointing to the former Fianna Fáil candidate Mary McAleese. He said the party leader was

  entitled to sound anybody out … There are a lot of people within the party with incredible ability, standards and stature. But there are also individuals from outside our ranks who are impressive and of very high standing.

  The Irish Daily Mail, which had been giving blanket coverage to the election, appeared to be losing patience with the process. In its editorial it said that with only a few weeks to go, the final line-up of candidates was unclear. It added that Byrne’s ‘rumbustious’ comments on Europe appeared to suggest that he had made up his mind, while Ó Cuív had only been ‘murmuring half-heartedly’ about his own interest in the Áras.

  The reluctance of two major potential candidates to lay their cards on the table is of concern on two fronts. Not only does it leave the electorate in a rather ridiculous position, it also sends out a less than impressive portent of what we can expect if either is elected to the Áras. As in so many aspects of public life these days, the time for indecision is over.

  By contrast, the editorial of the Irish Daily Star dubbed Byrne ‘a serious contender�
�. It said that

  it wasn’t until Gay threw his lot in with the Government’s road safety campaign that lives started to be saved and families spared the heartbreak of senseless deaths. He oozes old-fashioned decency, common sense, charm, courtesy—but is also politically instinctive, savvy and streetwise.

  The media storm continued to rage around Byrne, despite his continued assertion that he was consulting friends and family and that he would take his time before making an announcement.

  The traditional silly season in August was well under way as the courts, the Dáil and Seanad and local authority meetings went into recess for the summer. While some candidates took the opportunity to recharge their batteries before the campaigns formally kicked off—candidates such as Gay Mitchell and Mary Davis, with short breaks—they effectually excluded themselves from media scrutiny but left the field open for a late potential entrant to dominate the headlines.

  Gaybo, however, was guaranteed front-page coverage. He was a recognised national figure, an entertainer and showbiz personality who now added the sulphur of politics to the story about personalities in a race for the country’s biggest prize. At a time when the only other story capturing the headlines was the rioting and looting in cities in England, he was the only Irish story for Irish media.

  That same evening, Wednesday 10 August, the media pack who had ambushed Pat Kenny spotted Byrne and his wife arriving for the opening night of the rock and roll musical Grease. As they rushed to surround him, fiddling with microphones, Smartphones and cameras to record him, he was typically relaxed, at the centre of attention on the metaphorical studio floor again. Dressed in a dark suit, light-grey shirt and red-and-green patterned tie, he was ever the showman, hand behind his ear to have a question repeated, tilting his head for emphasis as Kathleen stood smiling at his shoulder.

  What he was to say to the media would launch a debate that was to keep his name to the fore for days to come, for both positive and negative reasons—neither of which would upset a man whose career had prospered on self-promoting controversy. But the first question was, predictably, the question on everyone’s lips: would he run for the Presidency?

  We’re still consulting and we’re talking to various people, and there’s no time limit. Nobody has ever given me a time limit as to when I should make a decision. Nobody has said we need your ‘yes’ or ‘no’ by twelve noon on Friday. So I’m taking as long as it takes, and I would imagine I have certainly another few days’ thinking and talking to people about it.

  If he did decide to run, he told the anxious gaggle of reporters, it would be as an independent.

  Fianna Fáil have very little to do with it. I would be an independent runner if it comes to that, and they’ve assured me of that situation and all of that, so forget about that.

  To the next question he answered that he had been overwhelmed by the messages of support he had received.

  No political party officially has approached me, but there have been rumours and approaches and whispers and all of that sort of thing. There would appear to be more offers [of money and support] than I can cope with from all sorts of people …

  However, that support and his showings in opinion polls were not going to influence his decision on whether to run or not.

  I am absolutely overwhelmed by the messages of good will and regards and affection from all over the country. I am not fooled by that, for one single minute, because I have been in the business far too long. But nonetheless it’s very, very gratifying and satisfying and delightful.

  It was at this stage that an experienced press officer would have stepped in and ended the media opportunity. Why? Because the main issue had been addressed and effectively dealt with. Any further comment could diminish the central message, and the opportunity would have been lost. Furthermore, an undisciplined interviewee who was willing to be distracted off-message and to field unrelated questions—even with the intention of being the media’s best friend by facilitating them—could damage themselves unintentionally as answers to questions became gaffes, uninformed answers or even offensive remarks.

  The following day’s Irish Daily Mail described the next moment:

  When he was asked whether his dislike for the single currency and Lisbon Treaty would become a topical subject for him in office, he appeared evasive at first.

  Then without a moment’s hesitation, he said: ‘It might be, it might not. I haven’t changed my mind.

  ‘What we’re seeing now in Europe as far as I’m concerned is a culmination of all my concerns about it down through the years. I never thought we’d reach the disastrous stage we are at at the moment in Europe in my lifetime.

  ‘I thought it would eventually come in my grandchildren’s time, but it’s come much, much quicker than even I could have realised, and it’s happening even as we speak.’

  It was a repetition of an opinion he had previously made public. Prompted to reveal his concerns, he said:

  Those concerns are—I think it’s a crazy notion from the very beginning. We crossed the Rubicon when we joined the single currency. I think there is no backing out now, but it’s a mad, mad world and we’re being run by mad people in Brussels.

  Those comments dominated the headlines. The Mail scrapped its earlier draft for its front page and instead splashed a picture of Byrne being interviewed and three paragraphs of text, a main headline reading ‘Gaybo: We’re being run by mad people in Brussels’ and a smaller headline over it: ‘TV host makes controversial attack on EU—and all but launches his bid for the Áras.’

  Perhaps more controversial was the fact that Byrne had long been a critic of the EU project and in 2008 opposed the Lisbon Treaty, whose stated aim was ‘to complete the process started by the Treaty of Amsterdam and by the Treaty of Nice with a view to enhancing the efficiency and democratic legitimacy of the Union and to improving the coherence of its action.’ It put him on a collision course with Fianna Fáil in Government and its director of elections, the then Minister for Foreign Affairs, Micheál Martin.

  In his column in the Sunday Independent three years earlier Byrne had said he would be voting No in the forthcoming referendum. And with withering criticism he dismissed the whole process as

  so sneaky, dishonest, underhanded and sinister that I now have neither faith nor trust in the whole approach. I don’t believe a word from the mouths of any of the ‘Yes’ brigade and I have deep scepticism about any of their promises or undertakings.

  What we are being asked to vote on is a series of amendments to amendments to revisions to an existing Constitution.

  I feel desperately sorry for my grandchildren that certifiable lunatics in Brussels will dictate every single aspect of their lives …

  One other thing, I’ll guarantee within six months of Ireland voting ‘Yes’ our special corporate tax rate will be gone, not because of ‘harmonisation’ but because of ‘competition barriers’. And our veto? We’ll be none too politely told to stick it you know where and whistle Dixie to it.

  It wasn’t the only time he clashed with the Fianna Fáil viewpoint. The retired editor of the Irish Independent, Vinny Doyle, had been the Government’s first choice as chairperson of the newly established Road Safety Authority. When Doyle declined the post Byrne was offered it, and accepted. In 2007 he again professed views that were contrary to Fianna Fáil’s when he called for a debate on the legalisation of certain drugs. ‘This is a mighty chasm for me to leap,’ he said at the time, ‘but I’ve come to the conclusion that the possibility of legalising drugs should be looked at.’ But the Taoiseach of the day, Bertie Ahern, slapped down his comments, saying he was ‘totally and fundamentally opposed to the legislation of any drugs in any respects.’

  Byrne also clashed with the next Taoiseach, Brian Cowen, commenting on how he should have communicated the economic crisis.

  I question whether you can be Taoiseach and still sit up and have a pint in the local pub. That is what I would have told him, had I been asked. What everyone is
crying out for is leadership.

  What I would have recommended Cowen to do, at the latest in midsummer 2009, is that he should have been on the television every night at nine o’clock instead of the news. Not being interviewed but there to camera, explaining how bad things are. And then he should have explained what we will do about it and that it is going to be ghastly and that he will be the most hated man in the world.

  Yet when the publicity bandwagon started to roll for Byrne, Cowen’s successor, Micheál Martin, contacted him directly.

  As the dominant voice in broadcasting and media in Ireland, Byrne’s outspoken and informed views held powerful sway among public opinion. While he wasn’t party-political, as he asserted, he held a number of strong opinions that were political in content and social effect. On his radio programme he fulminated over the years against a series of targets. He admitted that as a broadcaster a lot of the ‘crabbiness and thunderstruck apoplexy is feigned. It comes out of something genuine, but the manner in which it is delivered is a performance.’

  Topics he has campaigned for—or at least for which he raised a debate —include the birching of offenders, the reduction of high taxation, the non-introduction of a property tax (over which he clashed with both Gay Mitchell and Michael D. Higgins) and the introduction of divorce. He was suspicious of the European Union and the high cost of living, at one stage urging shoppers to cross the border to pick up bargains in Newry.

  The following day, Thursday 11 August, the Evening Herald also carried the ‘stinging attack’ and described it as ‘Gay’s first controversy over “mad EU” comment.’ However, the article concentrated on Fianna Fáil, ruling out suggestions that it would fund Byrne’s potential campaign.