Re:public 2011 at The Button Factory

Having heard about this night of political discussion, stand up comedy and music at a Guinness sodden panel discussion organised by The Dubliner magazine a few weeks ago I wasn't really sure what to expect. Granted, the marquee names of Vincent Browne, David McWilliams, Mick Wallace, and Peter Matthews were enticing but how would their alloted time to contribute balance out against that alloted for contributions made by the less heralded figures who would also feature. Mirabile dictu: barring a few bum notes, the evening was a great success. Not only was there plenty of lively discussion from the headliners but the other participants, both the audience and their fellow panellists, ensured that it didn't turn into a self indulgent gab fest (thinking of Marian here). Indeed, considering that organisor Candice Gordon began Re:Public 2011 as a means of encouraging people to become more involved in the political process I'm delighted to report that I now have more time for the rank and file of councillors and TDs who go to make up the less eye cathcing appendages of our body politic. On the whole, they were a sympathetic and eloquent bunch.

The first discussion was between Mary Lou McDonald, Richard Boyd Barret, and Joanna Tuffy and was moderated by Vincent Browne. Although the audience was a little reticent to begin with and there was little or no surprise in terms of policies (for instance, RBB and MLM were, to nobody's shock, against GM foods) the questioning slowly but surely became more and more pointed as the minutes ticked by. Despite the usual talk of hope and sea changes and Ireland never having given democratic socialism a real chance (a point made, strangely enough, by Labour's Tuffy) a question from the audience did force them to concede that Ireland was indeed a deeply conservative country with the majority still voting either FF/FG. Similarly, they all seemed slightly thrown by having to justify why they believed that Ireland was capable of governing itself (RBB: we can. It's the profit motive alone that's brought us to this position) before a collective segue had them all agreeing that political reform debate was being held using fairly condescending terms.

Although this sort of collective agreement may sound indicative of a rather cosy evening of high minded chatter Browne was on hand to do what an FF or FG representative would have had to do had they bothered to attend; namely, to point out (in what can only be described as a thunderous intervention) that any structured default or burning of the bondholders will have catastrophic consequences for the state in its daily operations as it tries to cover its obligations to public sector employees and other non-banking related interested parties. McDonald, not unreasonably, replied that the current bailout deal will be equally catastrophic if it continues in its current format, thereby rendering a a structural default inevitable. A few more interesting questions (is there likely to be any funding for research in the humanities at any point soon?, who do you represent?, and how come Irish politicians haven't engaged with local media on the continent about the bailout?, all being particular favourites) aside, the rest of this discussion continued thusly with Browne and the panelists seemingly only in agreement on the central point that, whatever happens, the country has a choice only between picking one kind of financial abyss or another.  

Following a brief interlude for the lacklustre comedy stylings of Abie Philbin Bowman ("Colonel Gadaffi's been in power for 40 years and he's still only a colonel? C'mon, what's that about?" my sides etc.) and a musical performance by Paul Gogarty (a surprisingly sincere performance from a man who began his career as an April Fool's Day joke) the second discussion, moderated by Orla Barry, began with councillors Andrew Montague (Lab), Paul McAuliffe (FF), and Rebecca Warren (Lab). Unlike the previous debate where all three panelists seemed to be broadly in alignment with the concerns of the audience this discussion was a bit more fractious with all three having to defend their positions from fairly strident criticism from the audience. The result, unsurprisingly, was that the question of how the council and councillors communicate about their work figured prominently.

One highlight included Montague noting that he first proposed the city bikes scheme in 2004 but that there was antipathy towards the plan because many officials and councillors believed Dubliners couldn't be trusted as they'd wreck and steal most of the bikes (completely wrong apparently. Montague said only two were stolen and both have been recovered since the scheme's introduction. What chance the government will take heed of this salutary tale and apply the lesson of trusting your citizens to our licencing laws?) Another involved the likable McAuliffe defending the council's record on dealing with the snow while Warren and the seemingly ever knowledgable Montague also did well in defending the council's water retention policy against an onslaught from a hostile inquisitior wanting to know why a rainwater harvesting shceme still hadn't been rolled out. On the downside, it was dispiriting to discover that the interminable saga of reforming the role of the Lord Mayor looks set to roll on for a good bit longer while another discussion about the much lamented but seemingly never-frequented-while-it-was-open Lighthouse Cinema was hardly revelatory.

To the larger issue of how successful the panelists were in defending their positions the proverbial jury is still out; many of their responses seemed to involve blaming city officials and their councillor colleagues.
Some insight was provided into how their decision making process operates when it was noted that the vexed issue of waste collection had been left up to local authority managers as councillors were unwilling to decide whether or not people should be charged for it. Despite this (or maybe because of it) there was still the lingering suspicion that they're all just biding their time until an opening becomes available on the party ticket for the Dail elections. Also, the admission by one of the panellists that those objects of public opprobrium, the senators, are supposed to represent the interests of councillors in the Oireachtas didn't exactly have anyone falling over themselves to defend the honour of the institution of councillor. Regardless, it was still an interesting discussion on an important subject that really needs as much insightful coverage as it can get.


The final debate of the evening, before what would be best described as a now fairly well lubricated audience, featured McWilliams as moderator, independent TD Wallace, pundit/accountant turned FG TD Peter Matthews, and former principal turned Labour TD, Aodhan O'Riordain. Taking a different, more philosophical tack McWilliams began by asking each of the candidates what prompted them to become involved and what they hoped to change. Both O'Riordain and Wallace spoke well on these points. The former noted that it was the social inequalities he observed between the school of his youth in Malahide and those he observed in his time as a principal at a school on Sheriff Street that rankled with him most before saying that he felt that education reform (school patronage being one subject he discussed specifically) is one area where he and Labour can bring about beneficial change.

Wallace, meanwhile, was refreshingly honest in admitting that he wasn't sure he could make a difference, remarking that although many in the audience may want revolution (this term having been introduced by an audience member and not really explained) the reality of the situation was such that the majority of the population seemed to be firmly opposed to radical reform in voting for FF or FG. Beyond that, when questioned by McWilliams about the voluntary sector and how it could help, he replied that social inequality had always existed and that the voluntary sector had had to cover up the cracks in the system during even the headiest days of the Celtic Tiger. History, he said, would be very unkind to the political leaders of the past twenty years. 
 
As for Matthews, well, he really was in front of a tough crowd if one considers his views and a small minority, rather depressingly in light of the fact that he was the only representative willing to defend the FG position, let him know this via sustained heckling. Despite echoing Wallace and O'Riordain's point about the ugliness of the Celtic Tiger years he soon got himself into trouble with the more impatient elements of the crowd when indulging in a rambling simile about polluted rivers and toxic banks. As for his point about not burning the bond holders or going for a structured default but instead seeking a write down on our debts with the E.U. this could have been interesting if he'd been able or willing to finish his point (for the life of me I can't remember who was at fault here; either McWilliams for not hearing him out or Matthews for not finishing in good order).

Finally, there was McWilliams. Like Browne he disagreed vigorously with one of his panelists, in this case Matthews. Unlike Browne, however, Mcwilliams is in favour of embracing the structured default as the best solution available, going so far as to identify the means that would bring about this end; withdrawing our deposits from the bailed out banks and depositing them with a new bank (this would precipitate a bottom-up default), or taking advantage of the European People's Charter to trigger referenda in some E.U. states on the terms of the bailout.With interventions like this (other points he made included a dig at Irish Central Bank officials for not being the most intellectually adventurous of souls and further criticisms of the ECB for backing itself into an ideological corner, which not even the IMF would do apparently, and for being the most undemocratic of all E.U. institutions) McWilliams, a gifted guide to the more obscure corners of the contemporary economics discourse, was by a fair distance the most inflammatory of all speakers in the sense that he seems to have fairly concrete ideas about how to trigger a default.

This account of the evening  makes it sound fairly depressing (to default or not to default being the  proverbial 800 plb gorilla in the room, and only really addressed by McWilliams and Browne in concrete terms) but it was an unqualified success in its stated aim of encouraging people to engage more deeply with the Irish political process. Although there was undoubtedly some element of preaching to the choir with many in attendance giving the impression of being media savvy, converse wearing twitterati the pointed nature of the questions and the desire of many audience members to be heard was an edifying spectacle. Hopefully Peter Matthews' experience won't put off other FF or FG representatives from participating at future events and the Republic 2011 concept will grow stronger.

Returning to the preaching-to-the-choir metaphor, I say to anyone lingering at the chruch steps who feels both intrigued and intimitated by what they can hear within that it is well worth exploring Re:public 2011 further and taking part. To conclude: kudos to all concerned on a job well done.