Who was the worst taoiseach ever?

BennyLava

I'll amend that, Lynch was good, but definitely Haughty, and Ahern

(there should be a special place in hell for those two)

transylman

De Valera easily. You just have to look at how the coutry developed during his uninterrupted period in power from 1932-1948 and his 2 other terms in the 50s, ie it didn't. He made it pretty clear which direction he wanted to take the country, a "pastoral rural based society given to frugal living". Every other western country in Europe boomed in the post war period while here, in spite of having had almost no war damage, we still stagnated and emigration remained high.

Add to this his giving immense power to the catholic church, his unnecessary aggravation of other countries, and his dictatorial streak, the guy was a disaster from start to finish.

murphaph

Conor. You keep saying Dev kept us out of WWII like it was some great honour.

WWII was at least a war against a truly evil empire (much more than could be said for the Great War which was really a pissing contest and nothing more). Come here where I live and visit the various memorials to the many and varied victims of that empire and you'll see that all politics aside-Germany HAD to be beaten and it was a noble cause, although not always fought in a noble way.

Dev was just being his usual sly self. He didn't want to declare war on Germany but he did allow Ireland to help the allies. That was snaky behaviour. Ireland could have assisted the war effort so much more (remember many tens of thousands of irish fought under other flags) and could have brought the war to a speedier end.

Even if you disagree that ireland should have been involved officially, please don't harp on about it like he was Alexander the Great. It's like saying I'm a great lad because I don't drink and drive or something.

walshb

I did admire Reynolds, but for all the good he did, he really let himself down
with the Attorney General fiasco. For such a clever and astute man, he showed extreme
ignorance, or arrogance with this issue, which ultimately led to his demise

humanji

It has to be Dev for trying to kill Robin Hood and Harry Potter.

Euro_Kraut

Deleted User wrote: »

Did it not exist until the 70s or something? Was it some new development in Irish history under Lynch?

I was referring to the massive borrowing to pay for a raft of populists political promises. It sent both the Irish economy and the Irish politics back decades, imo. I think one the reasons he is fondly remembered it that Haughey came after him. Also he was a damm fine hurler. One of the best ever. And he could sing a good song.

He could have been a grand President, but was not Taoiseach material.

murphaph

murphaph wrote: »

WWII was at least a war against a truly evil empire (much more than could be said for the Great War which was really a pissing contest and nothing more). Come here where I live and visit the various memorials to the many and varied victims of that empire and you'll see that all politics aside-Germany HAD to be beaten and it was a noble cause, although not always fought in a noble way.

I'm not sure I care about how noble is was or was not.

It left 60 million plus dead. And whether Dev was sly and it was by design or by accident, I'm glad we stayed out of it because if places like Cork and Tralee were getting blitzed by the Luftwaffe or RAF I might well not be here typing this, and one or other of my parents could have been in that 60 million...

Sleipnir

Deleted User wrote: »

You mean Dev, in your opinion.

Which of his administrations do you remember yourself?

Firstly, there's no need to state that it's his opinion. We all know it's his opinion because he said it.

He didn't "keep us out" of WWII, we were just lucky the British won the Battle of Britain, otherwise Germany would have invaded Britain and Churchill would have taken over the Irish ports with or without our agreement. The British did have a plan for taking our ports at the time.
In that case, we would certainly have had to choose which sides to fight for and against.

So really, you should be thanking Churchill for keeping Germany in mainland Europe and not DeValera for simply not declaring war on Germany!
After all, FDR pledged to keep America out of the war. Until, of course, their Pacific fleet was decimated. After that, they had no choice.

"We're not joining this war because we have no reason to."
<Crowd> Hoorah!
Oh wait, now we do, so we will!"
<Crowd> Hoorah!

Bertie and Haughey were certainly the greatest chancers going and don't give me "Oh, Haughey brought about the IFSC"
Yeah, I wonder how many backhanders, bottles of '82 Lynch Bages, and meals in Le Coq Hardi he got out of that one?

Liars, cheats and thieves, the pair of them.

Sleipnir

Sleipnir wrote: »

Firstly, there's no need to state that it's his opinion. We all know it's his opinion because he said it.

I was reacting to the post where someone said it was X 'without question'.

Of course there is a question, if there was no question we could check up the answer objectively in some reference book and there would be no need for a thread...

Again, maybe Dev was lucky that we stayed out of WWII. Luck is a big factor in looking back over the career of a politician. Take Enda Kenny, wasn't he lucky he didn't get elected Taoiseach last time round?

meathstevie

In my opinion it has to be Devalera for catapulting Ireland back into the 19th century while the rest of Europe was looking forward to the end of the 20th century.

murphaph

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not sure I care about how noble is was or was not.

It left 60 million plus dead. And whether Dev was sly and it was by design or by accident, I'm glad we stayed out of it because if places like Cork and Tralee were getting blitzed by the Luftwaffe or RAF I might well not be here typing this, and one or other of my parents could have been in that 60 million...

How sad. In the words of Martin Niemoeller:

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.

If nobody had fought Nazi Germany do you think Adolf Hitler would have left Ireland alone? Are you glad somebody stepped up to the mark or do you think Germany should have been left alone to do as it pleased?

Partially thanks to Dev's 'economic policies' the Free State had feck all industry worth blitzing anyway and I doubt Tralee would have been too high on Germany's agenda (no offence).

murphaph

murphaph wrote: »

If nobody had fought Nazi Germany do you think Adolf Hitler would have left Ireland alone? Are you glad somebody stepped up to the mark or do you think Germany should have been left alone to do as it pleased?

I'm not sure why you are suggesting we should have taken them on.

Of course I'm glad Britain (and the Yanks eventually) took them on and won. And yes I'm glad we stayed out of it too, because we did not exactly have the same military capabilities as those winners. Unless we invented a pitchfork that could pierce tank armour Hitler would have gone through us like, well like he went through Poland and the other countries that didn't exactly do much "stepping up to the mark" yet ended up with massive casualties.

meathstevie wrote: »

In my opinion it has to be Devalera for catapulting Ireland back into the 19th century while the rest of Europe was looking forward to the end of the 20th century.

Yes. Lucky Spain got Franco, Germany really strove forward during the 1940s too while Dev was in power. Foreigners always do it better, don't they?

Agent Smith

Dev

He should have Brought us into the war, rather then have us shunned for 10 years afterwards.

Sea08

Deleted User wrote: »

He kept us out of WWII, dragged many Republicans from a civil war and put them on a path to democracy, he stood as a noteable exception in a Europe where many countries were ruled by dictators etc. I mean, I am sure other countries would be more upset about the legacies of Franco and Mussolini than we are of Dev.

He was a main instigator in the Civil War with direct quotes of the time having him saying if the treaty is passed, it might be necessary to "wade through Irish blood" to achieve Irish freedom.

He only attempted to end the Civil War when it was apparent that the anti treaty side could not win.

Four years after talking about wading through Irish blood because he was so opposed to everything the treaty contained, he formed Fianna Fail and a year later entered government under said treaty. Should come as no surprise to anyone in this country that this is the beginning of Fianna Fail.

Whilst I admit he did well in the dismantling of the treaty to such an extent that Ireland was able to become a fully independent state, it only reinforces the fact that Collins was right when he called the treaty a stepping stone to full independence.

Add these facts to his disastrous economic choices, and you have possibly the greatest tragedy to befall Irish politics.

akaredtop

Ahern has done the most damage of any Taoiseach!

turgon

Deleted User wrote: »

Of course I'm glad Britain (and the Yanks eventually) took them on and won. And yes I'm glad we stayed out of it too, because we did not exactly have the same military capabilities as those winners.

Many of the countries who took part didnt have the extensive military capabilities of Ireland. We obviously wouldnt have offered anything in that criteria. Instead out geographic location would have been an aid to the Allied army.

Whilst its great to be a champion of neutrality, when you take perspectives like Niemoller you begin to realize that the Irish kind of neutrality is merely a cop out. Its fine for the Swedes and the Swiss with their huge armies. Not so much for Ireland.

Neutrality in WWII was simply passing the buck to the UK.

prinz

DeV. He ruined the country in many ways.

Sea08

Sea08 wrote: »

He was a main instigator in the Civil War with direct quotes of the time having him saying if the treaty is passed, it might be necessary to "wade through Irish blood" to achieve Irish freedom.

Huh?

You really think people like Rory O'Connor and Liam Mellows were listening to what Dev said, or gave the slightest damn about whether he spoke of wading through blood? You think quotes from a politicians would have caused people steeped in Republicanism to bat an eyelid? You think they were all standing around outside the High Court saying "did Dev say 'wade' or 'swim', was it a 'stream' or a 'river' of blood"

You must be having a laugh. Nice quote, but there was bit more to the Civil War than a few fellows standing around waiting for Dev to give them the go ahead.

murphaph

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not sure why you are suggesting we should have taken them on.

We wouldn't have 'taken them on'. We would have been an ally of Britain (the real reason Dev kept us out of course) and the United States etc. Britain's military capabilities at the outbreak of WWII were abysmal (Dunkirk??) and they needed massive help from the US to build up their military to a point where it was any use. Even then it required troops from the US to come to Europe and sort it out for us. Ireland would have offered a strategic advantage more than a military one but we could have been very useful to the convoys out in the North Atlantic which were bringing food to Britain (and us).

Deleted User wrote: »

Of course I'm glad Britain (and the Yanks eventually) took them on and won. And yes I'm glad we stayed out of it too, because we did not exactly have the same military capabilities as those winners. Unless we invented a pitchfork that could pierce tank armour Hitler would have gone through us like, well like he went through Poland and the other countries that didn't exactly do much "stepping up to the mark" yet ended up with massive casualties.

See above. Few countries had the means to defeat Germany single handedly (none?) but they allied themselves together and offered what they could. Ireland could have offered a vitally strategic westerly island in the North Atlantic to help target U-Boats.

Anyway- I got a bit sidetracked there-my original point was that it was easier for Dev to keep us out than take us into war so I hardly think it means he was a great leader??

Lockstep

I'm going to break with tradition and attempt to explain some of Dev's positions (keep in mind I am NOT a fan of the man)

Keeping Ireland out of the war was pretty necessary; the country was too volatile and while he was smart enough not to join with the Nazis, joining the Allies would have ripped the country in two. There was just too much anti-British feeling for Ireland to have joined the allies.
The Irish weren't "shunned" after the war; the Allies knew that the Irish had a covert agreement with them (allowing uninterrupted use of Irish airspace, if an Allied soldier ended up on Irish soil he was repatriated to the North, Axis soldiers were interned in the Curragh, Irishmen were free to join the British army etc)
The Constitution was an utter surprise in the day; DeValera found himself with a Dail that FF dominated, no Seanad and a 1922 Constitution that allowed the legislature to amend at will. The 1930s was a time of fascism and there was a large amount of worry that Ireland would turn out the same; instead De Valera outlined a Constitution that guaranteed rights for the Irish people.



Once again; I'm not a fan of De Valera (let alone a member of FF) but I do think the above need to explained in context.

irish_bob

it should also be mentioned that we missed out on the benefits of the marshall plan by opting out of the war effort

The Corinthian

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

I'm guessing it was probably Haughey and then Bertie for the 1st. The Irish Lenin and Stalin.

What are you basing this opinion on?

Deleted User wrote: »

He kept us out of WWII, dragged many Republicans from a civil war and put them on a path to democracy, he stood as a noteable exception in a Europe where many countries were ruled by dictators etc.

Geography and luck kept Ireland out of WW2 not De Valera, pure and simple. Neutrality was only worth something if the cost of someone invading you outweighed the stratigic benefits - just ask the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark or Iceland. Ireland's stance was ultimately irrelevant, and also not exactly neutral either.

Ironically, outside of human cost, participation in WW2 on the allied side would have solved the northern partition issue (NI was offered to De Valera in return for participation) and probably also benefited significantly more from the Marshall Plan.

As to democracy and dictatorship, there were plenty of democracies in Europe in 1939 on the eve of war. With war, if not invaded by one side or the other, pretty much everyone curtailed democratic freedom, including Ireland with the passing of the Emergency Powers Act 1939. However, Ireland was probably alone in that we did not repeal that act until 1976 - a year after De Valerea's death, coincidentally. Or not.

I mean, I am sure other countries would be more upset about the legacies of Franco and Mussolini than we are of Dev.

Not sure about that. Both Mussolini and Franco are certainly divisive figures in Italy and Spain - both retain significant sympathy and support, as well as criticism. Given this the long shadow left by the long man is probably as divisive in the Irish psyche as either of the aforementioned dictators, IMHO.

Overall, De Valera is probably the worst Taoiseach, mainly because he shaped the social and economic policy of the Republic - policies that ultimately retarded the Irish economy and protected clerical abuse until the 1990's.

Lynch and Fitzgerald were both pretty poor though, as has been already pointed out by others. Too early to pass judgement on Ahern, TBH.

K-9

Deleted User wrote: »

He kept us out of WWII, dragged many Republicans from a civil war and put them on a path to democracy, he stood as a noteable exception in a Europe where many countries were ruled by dictators etc. I mean, I am sure other countries would be more upset about the legacies of Franco and Mussolini than we are of Dev.

His defence of Neutrality was his finest moment.

redfacedbear wrote: »

Yep, as much as I despise Haughey for the cancer of corruption that he and his ilk introduced to politics in Ireland - it has to be remembered that the IFSC and the 'Mac the knife' cuts that led to the Celtic Tiger were brought in on his watch (not to mention free travel and artist exemptions).

Dev on the other hand seems to have been consistently wrong - The Civil War, Economic War, Neutrality, Isolationism in the 50s, his god-fearing Constitution.

Perhaps Bertie's 'Power without Governance' term has done us more harm over a shorter period than Dev.

Jack Lynch deserves a mention for the the disastrous budgetary policy of his '77 government, and maybe Garrett for failing to deal with its consequences in the '82-'87 period.

But on balance I'd say Dev

It is debatable if the "Mac the knife" cuts was Haugheys doing. It appeared that Haughey would have continued his old ways except that the IMF was on the doorsteps and McSharry threatened to resign if they weren't introduced. A Minister for Finance resigning in a Minority Government would have meant Haughey out.

The ones you mention where all poor, but I'd mention the Costelloe Inter Party Govt. from 54-57 too. The Mother and Child scheme was a disgrace.

bSlick wrote: »

Lets not forget that Dev signed the book of condolences for HITLER after WWII. The only western leader to do so. That is probably the biggest disgrace in Irish history.

Even Dillon, the opposition leader agreed that he was diplomatically correct to do that, even though he opposed Neutrality.

The best Governments probably were Lemass and the Rainbow Coalition, looking back. Haugheys Minority Govt. was good but suffers because he was righting his previous wrongs. Berties 97-02 Govt. wasn't bad until they gambled it away on Property and Banks.

As of now I'd say it's DeVelera as it took so long for us to recover economically and socially. In 20 years time Bertie could equal him.

K-9

The Corinthian wrote: »

Ironically, outside of human cost, participation in WW2 on the allied side would have solved the northern partition issue (NI was offered to De Valera in return for participation)

That was a non runner. Wonder did Churchill bother asking Craig his opinion?

The Corinthian

K-9 wrote: »

That was a non runner. Wonder did Churchill bother asking Craig his opinion?

He did and Craig urged him to invade the south, which ultimately he didn't.

Don't get me wrong - the official neutrality (I say official because we broke it on several occasions) was not necessarily a bad policy. It is easy to criticise De Valera for what we failed to gain had we entered the war on the allied side with the benefit of hindsight. In reality, an allied victory did not look even vaguely likely until late in the war and in that context keeping out of it was not a bad idea. Given this, neither would I hold it up as a great achievement either.

My criticism of De Valera is more due to the social and economic policies he established. The Irish Republic was built as an economically isolationist, centrally-controlled, agrarian state that was heavily influenced by the Roman Catholic Church. This led directly to rampant clericalism and a moribund economy that earned Ireland the nickname of "White Africa" in much of Europe.

Lockstep

Indeed; I disagree with De Valera's social and economic policies but I can't fault his neutrality.

The Corinthian

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Indeed; I disagree with De Valera's social and economic policies but I can't fault his neutrality.

Well you can fault his neutrality - in part because we weren't really neutral and in part because we did lose out by remaining officially neutral. However, given the options at the time, it was as good a decision as any - one could have found fault with any choice ultimately.

The most important point however is that De Valera did not keep Ireland out of the war. Geography did. Neutrality is only worth something if other nations respect it, and in most cases neither the Axis nor Allied powers really cared if you were neutral or not, if it suited their purposes not to.

In short, thank Fortuna, not Dev.

Dannyboy83

Deleted User wrote: »

:eek:

You know that scene in Full Metal Jacket where they say Animal is a great guy buy he just needs someone throwing hand grenades at him for the rest of his life?

I'm sure Collins was useful as a soldier. The way he was completely outmanoeuvred in the Treaty debates (albeit by a vey skilled British team) would suggest that he was not cut out for politics.

^^
You've either never read a Michael Collins biography or else you've completely failed to understand what you did read.

transylman

K-9 wrote: »

That was a non runner. Wonder did Churchill bother asking Craig his opinion?

It was Chamberlains government that made the offer in 1940, not long after France fell, when things were looking desperate for Britain. It never got beyond the initial informal discussion stages, so we'll never know how genuine the offer was.

Offer of Irish Unity link

Dannyboy83

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

^^
You've either never read a Michael Collins biography or else you've completely failed to understand what you did read.

You're factually wrong on both counts.

And to suggest that Collins would have made a good leader after the War is to engage in useless speculation. I happen to think he would not. Did you once read a book that said otherwise? Did it have nice pictures?