Who was the worst taoiseach ever?

Het-Field

Bertie.

The ultimate pragmatist. His ideology extended to one key question, "what can I do to keep them quiet". He didnt mind how he answered it. In the end, it led to his reliance on windfall taxes to sustain the unsustainable 10% public spending increases. This also led to the ridiculous property boom, the unsustainablewages, and the sham that was social partnership He fudged a wide variety of social issues, and as such society never really moved forward under his tenure. His shameful departure led to the rejection of the Lisbon Treaty as government and opposition were wrapped up in his pathetic problems. He continued the culture of sleaze in FF. He allowed O Donoghue run riot with expenses, he appointed Eoghan Harris to the senate (two months after vociferously defending Bertie on The Late Late).

His arrogance shows no bounds. Under his watch he created much of the mess we find ourselves in today, yet he still feels the public love him. Its a terrible indictment of our nation, and it continues to rankle with me.

Dev may have been an isolationist, Fitzgerald may have been weak, Haughey may have been corrupt. However, Bertie epitomises all that is wrong with our system. He is a sleaze, arrogant, narsissist, who has cost thousands their jobs, left thousands in debt, and obviously doesnt care.

I have mentioned before that Im not 100% opposed to FF. I feel they have some very good people, they are an incredible party machine, and they have often performed for this country. But that cannot change my opinion on Bertie

The Corinthian

Rebelheart wrote: »

Éamon DeValera, as the most active politician in twentieth-century Ireland, was a man of immense failings, deceitfulness and much else. Nevertheless, it is sheer prejudice to place that man on the same moral level as Patrick Bartholomew Ahern or Charles James Haughey. DeValera gave much to Ireland, a fact which the Mulcahys, Fitzgeralds and many others can accept. Why can't you or those who support you here have the historical perspective or historical empathy to see Ireland, as opposed to just your tribe, as it was in the 1930s?

If morality made a man a good or bad leader then most of the greatest leaders in history would probably be judged as bad. De Valera was a bad leader simply because his policies, that shaped Ireland up to the 1990's, crippled us. Simple as that.

Haughey may have been one corrupt SOB, but he did tackle the economic mess that his (both Fianna Fail and Fine Gale) predecessors left and laid the foundations for the Celtic Tiger. Ahern may well be judged a poor leader, but as I suggested, it is too early to make a definitive judgement, IMHO.

Don't confuse being a good leader with being a good person.

maynooth_rules

Het-Field wrote: »

Bertie.

The ultimate pragmatist. His ideology extended to one key question, "what can I do to keep them quiet". He didnt mind how he answered it. In the end, it led to his reliance on windfall taxes to sustain the unsustainable 10% public spending increases. This also led to the ridiculous property boom, the unsustainablewages, and the sham that was social partnership He fudged a wide variety of social issues, and as such society never really moved forward under his tenure. His shameful departure led to the rejection of the Lisbon Treaty as government and opposition were wrapped up in his pathetic problems. He continued the culture of sleaze in FF. He allowed O Donoghue run riot with expenses, he appointed Eoghan Harris to the senate (two months after vociferously defending Bertie on The Late Late).

His arrogance shows no bounds. Under his watch he created much of the mess we find ourselves in today, yet he still feels the public love him. Its a terrible indictment of our nation, and it continues to rankle with me.

Dev may have been an isolationist, Fitzgerald may have been weak, Haughey may have been corrupt. However, Bertie epitomises all that is wrong with our system. He is a sleaze, arrogant, narsissist, who has cost thousands their jobs, left thousands in debt, and obviously doesnt care.

I have mentioned before that Im not 100% opposed to FF. I feel they have some very good people, they are an incredible party machine, and they have often performed for this country. But that cannot change my opinion on Bertie

Agree with every word of this 10000%. To see people almost wetting themselves now when they get to see him houring his book, it actually makes me sick

K-9

The Corinthian wrote: »

Haughey may have been one corrupt SOB, but he did tackle the economic mess that his (both Fianna Fail and Fine Gale) predecessors left and laid the foundations for the Celtic Tiger.

Again, that was more down to the Tallaght strategy, McSharry threatening to resign in a minority Government and the threat of the IMF.

It definitely wasn't a Road to Damascus moment, more he had no other option.

rcdk1

OP..... Enda Kenny..... give it a few years :D:D

With regard to de Valera I don't have any strong views about him one way or the other but I would like to challenge some statements made. In most cases my argument comes down to "hindsight is 20/20".

redfacedbear wrote: »

Dev on the other hand seems to have been consistently wrong [...] his god-fearing Constitution.

People seem to forget that Ireland was a "god fearing" country in those days. He wouldn't have been representing the people if he didn't have "god fearing" policies.

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).

At the time WWII wasn't "a war against a truly evil empire", it was a war against another colonial power just like the Brits, the Spanish, the Romans etc etc. The evils of the concentration camps etc were only discovered towards the end of the war.

murphaph wrote: »

Partially thanks to Dev's 'economic policies' the Free State had feck all industry worth blitzing anyway

Ireland had (and still has) feck all industry because we have feck all natural resources (i.e minerals and fossil fuels).

irish_bob wrote: »

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

...hindsight


In relation to neutrality i'll merely quote The Corinthian and Euro_Kraut:

The Corinthian wrote: »

However, given the options at the time, it was as good a decision as any - one could have found fault with any choice ultimately.

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

His responsibility was to the Irish people and not those of continental Europe. Even Britain only engaged in the War ultimately to protect themselves. They did little when Hitler rose to power and began passing all his anti-Jewish laws. One a threat emerged to the UK they engaged. It was self-interest. Ireland too acted out of self interest.

irish_bob

transylman wrote: »

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

churchill would never have let the north go , he didnt even want to see india go in 1948

starbelgrade

I'm in two minds about this, but there's no doubt who the ugliest one is.

paddyland

I have to mention three Fianna Fáil Taoisigh.

De Valera, for creating the fundamentals of the corrupt system of government we have today, which favours the strongest party, i.e. Fianna Fáil. For creating the Fianna Fáil party itself. For being the power behind the dead years of the 1930s, 40s and 50s that have coloured that whole period of Irish history in a grey and unloved sheen. And for keeping any fresh ideas, fresh blood or transparency out of public life for far too long.

Haughey, for allowing deliberate corruption enter politics on a grand scale for the first time in Ireland, for introducing the Burkes, the Flynns, the Lawlors and their respective hangers on to the nation, and the legacy of calamitous planning and detrimental and lasting effects to the environment of our beautiful country.

But away out in front, by a long shot, Bertie.

Before Bertie, the long suffering unwashed of the population had to suffer the years of consequences of series and series of dysfunctional Fianna Fáil leadership, which right back to the beginning, was about party first, even if in the beginning, the results of that were relatively benign compared to today.

But come Bertie, and a whole new, and far more dangerous and long lasting effect came into play. For the first time, the ordinary population themselves were encouraged to sup in the poisoned chalice, where before it had been the preserve of the elite. When the ordinary people of Ireland got their first taste of 'living away beyond their means' it brought a whole new dimension to Charlie's notorious old catchphrase.

We are now living with a population who see an unrealistic standard of living as their right, a sham of high public service paid for out of low taxation. A sham that can deceive you for ten years, but will ultimately prove itself to be completely unsustainable. This is witnessed today when you see, for example, public sector unions clamouring for pay raises in the face of the deepest recession the country has ever known. There is due indignation at the exorbitant expense claims of those who should know better, but sadly, one gets the distinct sense that much of the indignation is that we are not all sharing in the payoffs John D. Politician is getting, rather than any sense of what is right or affordable.

We are living in the selfish, 'I want,' 'I am entitled to,' 'Everyone else should pay for it' generation, and THIS is the legacy of Bertie Ahern. Not only has he destroyed the country itself, but more critically, he has destroyed the attitudes of much of the ordinary population who one would hope would see their way to envisioning a socially and morally enlightened future, rather than a selfish and competitive one where he who climbs on the shoulder of his neighbour, climbs highest.

irish_bob

this thread overall seems quite hard on dev , while he was a narrow minded and dogmatic social conservative , the man had principals and idealogy ( however wrong headed ) which is something bertie never had , bertie was the luckiest of all taoiseachs , he was litterally richy rich , he had so much money at his disposal that he never had to say no to anyone , the man had no real discernable talent , he was indicative of the culture of the late nineties and early part of this decade , style over substance and above all , spin spin spin

The Corinthian

Maybe it would help if people could agree on what makes a Taoiseach good or bad. My view would be one who pursued policies that benefited the nation would be good, while one who's policies ultimately harmed the nation would be bad.

On that basis Haughey would be one of the better ones (regardless of his motivation) while De Valera would easily be the worst as his policies negatively affected Ireland for over sixty years. Lynch would be pretty crap too and Fitzgerald does not come out looking too good either.

But if we want to base it on the character of the man, then that's another story. Hitler was a vegetarian who loved animals, btw.

paddyland

The Corinthian wrote: »

On that basis Haughey would be one of the better ones (regardless of his motivation)

I would beg to differ. Haughey had the ability to be a great Taoiseach. Ironically, the one thing he desired, the respect and admiration as a great statesman, was well within his ability and grasp. He showed that ability when creating the seeds of the recovery which led to the Celtic Tiger.

However, the fact remains, he promoted a whole generation of very corrupt people to positions of influence, and we are living with that legacy today. Look at the planning of our capital city, of our country. The seeds of all the worst excesses of our planning and development lie with the Burkes, the Flynns, the Lawlors, and that is a physical legacy, that will live for generations after them. The good he might have done for one generation, is far outweighed by the bad he has dealt to a whole series of future generations.

The Corinthian

paddyland wrote: »

However, the fact remains, he promoted a whole generation of very corrupt people to positions of influence, and we are living with that legacy today. Look at the planning of our capital city, of our country. The seeds of all the worst excesses of our planning and development lie with the Burkes, the Flynns, the Lawlors, and that is a physical legacy, that will live for generations after them. The good he might have done for one generation, is far outweighed by the bad he has dealt to a whole series of future generations.

That is a good argument against him - possibly the only reasonable one I've read here.

O.A.P

Haughey is the answer to the OPs question. Statements like " we are living beyoned our means" while he creamed off the little we had. Most of my generation emigrated in the 80s, how many thousands or hundreds of thousands of lives did he destroy.

Hasschu

Dev was an honest man who did what he had to do in the circumstances. In a trade war little countries like Ireland are condition takers not condition makers. In order to retain some shred of dignity for the country Dev had to get ahead of events on occasion by imposing import duties before the Brits and the Yanks did. Negotiations did take place or to be more accurate we received notice of our fate days before the conditions were to be imposed. On the subject of honest men there was always a low level of fraud and corruption in Irish politics. It became blatantly obvious during Haughey's reign and his disciples learned at the master's knee. The electorate have no qualms about re-electing politicians on the take, and if we are prepared to elect them then they complete the bargain by being able to take. By the standards of most European countries we are fatally flawed, the population as a whole that is. If anything good is to come out this recession it would be to clean out the Dail in the next election.

K-9

The Corinthian wrote: »

Maybe it would help if people could agree on what makes a Taoiseach good or bad. My view would be one who pursued policies that benefited the nation would be good, while one who's policies ultimately harmed the nation would be bad.

On that basis Haughey would be one of the better ones (regardless of his motivation) while De Valera would easily be the worst as his policies negatively affected Ireland for over sixty years. Lynch would be pretty crap too and Fitzgerald does not come out looking too good either.

But if we want to base it on the character of the man, then that's another story. Hitler was a vegetarian who loved animals, btw.

As was pointed out by rcdk1 DeV pursued policies that he thought was best for Ireland. The majority agreed with him and the thing that gets forgotten when people discuss DeV the man, the opposition wasn't that much different socially, The Mother and Child Scheme being the great example.

Most parties and politicians in Ireland where socially conservative. FG really only changed in that regard in the mid to late 70's. Remember it was a FG Govt. that opposed the removal of the ban on married women working in the Civil Service.

meathstevie

Deleted User wrote: »

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.



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?

You're absolutely right when you say Hitler, Stalin, Franco, Mussolini, Salazar etc etc were far worse than anything Ireland has seen since Cromwell. On a side note; the amazing thing about 1930's and 40's Germany is that despite it's horrific regime massive scientific progress was made but at a disgusting human cost.

But the fact still remains that during Dev's lifetime and time in power a lovely system of repression ran by state and church called industrial schools and Magdalen laundries where people were more or less interned without trial and taken advantage of was established and maintained. Combined with the above a social conservatism that wouldn't have looked out of place in Franco's Spain was embarked upon.

An infrastructure with fairly comprehensive country railways, waterways and a Dublin tram network far more comprehensive than any Luas network will ever be was being left to go to seed during Devalera's years of influence.

All this could have contributed massively to a vibrant regional economy if left in place, maintained and kept up to date from the start of the Freestate and beyond.

Instead of doing just that and tying it in with an outward reaching economic and political strategy a trade war with Brittian was embarked upon which could only have one result given the difference in economical scale and influence between Ireland and Brittain.

All in all being "neutral" on the side of the allies was probably the least of any mistakes Dev's administrations have made. Ireland could have gained from throwing it's lot in with the allies but a severe price in people and funding would had have to be paid as well.

Anyway, it's unfair judging a figure from the past with the knowledge of today. It's not like the behaviour of some of Ireland's leading lights of the recent past and today is much better than that of those of the past.

Pride Fighter

Brian Cowen/Dev/Bertie Ahern tied first. The rest vary between mediocre and good. I dont think we have ever had a brilliant Taoiseach, just a few good ones.

ChocolateSauce

De Valera.

ardmacha

It is easy to slag De Valera and his conduct in starting the civil war was a complete disgrace. However he wasn't a puppet of the church by any means and the policies of the 1930s may not have been too far off, the only problem was their continuation for 25 years.

People like to sneer at his famous speech, which emphasised family and community over material wealth, but if some of this attitude was found in our modern politicians then we would not be where we are today.

The Ireland which we would desire of would be the home of a people who valued material wealth only as the basis of a right living, of a people who were satisfied with frugal comfort and devoted their leisure to the things of the soul; a land whose countryside would be bright with cosy homesteads, whose fields and valleys would be joyous with the sounds of industry, with the romping of sturdy children, the contests of athletic youth, the laughter of happy maidens; whose firesides would be forums for the wisdom of old age

Liam Byrne

Deleted User wrote: »

I guess Harris has written about it cos everyone in Cork was told about it.

This would be the same Harris that defended Bertie to the hilt ?

The logical conclusion from that is that facts don't come into Harris' opinions.

Mayo Exile

Bertie: for trying to be a soccer pundit once on RTE's Premiership programme.

DERICKOO

Dynamic and progressive leader Dev. Charley well charismatic with an edge towards free state liked his perks too much had an edge CARISMATIC .
Lemmas a gentleman who we should be proud of WAS RELUCTANT .
Open up the economy join the EU. Good man for the job started meetings with north Ireland sectary ie Capt. O'Neill.
JACK LYNCH A GREAT GAA Man. went to Patrick street the evening he came home to Cork. I WAS YOUNG gave hope to every Cork man and woman.
The remainder well iv been a Fianna Fail man all my life but when i saw NAMA
I knew that that Fianna Fail was finished LABOUR, FINA GAEL for at least the next 20 years,
We are fuc""d for the next 20 years.

Sea08

The Corinthian wrote: »

Maybe it would help if people could agree on what makes a Taoiseach good or bad. My view would be one who pursued policies that benefited the nation would be good, while one who's policies ultimately harmed the nation would be bad.

I think if we take a Taoiseach, as what he is, a demcratically elected leader who's role it is to fulfill his mandate to the people. I personally feel based on this the deV was the worst Taoiseach.

Not because he failed in his mandate, or his economic policies but because he continously flouted the democratic choice.

He flouted the choice of the people in pursuing a Civil War, he broke up the seanad becasue it's democratic power oppossed him, and replaced it with the puppet show it is today whereby the Taoiseach hands out the 11 controlling seats (this is one of the biggest tragedies to befall Irish politics) and for me his biggest flouting of the democratic founding principles of this country came when Sean Moylan lost his seat in the elections, De Valera gave him one of the seaned seats and then had the cheek to give him a ministerial post. For the first time a non democratically elected official had ministerial power.

He was not without his redeeming qualities, he truly did believe in a free Ireland and how he set about dismantling the Treaty was brave and brilliant. It's just a shame that he did not respect that which he strove to create.

Dannyboy83

Connor74, of course I was aware of the allegations about Collin's sexuality, anyone who has read about the man in any depth will be.
If you want the definitive answer, I don't have one.

If you want my opinion, its as follows:
Given the supposed effort the IRA put into investigating an alleged affair with Lady Lavery, I don't think an insignificant thing such as Homosexuality (in those days rather more signficant) would have escaped them.

Given that Collins led the intelligence war and was so secretive, there are/were plenty of black holes in information about him among the public. That leaves a lot of things open to interpretation and gives individuals the opportunity to put their slant on it, be it homosexuality, affairs with the elite, affairs with Dev's wife while Dev was banged up or sleepovers at Churchills house during the treaty negotiations, poisoning Arthur Griiffith, fired the shot from the Grassy Knoll etc.


Do I think he was a homosexual? No
Would I think any less of him if he were? No
Do I think its relevant? No

deadhead13

Well, Bertie told everyone at his book launch today that in his opinion he did a grand job as taoiseach.

"...the reality is that when the country throughout the years I was taoiseach, they were in safe hands when Charlie McCreevy and myself were looking after it". He also said himself and McCreevy had been glad to serve their country and wished their colleagues in the current government well in dealing with "difficult situations from an international downturn"

PomBear

Brian Cowen is a poormans George Bush in my opinion

Dannyboy83

Het-Field wrote: »

Bertie.

The ultimate pragmatist. His ideology extended to one key question, "what can I do to keep them quiet". He didnt mind how he answered it. In the end, it led to his reliance on windfall taxes to sustain the unsustainable 10% public spending increases. This also led to the ridiculous property boom, the unsustainablewages, and the sham that was social partnership He fudged a wide variety of social issues, and as such society never really moved forward under his tenure. His shameful departure led to the rejection of the Lisbon Treaty as government and opposition were wrapped up in his pathetic problems. He continued the culture of sleaze in FF. He allowed O Donoghue run riot with expenses, he appointed Eoghan Harris to the senate (two months after vociferously defending Bertie on The Late Late).

His arrogance shows no bounds. Under his watch he created much of the mess we find ourselves in today, yet he still feels the public love him. Its a terrible indictment of our nation, and it continues to rankle with me.

Dev may have been an isolationist, Fitzgerald may have been weak, Haughey may have been corrupt. However, Bertie epitomises all that is wrong with our system. He is a sleaze, arrogant, narsissist, who has cost thousands their jobs, left thousands in debt, and obviously doesnt care.

I have mentioned before that Im not 100% opposed to FF. I feel they have some very good people, they are an incredible party machine, and they have often performed for this country. But that cannot change my opinion on Bertie

Fantastic post, I think I'll save this one.

Dannyboy83

deadhead13 wrote: »

Well, Bertie told everyone at his book launch today that in his opinion he did a grand job as taoiseach.

"...the reality is that when the country throughout the years I was taoiseach, they were in safe hands when Charlie McCreevy and myself were looking after it". He also said himself and McCreevy had been glad to serve their country and wished their colleagues in the current government well in dealing with "difficult situations from an international downturn"

I fail to understand why Brian Cowen continues to defend him when he comes out with stuff like that.
He is totally undermining Cowen and Lenihan there.

Cowen should deflect some of the flack from himself and let the truth be known.

K-9

deadhead13 wrote: »

Well, Bertie told everyone at his book launch today that in his opinion he did a grand job as taoiseach.

"...the reality is that when the country throughout the years I was taoiseach, they were in safe hands when Charlie McCreevy and myself were looking after it". He also said himself and McCreevy had been glad to serve their country and wished their colleagues in the current government well in dealing with "difficult situations from an international downturn"

McCreevy was gone in 02.

The real damage was done from 02 on.

irish_bob

Mayo Exile wrote: »

Bertie: for trying to be a soccer pundit once on RTE's Premiership programme.

bertie would enter the grand national without a horse if it got him enough attention , such is the size of the guys ego