Let’s look at the aftermath of the speech. It attracted admiration but mostly silence. The silence was encouraging. There was neither explicit disagreement nor was there – and this is very, very important – any argument that MDH had strayed beyond the constitutional limits of the presidency.

And yet, . . ! And yet, this speech set down a fundamentally different approach to higher education than the one we’ve been following. So, is it to be the mantelpiece and periodic dusting until it’s safe to bin the work or is there another approach? I think there is and I think that socialists and other progressives had better get their thinking caps on because MDH will deliver presidential addresses for just seven short years and already it is clear that their potential may be wasted.

The Labour Party has one of its own in the Áras and another one of its own in charge of Marlborough Street. The Labour Minister for Education holds one key to admitting the thinking of the Labour President to official policy and strategy. Ruairi Quinn can instruct the HEA to examine the President’s speech, compare it to current HEA policy/strategy and make recommendations as to what needs to be done to change direction towards achieving the prospect described in the President’s speech.

*Here’s the speech: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0125/breaking67.html?via=rel

All this talk of betting, prudence, honesty and letting chancers away with it for fear of doing more harm is boring and inactive. Many leftists prefer the protest route which is familiar. It’s hard, you see, to face accusations that because you are fearful and want to play safe that you support the inegalitarian cuts in state spending. Moreover, trying to capitalise on the crisis by arguing/campaigning for the kinds of change which can be achieved while still paying the chancers is hard too, especially when the field has been vacated by so many leftists.

There are citizens who reject talk, debate, reasoned argument. Indeed they despise politics. They don’t want to change society. They want someone to stand up for them, to shout for them, to put the boot into all that they despise.

It is true that most of these people – though not all – are poor. It is also true that they are not working class but that’s an argument for another day. The point is that there is an appreciative audience for abuse and there are politicians who aspire to lead cynicism and opposition to discursive politics.

I would prioritise the employment of teachers and SNAs, “free fees” at 3rd level, the maintenance of HSE services, the income of low paid public servants (not in that order and plus some others) way, way above maintaining the present income of those in the category, “wealthy” who are also in public service employment. If this priority is accepted, then we need to think at what level would a public service income ceiling need to be set in order to make the required cut without affecting the priorities listed above? I find it bizarre that while we can debate unpalatable cuts because we are in crisis, the question of solving or partly solving the problem by limiting ALL public service incomes to, say, 100k for workers and 50k for pensioners is – it would seem – out of the question. Jesus wept, 100k and 50k are generous. They would appear a king’s ransom to most of the people Labour has traditionally defended.

The Croke Park agreement will be cited against this proposal but it cannot be used to censor discussion. The problem with that agreement is that it defends equally the incomes of the rich as well as the poor among our public workers.

Right now we need to enlarge what we mean by “rich” beyond the 1% normally highlighted in leftist talk to at least the top 10% of income receivers. I think a problem for Labour and the left generally is that with a tradition of attacking just the 1% and a gut reaction of “let’s burn the bond holders”, they quite simply don’t have a plan B to make progress in the reduction of inequality when the 1% has us by the balls. What I’m saying is this: Ok, we may be forced to pay these international chancers but within the spending under our control, how can we move towards reduced inequality of income?

So far, so true! Indeed it is so true that there couldn’t possibly be a debate in any conventional sense of the word because absolutely no one is arguing that there is a moral or legal obligation to pay. On this point An Taoiseach, An Tánaiste, Fine Gael, The Labour Party and Sinn Fein are in agreement. However, on radio Pearse Doherty was allowed to pretend that there was disagreement on this. Indeed he said that the Taoiseach had been forced to admit that this was the case, whereas the Taoiseach couldn’t possibly have said otherwise.

Where there is disagreement is over the likely consequences of refusing to pay. SF of course is well aware of this but the last thing they want to do is engage in the real controversy because that turns on debating and considering risks. You see, the European Central Bank want Ireland to pay up. One response might be, “How dare they?” Well, the difficulty is that they keep Ireland supplied with the money to pay welfare recipients and public service workers. Because of this the government and many others feel it is prudent to pay up. In short, though there is no obligation to pay, Ireland is forced to pay. Should Ireland refuse to pay in full or in part, it is possible but unlikely that there will be no negative consequences. However, it is also possible that the money to keep Irish society going would be stopped. Essentially the difference between the government and SF is that the former don’t want to risk the livelihoods of many Irish people, while the latter want to run that risk.

This difference certainly does need to be debated. A public service broadcaster has an obligation to bring public controversy to the citizens. In this case a newsworthy event – a dramatic parliamentary walkout – was covered at the expense of an obligation to inform citizens. Sure, they were informed of the walkout but from then on they were subjected to lies and not the slightest attempt was made to call attention to the real – the only – debate.

Look at it this way: By last weekend more people had opted to support Seán Gallagher’s liberal, business approach than Michael D. Higgins’s socialist approach but then during a televised political debate, a value deeper than a political perspective intruded.

Now that I think about it, this is how I, a socialist, decide my candidate preferences and why should someone who might be my polar opposite behave any differently? You see, there are issues which take precedence over voting either left or right. My first test is political murder; its apologists are least preferable of all. My next test is honesty and integrity and candidates who fail this test rate above apologists for murder but no higher. My next test places those too trivial to be considered in a real political choice. Finally, I choose the left candidate over the right wing candidate.

Think about a right-winger who accepts Seán Gallagher’s political argument. That person very likely values honesty and integrity more than the liberal business perspective. Now, he or she sees Seán Gallagher fail this test while polling suggests that the Christian Democrat, Gay Mitchell, has little support and will not figure in the outcome. There really is nothing to do but cross from right to left in order to vote for honesty and integrity.

However, not everyone – probably not even a majority – would agree with my tests or the order of priority in which I put them.

Imagine that you are conservative on what might be called, personal morality, but you are liberal on business matters, that you demand honesty and integrity, that you despise the trivial in public discourse and that you are utterly opposed to political murder. Now, you come to vote in the presidential election and your views have to be prioritised because you can’t find a candidate with whom you identify. Here’s a probable hierarchy which you might erect: Test 1. A candidate must oppose political murder; Test 2. A candidate must be honest and have integrity; Test 3. A candidate must not trivialise politics; Test 4. A candidate must favour liberal markets; Test 5. A candidate must support “family” values. After tests 1, 2 and 3, just two or possibly three candidates remain. The two obvious survivors are Gay Mitchell and Michael D. Higgins. A possible third survivor is David Norris. * This is interesting because it suggests that you will vote for a Christian Democrat (Gay Mitchell) and express a preference for a socialist (Michael D. Higgins) over the others. Assuming that Gay Mitchell will be eliminated, you will have contributed to the election of a socialist!

Of course I accept that this is a presidential election and that routine tests of suitability do not appear above. I’ve assumed that all of the candidates know how to behave in public and either know or can learn the constitutional requirements.

* I find David Norris doubtful not because I question his honesty but because increasingly I fear that he is trivial. Now, it may be argued that we live in a post-ideological age and that he is a typical issues candidate. That’s not an argument that I want to address here. For now, consider me a dinosaur who still wants a clash of great ideas, contested notions of the good society etc., and I’m also a dinosaur who has grown weary of people claiming to be anti-establishment, while steering well clear of offering an overall perspective.

Firstly, there has always been an affinity between socialism and the better parts of liberalism, especially those parts which defend and seek to expand personal freedom. However, an overly rigorous defence of negative liberty (freedom from intrusion, compulsion etc.) can be at odds with the public good. This is one of those situations. No one seriously believes that ordinary citizens will be hauled before a committee of the Oireachtas and unjustly treated. However, some opponents of the amendment argue that because they fear that it MIGHT be possible, the amendment should be voted down.

Secondly, there is among socialists and some other progressives a strong and healthy anti-establishment culture. It is so strong, however, as to be quite easily manipulated by the establishment. On this issue it is happening. The constant derision of parliamentary democracy and elected politicians – the aim of which is to paint pseudo-radicals, who are often journalists, in a good light and to convince the general public that there is no hope of real change – has been effective. In this instance some socialists have been duped into thinking that because the proposal comes from government it should be opposed or that giving more power to politicians (the “establishment”) is anti-progressive. There is an old socialist test: Which side are you on? In this instance one way to BEGIN to clarify a true anti-establishment stance is to look at who favours and who opposes. However,   while doing so remember the attractions of being seen as “anti-establishment” or the depth of true anti-establishment culture on the left which makes it likely that some socialists will mistakenly take the establishment side and favour a rejection.

* 30th Amendment to the Constitution – Oireachtas inquiries

Existing text of section 15.10:

1. Each House shall make its own rules and standing orders, and shall have power to attach penalties for their infringement, and shall have power to ensure freedom of debate, to protect its official documents and the private papers of its members, and to protect itself and its members against any person or persons interfering with, molesting or attempting to corrupt its members in the exercise of their duties.

It is proposed to renumber this as 15.10.1 and insert:

2. Each House shall have the power to conduct an inquiry, or an inquiry with another House, in a manner provided by law, into any matter or matters stated by the House or Houses concerned to be of general public importance.

3. In the course of any such inquiry the conduct of any person (whether or not a member of either House) may be investigated, and the House or Houses concerned may make findings in respect of the conduct of that person concerning the matter to which the inquiry relates.

4. It shall be for the House or Houses concerned to determine, with due regard to the principles of fair procedures, the appropriate balance between the rights of persons and the public interest for the purposes of ensuring an effective inquiry into any matter to which subsection 2 applies.

When I married and bought a house in the early seventies, I moved from an urban village to a suburban town. I was part of a movement which was discussed as a cause for concern. Growing up, my extended family lived within one postal district; everyone was a bus trip or even a walk away. Many other families were closer still, with grandparents, aunts and uncles in their immediate vicinity. By the 70s young people were moving to suburban housing estates built on expensive, rezoned lands, where everyone was of an age and income, and lived very similar lives, disconnected from routine daily family contacts. Public transport and other infrastructure had not been a condition when approving housing estates. Visiting became a chore and the better off kept up wider family contact by buying a car. Concerned debate focussed on the role of planning in pulling communities and the extended family apart, and reducing society to, yes, nuclear families. Perhaps if “atomic family” had become the term, subsequent debate would have been clearer.

I was fortunate to have been reared in Inchicore. In my teens in the 60s we socialised in the city, or “town”, as we called it. Late at night we walked home (Dublin City centre to Inchicore isn’t a long walk but it takes time.) in groups, ate chips, talked into the early hours about music and putting the world to rights. Those walks are very happy memories to me.

There was, however, a problem. Not all of the groups on the streets at night were walking and talking. Some were involved in thuggery. We had to be careful to avoid certain gangs and to be prepared to run when necessary. One of the “gangs” to be given a wide berth was Gardaí who to us were normally antagonistic and occasionally violent. They certainly were a not a force that kept us safe on the streets at night.

Now, I guess they saw all groups on the street as potential trouble and they couldn’t tell the difference between one group on a street corner having a conversation and another group up to no good. However, we could tell the difference (I like to think I still can!) and they should have been able to tell the difference too. That is an essential skill for a police officer if the force is to enjoy popular support.