Doesnt it say a lot for the paucity of ideas and things to say within the Labour party, when this recent Sarkozy controversy has been the one issue on which Eamon Gilmore has had the most to say since he was made Leader ?
There has been a clear attempt by him to milk this Molehill of a story for all its worth: Rachel English yesterday, and Morning Ireland this morning, with innumerable soundbytes, statements and articles in the meantime. (courtesy of a biased pro-Labour/left view at RTE, and the Irish Times). Fine Gael - who were similarly wronged - have been pretty mute about the affair, perhaps seeing its worth in the overall scheme of things.
Are administrative cock-ups and protocol errors at the French embassy really all that important? Is dimplomatic etiquette really worthy of 3 days of sustained media criticism?
Contrast this with the recent recession crises: Gilmore didn't say an awful lot, his finance spokesperson wasn't much better. And they hardly had a single policy proposal between them, in contrast with Fine Gael, SFA, CIF, IBEC and their chums in the Unions, who came out with rafts of stuff.
Gilmore's tenure as Leader thus far has been a disappointment, on the whole. Yes, his Dáíl performances have been good to an extent. But he has not outshone Enda Kenny in any significant way, and has not done any better than Pat Rabbitte did during his term. The Party has also been stuck in the same 10-13% zone that it was in for most of Rabbitte's tenure, and Gilmore has not made anything like the sort of inroads which Rabbitte made in poll terms early in his leadership, taking Labour to 22% in May 2003.
Are his attempts to make a mountain out of this Sarkozy molehill, and his recent attempts to sound more eurosceptic, the best (or only) strategy he has to move Labour out of the mire of slow decline it has been in for several years?



LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote