Who was the worst taoiseach ever?

Dannyboy83

Who was the worst taoiseach ever in terms of the damage they have done to Ireland and to Irish politics?
What government was the worst government to befall Ireland ever?

I'm guessing it was probably Haughey and then Bertie for the 1st. The Irish Lenin and Stalin.
Don't have an answer for the 2nd.

tunney

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Who was the worst taoiseach ever?
What government was the worst government to befall Ireland ever?

I'm guessing it was probably Haughey and then Bertie.
Don't have an answer for the 2nd.

Agree Haughey and Bertie.

Dannyboy83

tunney wrote: »

Agree Haughey and Bertie.

Sorry edited the q slightly, but thanks.

mike65

Dev! He oversaw the foolish and impovrishing "economic war" with Britain in the 30s. Whatever chances the Free State (as was) had to boost the economy was ruined.

turgon

Also Dev is the architect of the political system which gives the man with a majority in the Dail a stranglehold over the whole government. Much of what is gone wrong in this country can be brought back to the fact that there is no balance of power.

I'm guessing most here don't exactly remember WT Cosgrave?

Hard to say. Who was better, Henry VIII or Queen Elizabeth II? Jesse Owens or Carl Lewis? Jack Nicklaus or Tiger Woods? Not sure its adds much to the debate. Was the Economic War worse than the Boundary Commission screw up? Was the Peace Process better than the Anglo Irish Treaty?

Soldie

Dev, without question.

Soldie

Soldie wrote: »

Dev, without question.

You mean Dev, in your opinion.

Which of his administrations do you remember yourself?

DublinWriter

mike65 wrote: »

Dev! He oversaw the foolish and impovrishing "economic war" with Britain in the 30s. Whatever chances the Free State (as was) had to boost the economy was ruined.

Very true. He undid the early work of Cumann na nGaedhael and was opposed to their modernisation programme, including the Shannon Hydroelectric scheme.

It's very easy to bash Haughey, but remember that he sanctioned the go-ahead for the IFSC against the advice of his senior Civil Servants and it was this scheme that was the pre-cursor for the foreign investment in Ireland from the late-1980's on.

He also brought in free-travel for OAPs.

leninbenjamin

Deleted User wrote: »

You mean Dev, in your opinion.

Which of his administrations do you remember yourself?

Dev brought the country far closer to bankruptcy than any Taoiseach since.

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.

SafeSurfer

Its easy to ascribe terms like best or worst to Dev, Haughey or Bertie, but then again they have been in power longer than anyone else so they will have more screw ups than Taoisigh that did nt see out a full term.

Leadership was pretty awful throughout the 1950's by both Dev and Costello. The economy did'nt start to emerge from stagnation until the era of Lemass in the early 1960's.

Biggins

Whatever we say about Haughey and his crooked ways, in the office he was very politically astute.
He helped to keep Ireland afloat at times.

Bertie - To his credit he had his moments of victory - pity though he tarnished himself by monetary means also like Haughey.

Worse? I agree with the above mentioned "Dev"- for the above mentioned reasons and one more...
I firmly believe he sold out Mr Collins to the Brits and was if only slightly, partly to blame for his eventual death.

redfacedbear

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

murphaph

DeValera in first place, followed by Ahern if you ask me. At least the crook Haughey was behind the IFSC which did indeed do some good.

I'd say on the other hand that Lynch was one of, if not the best Taoiseach Ireland has ever had.

Conor: Slagging off WT Cosgrave is not very wise. He was a pragmatist and a visionary in many ways. The man initiated the ESB and instigated the Shannon Scheme (Dev opposed such technological advances and wanted us all dancing at the crossroads) and saw trade and industry as Ireland's future, instead of the over-reliance on agriculture which was prevalent at the time. Dev rewound the clock on a lot of it.

Biggins

Biggins wrote: »

I firmly believe he sold out Mr Collins to the Brits and was if only slightly, partly to blame for his eventual death.

And many would say that, despite the recent efforts at revisionism by Neil Jordan and co., Collins sold out this country to the Brits etc. etc. and was, if only slightly, partly to blame for the Civil War, the Partition, the Troubles etc. etc. etc. But it's an argument for another thread surely...

Euro_Kraut

Jack Lynch for his disastrous economic policy which consigned a generation of Irish to emigration. His abandoning of the Nationalists in the North as the troubles broke confined that community to years of hardship.

OS119

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

Jack Lynch for his disastrous economic policy which consigned a generation of Irish to emigration. His abandoning of the Nationalists in the North as the troubles broke confined that community to years of hardship.

its perhaps for a different thread, but what could he actually have done for them?

'abandoning' suggests he was in a position to do something constructive, but chose not to wield that tool. from what i know of Irelands' geo-political, economic, and military position of the time he was in no position to do anything for them whatsoever, so abandoning doesn't come into it.

Euro_Kraut

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

Jack Lynch for his disastrous economic policy which consigned a generation of Irish to emigration.

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

fcussen

If he had invaded Northern Ireland and started a war with Britain that would have made him the best taoiseach ever.

mike65

It could have made him the last Taoiseach ever.

sdanseo

Dev without a shadow.

The most almighty and short sighted idiot that we ever had. Dev was happy to trundle along and mix rash decisions into his slow pace whilst Collins was a man of action who would have led this nation not only into better times but who knows, maybe even unification which can now never happen even though it was Dev's ultimate aim.

Knowing as little about politics as I do, whichever government was responsible for the spawning of the unbearable characters we have now, should be brought out and shot, tbh.

fcussen wrote: »

If he had invaded Northern Ireland and started a war with Britain that would have made him the best taoiseach ever.

....he would have been responsible for the deaths of hundreds, then retreated. Jack lynch had all the social skills of a beansprout but was a brilliant man.

Dr Sinnott

Haughey was only taoiseach for a total of about six years I'd say in his three different spells in the job? Never managed a full term.

Was his support of the IFSC due to him believing it to be a great thing for the country or because his paw was being greased?

I think Ahern was a shocking taoiseach and always thought so at the time. Don't know if he was the worst ever but def the worst in my lifetime and hopefull we won't see his likes again.

Given Lemass has not been mentioned I assume he'd be most people's choice as best taoiseach?

fcussen

sdonn wrote: »

....he would have been responsible for the deaths of hundreds, then retreated. Jack lynch had all the social skills of a beansprout but was a brilliant man.

It was a joke

sdonn

sdonn wrote: »

Collins was a man of action who would have led this nation not only into better times but who knows, maybe even unification

: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.

bSlick

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.

Bruton and Reynolds could actually like this thread!

mike65

Deleted User wrote: »

Bruton and Reynolds could actually like this thread!

Taoisigh could be like budgets - the least acclaimed at the time turn out to be the least worst.

b12mearse

Dev. because of the economic war

b12mearse

b12mearse wrote: »

Dev. because of the economic war

It was still better than the actual War that it ultimately kept us out of...

BennyLava

Any of the FF ones,

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.