Conviction when?

It’s a little off-topic for this blog but one of the problems with John O’Donoghue’s resignation speech other than being self-serving and largely irrelevant to the principle under discussion (that would be the availability of records showing the disbursement of public money) but that this is one of the few times we have seen a member of that house this government speak with conviction about something he passionately believes in.

If only our government ministers spoke in this way about child poverty, compensation for victims of abuse, 300 people waiting on A and E trolleys today or community mental health.

And if only we had an electorate that gets as excited about these issues as much as it does about whether he spent 300 or 500 euro on a hotel room when on official business.

I mean like this; whatever one thinks of the topic under discussion.


2 thoughts on “Conviction when?

  1. Some speech indeed, he had the audience whipped into a frenzy. All 8 of them (12 if you count the house staff). Which make me wonder what’s the point? And starts me thinking again about the dissolution of the dail (that the seanad should be dissolved is a no brainer) and the installation of a dictator.
    Dictators are generally small though (Pinochet is the only tall one I can think of) so I’ll have to defer to somebody else …

  2. The point is is that he has conviction about his politics and makes it clear that mealy-mouthing by FF is a denial of rights. Just because the audience is small (I should know, right?) does not make it any less right.

Comments are closed.