Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
EAMON GILMORE HAS made some pretty strong revelations in his new book about how close he came to leaving government and the swift way in which he was sacked from cabinet last year.
The former tánaiste has published his account of his three years at the heart of the current government, Inside the Room: The Untold Story of Ireland’s Crisis Government.
The book has been pored over by politicos who’ve got their hands on it this week.
While you’ve probably read about the juiciest bits already, we’ve picked out a few more anecdotes that will interest you.
1. Phone calls from John O’Donoghue
Gilmore is widely credited with having forced the resignation of Ceann Comhairle John O’Donoghue in October 2009 over an expenses scandal.
In his book, Gilmore recalls how O’Donoghue rang him on the way back from a conference in Limerick as the Labour leader prepared to raise the issue at Leaders’ Questions on the day that he ended up resigning:
He pleaded with me not to, arguing that the Oireachtas Commission was where it should be addressed. I told him I considered it to be too serious at this stage to be passed on to a private committee meeting. It would be unthinkable, I told him, for the opposition not to raise it. He rang a second time pleading with me not to proceed, but again I refused, saying I believed the matter would not go away even if it was referred to the Commission.
Gilmore goes onto outline how he was recommending a motion of no confidence in the Ceann Comhairle which prompted O’Donoghue’s resignation later that day. He insists he felt “no sense of achievement or satisfaction”.
“It was a necessary outcome, but travelling home that night I felt bad about what I had had to do,” he adds.
2. A meeting with Enda in 2008
Gilmore writes that he had never discussed the prospect of governing with Enda Kenny until after the 2011 election, but does recall a conversation three years beforehand. At the Democratic Party Convention in the US in August 2008 he had breakfast with the Fine Gael leader:
“We talked about the prospects for forming a government after the next election,” he said, noting that he was “anxious” to avoid a Mullingar Accord-type deal that Kenny had negotiated with Gilmore’s predecessor, Pat Rabbitte, prior to the 2007 election.
So I told Enda, that while I was open to a Fine Gael/Labour coalition after the election there would be no pre-election pact, that Labour would campaign on its own policies and that he should understand that this might often put Labour and Fine Gael at odds in opposition.
3. The “strong whiff of misogyny”
Gilmore writes about the hitherto unpublicised battle to make Máire Whelan the Attorney General. He recalls a campaign against her appointment that began among a small number of legal figures:
They lobbied colleagues, some on behalf of other possible contenders, but also just to block the appointment of Máire. There was a strong whiff of misogyny in some of the comments.
He writes of how Kenny fumed at the idea of appointing a political figure (Whelan was Labour’s financial secretary) to such an important position in government.
Gilmore says he pointed out to Kenny that serving TDs had previously been appointed to the role and told him that they would have to “learn to trust each other” as they embarked on a coalition government:
He paused, and then held out his hand. We shook on it. It was the beginning of a new working relationship between the two of us.
4. The ignored text
You may recall that Gilmore was out of the loop on the day that Alan Shatter resigned as justice minister in May 2014. Speaking at a Labour campaign launch in Castleknock that day Gilmore said the Guerin report into allegations by garda whistleblowers, which prompted Shatter’s departure, had not been delivered to the Taoiseach.
In fact, it had, and by that stage, unbeknownst to the Tánaiste, Shatter had resigned.
Gilmore reveals that he could have known all of this had he not ignored a text from the Taoiseach prior to speaking to the media at the event.
Just before the event started, I noticed a text message from the Taoiseach: ‘Eamon can you take a call?’ I assumed it was about a difference of opinion on an unrelated matter which had arisen that morning between our respective Chiefs of Staffs, the two Marks [Mark Kennelly and Mark Garrett], and decided to leave it for the moment.
It was only when he returned to Leinster House – and he was asked to urgently meet the Taoiseach – did Gilmore learn of Shatter resigning. Despite ignoring Kenny’s text, the former tánaiste still feels he was being “kept in the dark once again”.
5. The state of the nation spat
Gilmore writes extensively about strained relations with Fine Gael, noting how he “exploded” over a jobs announcement in his constituency which was attended by the Taoiseach and senior ministers without his knowledge.
He also recalls how Fine Gael were less than forthcoming about the circumstances leading up to Enda Kenny’s address to the nation in December 2013 as Ireland formally exited the bailout programe:
Mark Garrett [Gilmore's chief of staff] and Cathy Madden [Gilmore's press secretary] challenged their Fine Gael counterparts, who claimed RTÉ had offered the broadcast. Mark and Cathy went to see RTÉ management, who said that Fine Gael personnel had requested the broadcast on behalf of the Government. Not only that, but apparently RTÉ enquired of Fine Gael if the Labour Party was agreeable to the arrangement, the Fine Gael people had assured them that we were!
Gilmore concludes that some in Fine Gael were turning tribal and, if allowed to continue, it would only do harm to the government.
It’s well known that male intelligence makes up a broader bell curve than the female one but the average is the same. Simply put men have more geniuses and idiots whereas there are more women of average intelligence.
That’s exactly right. Boys tend to get higher grades in maths, always have. That’s why there will always be more boys attracted to STEM subjects. It’s nothing to do with sexism no matter how loud the feminists shout. It’s to do with how the male brain is wired. You also have more boy “slow learners” at the other end of the bell curve. More makes tend to be inventors, innovators, explorers, Nobel prize winners. There are women too obviously just not as many but that reflects their numbers on that side of the bell curve.
What if I changed sex or gender along the way in living cert? Would it be male or female intelligence?
@Marg
“It’s nothing to do with sexism no matter how loud the feminists shout. It’s to do with how the male brain is wired. ”
There are subtle differences in how M/F brains are constructed, mostly to do with evolutionary development (hunting vs gathering and the skills inherent in each) but there is also a lot to do with how boys and girls engage in play from an early age and how they are perceived by the adults around them.
From an early age, girls are routinely conditioned to believe that looks are more important than their physical/mental capabilities e.g. “Isn’t Lisa so pretty in her pink dress?” vs “Freddie climbed a tree all the way to the top and didn’t fall!” This drip drip drip of conditioning means that generally speaking, girls begin to believe that they are not as capable at climbing trees as boys are.
There is also the inherent belief (like the one you display, Marg) that maths is a heavily-gendered subject and that only boys can understand it, leading girls to think that no matter what their interest or capability, there is something ‘wrong’ with the wiring in their brain and they cannot be as good at maths as boys are.
We also have to remember that despite notable exceptions, girls were not allowed to study mathematics and the sciences at major colleges until comparatively recently which means that yes, men have been the leaders in research and discovery. Because generally, there were no women studying alongside them, using the resources available to them.
It’s too complex a subject to go into here but suffice it to say that social conditioning plays a major part in why girls don’t choose STEM careers as much as boys and why boys are ridiculed if they select what are seen as inherently feminine careers such as nursing or childcare.
@linda. I don’t believe that maths is a heavily gendered subject. But the subject suits the male brain better if that boy has an interest in it. Boys will zoom in on and be very committed to what grabs them,girls tend to be methodical and more disciplined in their approach. Boys tend to be very good at maths or very bad, girls straddle,the middle ground. The reason being girls will do as expected (we are of course generalising) boys will do what interests them. Girls can be very, very good at maths of course, but at genius level it tends to be hugely male.
As for boy babies and girl,babies being different , of course they are. Gender differences are not social constructs. It’s amazing to see the difference at early ages. A baby boy won’t be seduced by pink and sparkly, a baby girl will. Baby girls are not interested in wheeling dinky cars around the floor, boys do it for hours. That behaviour is inherent and is common in every society and culture around the world. It can’t be a social construct in every society and every culture and in every time. It’s only ever became a “social construct” in the western world post 1960′s.
What about the ambitions of boys and girls in 6th year? A lot of students who do honours maths do it because its a requirement for the course they want to do in college. Usually these are STEM subjects. So if you really want to go into STEM then you will work harder at honours maths. Where as if you don’t need honours maths quite often you will be advised to drop it as its believed to take up more study time than other honours subjects.
So its a bit of chicken and egg situation and these results can be twisted to suit either side of the argument.
@Lydia Anecdotal evidence doesn’t really prove anything in a nature vs. nuture debate. Women haven’t been discriminated against in education in decades. Girls now outperform men in 50 out of 58 leaving cert subjects (they study more than boys). The exceptions are generally the mathematical ones. The numbers going to third level education are about 50:50 but more women go to universities than ITs. Globally men outperform women in maths so it’s not just an Irish thing. Women were historically discouraged from becoming authors too but that hasn’t stopped them outperforming men in English class. Simply saying girls are marginally not as good as boys at maths because they lack confidence is a bit of a cop out unless you have data to back it up.
OUTRAGE!
This is clearly another machination of the patriarchy. The female students clearly feel threatened by the greater numbers of young men now doing higher maths and its affecting their performance. Separate syllabi for each sex, wait no gender, wait no biological sex…separate things for every type of sex until everyone gets exactly the same results with the exact same frequency. More funding for female maths in our schools is also what’s needed. Ring fence it now!
OUTRAGE!
>separate things for every type of sex until everyone gets exactly the same results with the exact same frequency
Not that that’s the point of the article, but I might as well rebut it a little. If everyone gets the same levels of education with an equal focus on each student, then yes, you would expect that people get roughly the same grades on average (as in, roughly the same numbers of guys and girls doing subjects, and getting around the same grades at the same rates). The bell curve isn’t exactly a difficult concept. If more girls were taking honours economics than boys, and were getting better grades than them, we’d assume that they were recieving some sort of preferential treatment in terms of either how their teachers were treating them, or how society tells girls all the time that they’re wonderful at economics and boys are rubbish. We wouldn’t just go all out and say it’s because boys are either too stupid for, or uninterested in, economics.
Chillax Ronan.
When you realise your long and serious comment was in reply to a blatantly sarcastic one.
Femi-nazis dont tend to get wit, sarcasm of humor. Too busy being OUTRAGED.
>Femi-nazis dont tend to get wit, sarcasm of humor. Too busy being OUTRAGED.
“Sarcasm of humour” I get, but it’s also allowed to make serious replies to “jokes”. I hate that mindset of “Only joking! Can’t get mad because I’m only joking! See! I’m not actually touching your face, I’m just waving my hand near it!”.
Veronica, why is it that you have assumed that it is the teaching making this disparity in grades occur?
We see statisticians all over the world consistently concluding that there is a broader bell curve for males – more idiots but more geniuses.
Exactly how have you ruled this out as a possibility for the cause of the difference in grades?
I think we need to introduce quotas to allow more females to reach the same grades as their male counterparts. Seems only fair.
Slightly off topic but if you compare a current text and text higher level book from the 1990s you will be astounded. The higher level then is is similar to first year university standard and the higher level now is similar to the pass level then.
*leaving cert.
everything was harder in the 90′s
Dumbing down the curriculum. Didn’t they do that in the U.K. And are suffering now because of it?
The maths curriculum was revamped to make it more practical and easier to learn while still laying foundations in all areas. However we’d want to look at the standard of teaching across secondary schools. It’s appalling for the most part.
I studied maths in university and I actually found that the way maths is thought in school helped me grasp university maths so much better. Yes it may be dumbed down but it is dumbed down for a reason
actually, I believe the older curriculum was easier. I was the last year of the older curriculum, the year that followed me were allowed to use calculators. However, its not the “correct answer” that gets you most of the marks in leaving cert maths, its the methods you used to get the answer that got you most of the most of the marks. The older curriculum was designed so you didn’t need a calculator, so all the answers worked out perfectly, if you had an answer with 5 figures after a decimal point, it usually meant you had the wrong answer!
@James Darcy
“However we’d want to look at the standard of teaching across secondary schools. It’s appalling for the most part.”
Unless you have been taught by every maths teacher in the country, then you are in no position to make a sweeping generalisation like this. You may have been taught by a maths teacher that, in your opinion, was appalling. That same teacher, in their opinion, may have taught that you were an appalling student.
“That same teacher, in their opinion, may have taught that you were an appalling student.”
thought that you were an appalling student
Yes, but the marking back then was equally astoundingly easy.
Haha Gerard relax. I work in education’
More people are doing higher level, as there are more points going for higher level maths than any other higher level subject. The stat that I think is worrying is that 10% of leaving cert students are doing foundation level.
I’d rather the 10% passed basic foundation level than failed Ordinary. Foundation is functional maths to survive in the world.
Not everybody can be a shining star. For every male maths genius there’s at least one that probably struggles with very basic maths.
Indeed Gerard, for all those at the right had side of the IQ bellcurve, threre’s all those at the far left hand side also.
Obviously this is patriarchy at work.
I’m triggered now
STATES SERIOUSLY SEXIST SUMS SYLLABUS SUPPRESSES SOFTER SEX’S STEM SECURITY!!! :)
Unfortunately Gerald, this is not the best of all possible worlds. If it were, Leibniz would’ve been a 20th century polymath instead of a 17th century one. That way he could have met Einstein and seen what utter twaddle some of his musings on uses of mathematics in space and astronomy were.
I’ll do a deal with you there Ronan, I will show you an example of what Leibniz meant and why mathematicians are lost in matters of astronomy and the current mess we inherit is basically using astronomy as a dumping ground for every half-witted notion that enters the heads of idiots.
Copernicus figured out the Earth moved through space and the Sun was at the center of the solar system by accounting for the observed motions of the outer planets as they temporarily fall behind in view as the faster Earth,in an inner circuit overtakes them -
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html
The geocentric astronomers thought the forward-backward -forward motions belonged to the planets themselves but Copernicus said it is just an illusion caused by the Earth’s faster motion around the Sun just like a car on a roundabout sees slower moving cars in an outer lane fall temporarily behind in view as it overtakes them. Common sense and made enjoyable for those who take the time to look at the time lapse footage of Jupiter and Saturn above seen from a moving Earth.
Along comes a mathematical idiot that is Isaac Newton invented absolute/relative space based on a dumb view of the same observed forward-backward-forward motions using a notion that we the backward motions (retrogrades) seen from Earth but not from the Sun -
“For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct,…” Newton
Like Leibniz said, higher reasoning destroys the contrived nonsense of mathematicians so if readers appreciated how Copernicus actually arrived at his conclusion that the Earth and all planets move in one direction around a central Sun they can give themselves a pat on the back and see where the followers of Newton have jumped the tracks. I remind readers that this is at the major juncture of geocentric and heliocentric astronomy and if they can’t get this right then anything else that follows including the voodoo of early 20th century relativity won’t make sense.
Isaac Newton a “mathematical idiot”? Throw yourself into a black hole Gerald, please.
There is a black hole at the bottom of my garden but the other fictitious one only exists in the heads of those who know no better. I have to laugh sometimes as you have these guys running around talking about ‘black hole’ as an object with infinite density/ zero volume but infinite volume/zero density means exactly the same thing or an elaborate way to describe ‘nothing’. The theorists and their followers might get upset but everyone else can do without the academic junk passed off as astronomy.
Newton is much more interesting as he set up his absolute/relative space and motion based on his dumb view of the observed motions of the other planets. His followers through the centuries never understood what he was up to apart from the ‘scientific method’ he introduced where he tried to fit astronomy into experimental sciences.
It is one of those things that if you appreciate the time lapse footage of the Earth overtaking Jupiter and Saturn in our common motion around the Sun you can pretty much figure out everything else including the phony view that motions seen from Earth (which Newton called relative space and motion) are resolved by a hypothetical observer on the Sun (absolute space and motion).
A mathematician doesn’t make a person an astronomer and the wider population including students in the education system must learn this.
Feel free to postulate and hypothesise your own explanations and prove them using mathematics. One that, ideally, better explains our universe. Until then, you’re a rambling garden gnome.
This is not engineering science or software programming which do require an aptitude in mathematics , you need no more mathematics to appreciate astronomy than you do hopping to your car and driving across town or the countryside. I have no doubt that a few people will just look at the Earth overtaking Jupiter and Saturn and watching them temporarily falling behind in view will be delighted to discover that this is how Copernicus worked out the Earth goes around the Sun and not the Sun around the Earth.
The analogy of cars on a road doesn’t end there, as the Earth approaches the outer planets they get bigger and brighter just as a car approaching yours on the same road will appear dim and small at first until the point when the headlights are brightest and the car largest at the closest approach of both cars ,same with planets as the sequence of images show as the Earth approach Jupiter and Saturn at our closest point before leaving them behind in the distance -
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/jupsatloop_tezel.jpg
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html
People have an aptitude for astronomy that is being blocked by the chanting of voodoo by experimental theorists and it is creating problems for the wider community who need to exercise this part of their brain in making sense of the connection between the motions of our planet and terrestrial sciences, solar system structure and things like that.
How many understand the observations in the time lapse above I cannot say, some will take to it immediately and enjoy that they can while the mathematicians can’t appreciate what is wrong with Newton’s stupid take on the same observations -
“For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct,…” Newton
Again, children need to use the full range of their brain so teaching that junk by Newton as an ‘achievement’ is contrary to the insights of the genuine astronomers who fully understood what the observed motions of the planets represented from a moving Earth and not a hypothetical observer on the Sun.
Didn’t Newton invent calculus? Why such hate?
Newton invented absolute/relative space and motion which substitute for motions seen from Earth (relative) as opposed to motions seen from the Sun (absolute) calling the first ‘apparent’ and the latter ‘true’ hence his nonsense which is outside astronomical reasoning -
“It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover, and
effectually to distinguish, the true motion of particular bodies from
the apparent; because the parts of that absolute space, in which those
motions are performed, do by no means come under the observation of
our senses. Yet the thing is not altogether desperate; for we have
some arguments to guide us, partly from the apparent motions, which
are the differences of the true motions” Newton
You can’t hate an astronomical dunce like Newton nor his followers but you can feel sorry for those students who never get to see how the great original heliocentric astronomers worked out the Earth travels around the Sun using the observed motions of the other planets as a gauge for that conclusion. Any reader today with the benefit of time lapse footage of Jupiter and Saturn can enjoy the original reasoning of Copernicus which uses a moving Earth and not a hypothetical observer on the Sun nor the meaningless lingo of absolute/relative space and motion .
Try Galileo instead -
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
“Now what is said here of Jupiter is to be understood of Saturn and Mars also. In Saturn these retrogressions are somewhat more frequent than in Jupiter, because its motion is slower than Jupiter’s, so that the Earth overtakes it in a shorter time. In Mars they are rarer, its motion being faster than that of Jupiter, so that the Earth spends more time in catching up with it.” Galileo
It is not a matter of hating Newton, it is a matter of admiring what Copernicus did using 21st century imaging tools.
Good answer.
****MEN RULE****
******SLIDE RULE******
I don’t usually like to comment on articles give a “breakdown” on the difference between genders. I’m in Leaving cert and I dropped Higher Level maths around the time of the mocks. I’m more suited to business/English etc so I wanted to focus more time on those. I’m not sure how many people can imagine what it’s like heading into a class, knowing you won’t fully understand everything and stressing about your maths homework before you even got home. Since I dropped to ordinary, it’s taken a huge weight off my shoulders, I understand everything, my homework is far more manageable and I do think because I did higher level right up until then, that it equipped me better for ordinary level. Males usually are better at the new project maths because there’s a big focus on shapes/measurements etc – most of these males might either do tech graphics/construction/engineering – so their minds are more wired for that kind of thing. I think as long as every student is happy with what they’re at, that is the most important thing. Not everyone is wired for everything
Any girl that’s wants to study maths can. This could hardly be more of a non-issue. Girls are actually achieving higher points in the leaving cert than boy on average and yet the fact is that when women and girls are given a free choice they choose to go into non-stem fields more often than not. And theirs nothing wrong with that. Women tend to prefer jobs that are more human centred like nursing or psycho therapy. And men tend to prefer jobs that are more object entered like engineering or construction. What’s the problem with that?
The real issue, and one that is being ignored, is that boys are dropping out if school at far higher rates than girls, scoring lower marks in the leaving cert on average and are entering third level education at a lower rate than girls. The knock on effect of all this is that women in their 20′s and 30′s are actually out earning men in the same age bracket. The educational system is failing boys.
Or are the exams getting easier???
The reason for this is two fold, firstly the higher level maths paper offers over 100 points now so theres a big incentive to achieve in it. Secondly the difficulty level of the papers has been consistently lowered over the past 10 years through both general lower difficulty and changing of the syllabus to focus heavier on the ‘easier’ areas of mathematics.
Im not saying the papers are easy at the moment, but I did my leaving certificate (Honors Maths) in 2006 and have had siblings do it in 2009/12 and last one now in 2016. As far as I can see, since 2009 the paper has become easier and easier to pass every couple of years.
Pure mathematicians make nuisances of themselves and they are likely to be the idiots although the world calls them ‘geniuses’ as they force themselves into disciplines like astronomy where they are ill-suited to deal with observations and make proper conclusions. Leibniz, himself a mathematician, commented on this tendency which has done great damage to astronomy by mathematical purveyors of voodoo and bluffing -
“These are the imaginings of incomplete- notions-philosophers who make space an absolute reality. Such notions are apt to be fudged up by devotees of pure mathematics, whose whole subject- matter is the playthings of imagination, but they are destroyed by higher reasoning” Leibniz
In things like engineering, mathematics is great but once they go into the area of astronomy all common sense is lost and while the wider world may believe that the person standing in front of a blackboard full of equations is understanding something they don’t, it is all a mathematical joke and much as Leibniz describes.
I’m doing the lc this year and I stuck higher level maths until about 2 weeks ago. My own personal experience is that my teacher, when I didn’t understand something and asked a question, would immediately get up in arms and begin to rant about how this was done in the junior cert and about how we should know this already, even though it was higher level leaving cert maths. He expected us to know it already. And yet when one of the lads in our class asked a question there was a calm discussion about where he was being caught and then Sir would give him a few more examples. This is the kind of environment I was expected to learn in and that environment is the reason why there is three girls left in the class.
https://m.reddit.com/r/AskSocialScience/comments/38ffpk/is_it_true_that_male_iq_has_a_different/
Here’s a reddit about the notion that the distribution of boys intelligence has a higher density in the tails. I wasn’t buying it at first. It seems its true.
From the tables it looks like the average grade is lower now. It’s being dragged down by the people who are enticed to take higher and alot of these end up with a D. Is that better than what was there before?
have your say