According to The Irish Times Ipsos B&A poll, early last week Heather Humphreys was trailing Catherine Connolly by 18 points among all voters. Excluding those who say they won’t vote, will spoil their vote or don’t know how they will vote, the gap is 28 points. That is an enormous gap to close. Can it be done? Perhaps. Presidential elections have swung dramatically before. But it would take something extraordinary. And Tuesday night’s debate did not seem to contain anything like the sort of game-changer that she needed.
Humphreys sought to come out swinging and landed some blows in the early exchanges, but having done that, she seemed to retreat a little. You’d wonder if her heart was really in it. Either way, there was nothing like the knockout punch that Humphreys would have needed. She gave a decent account of herself. But Connolly probably won on points.
1. Barristers’ cab-rank rule continues its remarkable role in the presidential campaign
Many of the sharp early exchanges between the two candidates centred on the controversy about Connolly’s work as a barrister, acting among others for banks in home-repossession cases, which has dominated wider political debate in recent days. This was the moment in which Humphreys got most stuck in, and between her and the presenter Sarah McInerney, they got Connolly to admit that she had acted in such cases. However, Humphreys did not pin her opponent down on whether she should have avoided acting in them, given her public campaigns against evictions. Connolly instead succeeded in turning the question around and blaming the then Government (led by Fine Gael) for any evictions.
2. Connolly’s avoidance technique
Remarkably, Connolly’s claim that she “never avoided a question in my life” went more or less unchallenged. The campaign has proved her extremely adept at avoiding answering the question that is actually asked.
READ MORE
3. Truth to power. Up to a point
Connolly resolutely stood over her previous stances – on the US, on the EU, and their culpability for Gaza, the militarisation of Europe, and so on. Ireland, she said, should “speak truth to power” and that’s what she would do as president. However, she also insisted that she would fulfil the role of president with judgment and dignity. She would receive Donald Trump or anyone else that the Government saw fit to invite to Ireland, tacitly acknowledging the role of the Government elected by the Dáil in deciding foreign and domestic policy. This was an important point in the debate – and is perhaps a sign that Connolly recognises a need to manage the expectations of her supporters about what a president can do. There was no mention tonight of a theme than has enthused Connolly’s supporters – her status as the leader of a “movement for a new Republic”. Possibly because she realises that – assuming the polls are correct – she is about to become President of the Existing One.
4. Haven’t we heard all this before?
Yes. There was little new in the debate, which was mostly a reiteration of arguments and exchanges that people following the campaign will have heard before, perhaps several times. The one new element was the riot that was ongoing in Citywest when the debate started, though there was little division between the two candidates on this. They are both opposed to sexual assault, and they are both opposed to riots. There was some disagreement on foxhunting, though. We hadn’t heard that before.
5. And then it petered out
After the break, the debate just sort of petered out. There was a bit of Gaeilge and then a reflection on mistakes they might have made in the past, which saw both women speak about the management of Covid, and the severity of the lockdowns. But either there wasn’t that much difference between their positions or they had run out of energy to contest it. The debate seemed to sort of die. Few watching at home will have been disappointed.
Verdict? A points win for Connolly. In the circumstances, that may well be a home run.
