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.
THIS YEAR HAS seen John Lahart move from being a county councillor to Fianna Fáil’s front-bench spokesman on Dublin.
Elected TD for the first time in February, the 52-year-old is considered part of Fianna Fáil’s new breed in the capital, and won back one of two seats the party lost in Dublin South-West back in 2011.
In a wide-ranging interview with TheJournal.ie this week, the 52-year-old psychotherapist, who is at the forefront of Micheál Martin’s bid to rehabilitate the party among urban voters, expanded on his strong views on a Dublin mayor, rent control, and a Dublin Mountains National Park
Lahart is a party stalwart, having joined the party in 1983 at the age of 18. He is frank about his youthful admiration for Charles Haughey, which has not entirely subsided.
A councillor since 1999, he has seen first-hand the difficulties in four separate local authorities speaking for the capital’s 1.34 million people.
It makes him eager for a referendum on having a directly-elected mayor for the ‘Dublin region’ – although he is quick to point out he has no plans yet to put himself forward for it.
We’ve been here before, of course. Two years ago, Fingal councillors vetoed the proposal for a directly elected mayor.
The plan required a majority in favour in each of Dublin’s four local authorities, under legislation drawn up by Minister for the Environment Phil Hogan.
Lahart says it was “designed to fail”, and says the people should decide, via a plebiscite, on a more detailed new proposal. He tells TheJournal.ie:
Dubliners are entitled to a say via referendum, to give them a chance to tease it out.
“In other cities and countries, the public have rejected a plebiscite, although sometimes they come around to it.
We should stop looking at London and New York, and look at places like Auckland, Montpellier, Bordeaux, Manchester, and not to be frightened of a directly elected mayor
“People are entitled to know what they’re voting for, and myself and my colleagues – and other parties – are working hard on proposals.”
Yet there are dangers inherent in creating a position in charge of the country’s metropolitan core, so Lahart wants a 30-member assembly holding a mayor to account.
The one thing we want to guard against is this.
“Londoners were mad about Boris Johnson, they were mad about Ken Livingston, but Boris Johnson leveraged an incredible amount of national power off that position.
And you don’t want a mayor who’s so powerful they become the second most powerful politician in the land.
“You need to be fair to the rest of the country, and be fair to Dublin.
You want somebody passionate about Dublin and passionate about delivering for Dublin, and not delivering for themselves.
“That’s why a directly elected assembly, keeping tabs on a mayor, would be safer.”
Lahart has practised as a psychotherapist since 2007, and holds a first-class honours degree in counselling from Middlesex University, as well as a Masters degree from Mater Dei in Dublin.
Despite a busy schedule, Lahart continues to see “four or five” patients a week on evenings and weekends.
He says he took an interest in the area after the death of his father from motor neuron disease (MND) in the mid-90s.
“It was a tough, tough, tough, tough time,” he remembers. “And I remember being really conscious after that I hadn’t grieved.
“I remember thinking ‘you should really be dealing with this differently’.
This was the 90s, the mid-90s, there was still a big social stigma about mental health back then – I mean there still is an awful stigma, a lot of it hasn’t dissipated.
I had tried counselling and had found it not very satisfactory. It didn’t answer anything.
He began to read into the area, and did a course, which turned into a certificate, and later a diploma and degree.
“I’m always interested in what makes people tick, I like to find out what people’s motives are. My interest in the Dáil chamber is wondering where someone is coming from, what kind of message they’re trying to communicate.
“I’m a substantially better listener than I was 10 years ago. I’d like to think I really listen to what people say.”
Lahart says there are huge possibilities in having one voice speaking for the capital.
“If there was a directly mayor in Dublin they would be all over the DublinBikes scheme, knocking on the door of the Department of Transport.
It should be expanded even farther, out to Rathfarnham, Rathgar, Rathmines, Templeogue, Milltown, Ballsbridge, Dublin 8 as well as Drumcondra, Inchicore and places like that.
“It’s only a small example. Another would be that a mayor would have an awful lot on moral authority when it comes to dealing the Garda Commissioner.
I often wonder what would have happened with the Garth Brooks concert if there was a directly elected mayor.
“Simon Coveney shouldn’t have had to go to the heads of the four local authorities in Dublin about his housing plan. He should have been able to meet a directly elected mayor, who would say ‘this is what’s needed’.”
Speaking of housing, and the rampant homelessness in the capital and elsewhere, would Fianna Fáil’s spokesman on Dublin be in favour of rent controls?
Last year Labour’s Alan Kelly proposed linking rent increase to inflation, but was blocked by Finance Minister Michael Noonan, who decided on a two-year freeze instead.
“I’m not sure how they would work,” Lahart said.
I’ve heard that it would involve landlords pulling out the whole rental market.
“Houses are starting to be built, on a small scale, even in my own place in Scholarstown and Knocklyon. There seems to be a bit of a lid on prices in terms of buying, but not in terms of renting, no.
There’s such a shortage of supply in renting, so the more houses we can get on the market, the more people will put houses up for rent. It will take years.
“The younger generation is the first that hasn’t advanced, in terms of wealth and accommodation, and that’s one of the biggest responsibilities we have to face up to.”
College Green
The builders are hard at work in Dublin city centre, where Luas Cross City is cutting a swathe through the area between St Stephen’s Green, Parnell Street and beyond.
Under plans drawn up by Dublin City Council, College Green, is slated to be turned into a set-piece pedestrian plaza following the completion of Luas Cross City.
Lahart isn’t in favour of the plan, which would see some buses and other traffic rerouted, and says we need a 2050 plan to allow some traffic and transport go underground.
“It’s a nice idea, but you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs,” he says.
I would love to see huge tracts of Dublin city centre pedestrianised, but where are the cars going to go?
If you’re going to have grand plazas, and streetside coffee shops, which I’d love to see more of – you need transport alternatives.
Pedestrianisation is great, but my fear is that it would drive people out of the city or stop people coming into the city.
“We need to be thinking long-term to give vehicular traffic alternative routes, possibly under the city, as they have in London and other cities.”
Lahart joined Fianna Fáil in 1983, after writing a letter to the late Seamus Brennan. He says he was partly inspired by the late Bobby Kennedy, about whom he read avidly.
Yet why did he want to join a party led by Charles Haughey?
“It spoke to my gut, on all sorts of levels,” he says.
It was a very Catholic party, but that probably fitted in with where I was a young man too.
“Charlie Haughey was a heroic kind of figure for a late teenager early 20s. I fell for him, big time, yeah, like lots of us.
I don’t think he’s credited with keeping a lid on Republican emotions when Thatcher was in power.
Lahart writes that he is Catholic on the census form, but doesn’t practice “as much as I would have done when I was a younger man”.
While he feels that much has happened to justify criticism of the Church, he insists that it retains a valuable role in communities, especially in terms of priests’ pastoral role.
Lahart says divestment of education must be done respectfully, with 96% of schools in Ireland still run by religious orders.
I think that needs to be done by negotiation and choice.
I think it should be done respectfully, I don’t think any religion should be threatened, or feel threatened.
“Parents need a choice, whether they want to send their children to a denominational school, or a non-denominational school, particularly in city areas.
And we’re starting to deliver that - But I think the whole Ruairi Quinn thing, that 50% of schools need to divest was never achievable.
“It’s more difficult to do in the country, without building new schools everywhere.”
As regards repealing the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, Lahart wants to see what people want to replace it with.
“We’re pretty clear we’d like to see a judge-led commission rather than a citizen’s assembly,” he says.
What I am in favour of maintaining a protection of the unborn in the Constitution, I think that’s a noble thing, and so in that sense I’m pretty clear on that.
“But in cases like incest and fatal foetal abnormalities, you don’t need to persuade me of the need for change in that.”
As well as Green Party leader Eamon Ryan, Lahart championed the State’s recent purchase, from Nama, of 4,900 acres of the Dublin Mountains, in an area known as the Featherbeds.
As a former chair of the Dublin Tourism Working Group, he wants a Dublin Mountain National Park to be created and branded.
The Dublin/Wicklow mountains has the potential to be Dublin’s version of the Wild Atlantic Way.It’s mainly signposting, and branding. It all needs to be connected up, from the Glencullen side, to the Rathfarnham side and so on
You can’t get a cup of coffee in the Dublin Mountains.
“There’s no hostels, there’s no bed and breakfasts. There’s no craft shop. We need infrastructure, not just for tourists, but for Dubliners.”
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
The others should stay off Facebook
@Batster: I think it’s reasonable for certain subpopulations. For example those at risk of pregnancy, planning a family, and those who have allergies. As long as most people are covered it will work.
@SC: Agree totally.
@Batster: imagine how smug they will feel, those that can take the vaccine but won’t. Letting everyone else take it to save them.
@SC: Journal article:
1)’Pregnant women can get Covid-19 vaccine if they fall into other priority groups’ January 13th 2021.
Also:’Covid-19 vaccine and pregnancy-HSE.ie
2) Covid-19 vaccines and Allergic Reactions-CDC 31/12/20
I have allergies but according to this article,I could still get vaccine and I’d have no hesitation to do so.
Hopefully vaccination can be ramped up asap!
@Nuala Mc Namara: it’s not fully tested for pregnancy,
It’s a ask your doctor, how can they know if no Trial data.
On allergies it’s a higher chance of a reaction if you have them.
Depending on your excess allergies and reactions you would want to check. Many people haven’t taken the second dose also due to this.
Boost your immune system before taking it and hopefully it’s all good.
@Rory Mac Daibhéid: The reason why I put the HSE,CDC ,etc advice and data on my comment is to show expert advice,if you read it you will see that eg you can still have vaccine with some allergies and as pregnant women can have a more severe Covid-19 infection, vaccination is recommended for women in priority groups and it does specify when during pregnancy.
Subject of the survey aside, does anybody actually know anybody who’s been phoned and asked to take part in one of these surveys?
I’ve never known of anybody who has.
Also never never knew anybody who has won a Late Late Show competition but I have known National lottery jackpot winners.
Good news on the survey result though.
@JedBartlett: They had my number for a while, I did one survey, they kept saying “just a few more questions sir”, it took more than 30 mins. After that I politely told them to stop calling and to delete my number. They kept calling back, about once a week. Absolute curse.
@JedBartlett: I got called once. On my land-line. So maybe the results are skewed…not sure if they ring mobile phones LOL
@JedBartlett: got a call once, the questions cover a range of topics so my guess was that there was more than one survey happening
@JedBartlett: yep. It was a political opinion poll with a survey about gardening at the end. They often mash a few things together. They sadly don’t report them together. It would have been nice to know how many Shinners owned shovels for example. Or how many FG possessed neither front nor back gardens
@JedBartlett: late late shows are designed to collect names from those that have a TV. You have to be watching and in to get the call. This info is shared with An Post. Guaranteed.
@JedBartlett: my friend won a trip to NYC on the late late a few years back (they rang him live on the show)
@JedBartlett: I’ve never known any one who took one of these surveys but I have one friend who has won about half a dozen Late Late Show comps, lucky fecker. I used to work with a guy who won 2 million on the lottery. Never left the job but came to work in a much nicer car.
@Ger: yep, contacted on a mobile, it went on for ages, well over 20 mins. It would have taken 10 minutes to fill out online..
@JedBartlett: RedC surveys are online, you can sign up to participate via their Web page and the surveys are very regular and cover a range of topics
Yeah, I wonder how many of those ‘unsure’ or refusing the vaccine have willingly taken recreational drugs in the past…?
@Stuart Doherty: best comment! A girl I went to school with who took pills off anyone in our late teens and was fond of a line a coke until a few years ago says she won’t take the vaccine…as is a work colleague who gets Botox and lip fillers regularly!!
@Bleurgh: can’t fix stew-pid mate… ( spellings not that bad , just the journal thinks that word is ‘toxic’ ) …
I have had my first jab, no problem at all, have to say I feel that little bit safer going to work. And glad we are not following the UK by stretching it out.
It’s a new vaccine, so I can understand why people would be wary about getting it.
If I was offered a vaccine today, I’d have to think about it
In six months time when I’m likely to get it, there’ll hopefully be a lot more information about it which will make a decision easier.
@Kendra Jackson: So you don’t mind spending six months as a Covid-19 version of Typhoid Mary?
@Gary Kearney: it won’t be offered for a few months and you might’ Actually have good days and evidence by then on what the vaccine does and doesn’t do.
@Gary Kearney: I should have probably specified “when I’m likely to get offered it”.
Which is likely to be at least six months.
So it’s not exactly a question of whether i ‘mind’ or not.
So why does the Journal not do a poll on it ?. Think you will find its more than reported.
@Ken Bramley: let me guess, you and all of your mates are part of the 7%
@Mal Swan: You assume he means there would be more that wouldn’t take it. How do you know he doesn’t mean that more than 75% would take it?
If you don’t take the vaccine you are deciding to remain at risk from Covid-19, because those who are vaccinated have much lower risk of catching it or getting sick, but they could still give it to those who choose not to get it. Given the choice any sensible person will take the vaccine
@irisbeag: transmission hasn’t been identified as stooped by the vaccine so taking it doesn’t stop you being a risk to others unless that evidence changes.
You could well spread it worse because you believe you are ‘protected’.
Many 1st dose people already getting the virus. Let’s see about the second dose.
There is no real world effectiveness data on its Protection yet.
It’s sensible for older and vunerable people to want to take the vaccine as its potentially Protective.
This data and Evidence will come.
There is a lot of things that need to be improved for immune response also when taking a vaccine, exercise and vitamin D, good sleep before hand.
There is a possibility this vaccine effectiveness will be similar to a flu vaccine and sensible people will know believing that high Efficacy in a trial will protect people in the real world is very naive.
@Rory Mac Daibhéid: i posted my comment less than a minute ago and it was placed in the middle of the comment forum. Somehow your reply to my comment (which is word for word the same as replied to someone else) has 32 likes in 5 seconds?
I think there are a few bugs in the journals coding.
@EarthwormJim: sorry rory this thing is very glitchy, a moment ago it showed you made this reply to my comment. All the best.
If 70 per cent of people take it then that is enough to return everyday life to normal, or close to what normal was. That is the percentage figure I see mentioned all the time.
The attitude that anyone who says they may not or would not take the vaccine is an ignorant fool and a conspiracy theorist is neither accurate nor helpful.
It’s not unreasonable for a person to weigh up their chances of dying from Covid with the opportunity to not take the quickest-developed vaccine in history.
As a reasonably young and healthy person I have almost zero risk of dying of Covid for a long time. I have never taken a flu vaccine for the same reason. That is not to say I won’t take the flu vaccine when I am older.
Separately, I would also like to see every elderly person, every front line medical worker, every worker who is dealing with the public, including teachers, shop workers, etc, every person with health concerns being offered this vaccine ahead of me.
@Jim Lingk: You have not got near zero risk of catching the virus. There is a chance of dying a a much larger chance of getting long covid.
So you “I alright” “I wont be too bad” attitudes are part of the problem.
If you caught it and spread it others could die.
Or do others not count in your narcissistic world.
@Gary Kearney: who said the vaccine stops the virus spreading?
Nobody yet so that’s that an argument.
The same principles of Protection still apply until there is Evidence.
Currently the vaccine is approved as stopping covid illness from developing, severe covid. From the data there’s no evidence of spread being stopped.
So your non scientific attitude is part of the problem.
You must think this is a magical thing that’s stop everyone spreading it and getting sick, there’s no evidence of that from the trail. There’s evidence it offers a higher potential Protection than not having it.
The focus on the vaccine as a solution is a bit misguided and shortsighted.
It should be only thought of as another potential Protection against developing severe covid.
@Gary Kearney: I did not say I had no or little chance of catching it.
I did not say I have no chance of dying of covid. I said I have almost zero chance of dying of covid. Which I do, statistically.
Long covid, perhaps. There really isn’t enough data on this, there hasn’t been enough time passed and there isn’t even a medical definition for what it means.
If the vulnerable people get the vaccine (and they will be offered it before I am) and a minority of people don’t then things should be back to normal.
I’ll have two then
So population wise, that equates to 1 million people who don’t want to get the vaccine?
I hope not!
@Jonathan Nolan: or 350,000 people……(7% of 4.9 million, give or take)
I thought it would have been higher than 75%. Mid 80′s maybe.
Here I am vaccine
I will take the vaccine, but I will not support a new normal. I am taking the vaccine because I want the life I had to return. I hope I am not alone in thinking this.
It is a bit concerning to me when I read Oliver O’Connor of the IPHA saying that even after we are vaccinated that we may only return to some version of what we call normal. I understand that he is not a member of our government and it is only his opinion. I just wonder what has led him to make that speculation, is it perhaps that he has knowledge of what is coming down the line.
@EarthwormJim: got ya. Yes.
I’m not happy with what’s considered normal now and thinking fining people for exercising, cycling and hill walking is somehow making people safer or reducing risk. That’s not acceptable to me and people should be allowed go to fresh open air natural areas and enjoy it at no risk.
In regards the vaccine, it seems to be the solution to allowing the government control.
I don’t agree with the control in first place and everyone has to be responsible for themselves and family and close contacts.
I don’t think the vaccine is going to eradicate the virus or be 90% Protective so how it can be used as a solution to end Lockdowns is beyond me.
It should be used as it’s potential to stop severe covid, 1 case in traii versus 9 in placebo is good result, no idea how that will translate to real world.
We should have a strategy now for living with covid with or without a vaccine. This new normal isn’t normal or good for anyone.
The virus peaked because of Christmas and unfortunately to that’s cause significant illness but it’s not a case for cancelling society. Society by and large can be responsible for itself without having Garda at beaches and hills.
They raided a pub the other which is one risky activity and that’s acceptable policing and fair enough to be hard on risky behaviour.
@EarthwormJim: The masks are here to stay, I am very sure of that at least.
Going on online comments it seems that 70% won’t get it. Some of those online folk commenting are telling porkies me thinks.
@Jason Walsh: FB has a strong and often Conspiracy type and often non Irish based anti vaccine following.
On the journal it’s majority vaccine support.
Ideally we can get some realism about the real world effectiveness and transmission evidence soon as there is a bit of a magical unicorn belief in this Vaccine so far by the media and that’s not based on any evidence or reality yet.
The vaccine met both primary efficacy end points, with more than a 99.99% probability of a true vaccine efficacy greater than 30%. These results met our prespecified success criteria, which were to establish a probability above 98.6% of true vaccine efficacy being greater than 30%, and greatly exceeded the minimum FDA criteria for authorization.
What % is it isn’t known yet.
@Jason Walsh: this has come up in work and social chat plenty of times since Christmas and in my experience 90%+ are saying they will get it. I’m sure a small number of them are unsure and just saying it.but neatly everyone is decided already, it’s not even a question in their minds.
@Jim Lingk: very data driven evidence there.
Not even 90% of doctors said they would take it without evidence.
Almost 600 responded, with 78% saying yes without any reservations. Just 5.4% said they would not take the vaccine but 16.3% said they had some queries for now with less than 1% commenting without choosing an option.
This is what’s not answered>
https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/01/04/peter-doshi-pfizer-and-modernas-95-effective-vaccines-we-need-more-details-and-the-raw-data/
Fair play to ye lads
have your say