IVAN YATES HAS hit back at criticism from both Catherine Connolly and Heather Humphreys’ respective campaigns over the “smear the bejaysus” remarks he made last week in relation to the presidential election. 

The comments by the former Fine Gael minister, who is now a broadcaster, sparked a frenzy in the election, with both Áras hopefuls rounding on them for different reasons. 

Speaking on his Newstalk podcast Calling It last week, Yates outlined what he would do if Fine Gael were to contact him and ask him for advice on how to improve Humphreys’ campaign. 

“You’re going to be shocked about this now… I would go bullheaded: ‘Do you want a provo in the park? Is she a Russian asset?’ I would smear the bejaysus out of her, simply because you’ve nothing to lose,” he said, referring to Connolly. 

Yates said he felt this was necessary because Humphreys’ previous experience as a government minister meant “everything that you’re unhappy with in the legacy of government, housing… child poverty and so on is hung around her”.

His comments were heavily criticised by Connolly and some of her supporters. The Independent candidate said she was “absolutely shocked” by it and accused him of both pushing “the politics of fear” and doing her campaign a favour. 

Meanwhile, Humphreys and her supporters denied that she was engaged in a smear campaign, with the Fine Gael candidate outlining that Yates had nothing to do with her own presidential campaign. 

Addressing the matter on his podcast this morning, Yates said he had no regrets about what he said.

“This is a false flag. This is an absolute attempt to distort and conflate me, who is not involved in [Humphreys'] campaign,” he said.

“It was still about 15 days to go, more than two weeks to go, when we had that chat. This is all BS.”

He said Connolly’s campaign had “decided to really amplify this in every way they could”, while also rejecting remarks from those on the Fine Gael side who he said felt it had been damaging to Humphreys’ campaign. 

Blaming me for Heather’s difficulties is like blaming Roy Keane for the problems of Man United. 

“I’m an analyst. I’m a pundit. I’m a commentator… to actually suggest that I was in any way involved in the Fine Gael campaign at any point in time for years is just nonsensical,” Yates said.

“The first lie they put out, the big lie, was that I was actually involved in some sort of Fine Gael conspiracy here.”

‘Auntie Heather ain’t gonna cut it’

He outlined how he left the Dáil in 2002 to pursue a career in business, which “went really well” until 2010 following the crash. He then went on to have a career in media. 

“When I started on Newstalk Breakfast in April 2009, I rang Fine Gael and said ‘I’m canceling my membership’, because how can I conduct interviews if I’m a card-carrying member? So I haven’t been a member of any political party since then.”

Yates suggested that the Connolly campaign calling what he said a smear was “a deliberate attempt to shield her from the type of scrutiny in the last seven days”, adding that online criticism of how the Independent candidate was questioned during two interviews was “orchestrated by professional people using social media to say that Catherine Connolly has been unfairly treated”. 

Related Reads

'The people of Ireland will decide': Connolly and Humphreys take campaigns to Meath and Cavan

From a council house to the Áras? Catherine Connolly says she's 'an insider and an outsider'

Heather Humphreys' journey from 'take no crap' Clones councillor to Áras contender

“My basic point is this. If you think that [Connolly] is going to get elected, and if you care about Heather Humphreys, ‘Auntie Heather, Pollyanna’ ain’t gonna cut it. I’m sorry.”

He said for really successful people in political campaigning in elections, such as Tony Blair and Donald Trump, “negative offence campaigning is exactly what motivates your base”.

“It was ever thus. And that was the point I was making that.”

He said Humphreys couldn’t go through the campaign without criticising Connolly on some of the topics that have arisen during the campaign, adding that she was “a different woman” in the second debate compared to the first one, when she was accused of being too quiet.

“Unless you, as a candidate, are on the offence, are on the attack, you simply won’t engender or motivate your support base, and that was the central point I was making,” he continued.

“The fact of the matter is, to get into the Park, Michael D and everyone before, they had to get down and dirty during campaigns when different things came up. That is just the reality, especially when there’s no policy or power involved.”