In his Irish Times column (Tues 28th Aug) , Fintan O’Toole tells us that “the choice is simple: all or nothing” when it comes to religious symbolism and influence in public life and public services. He comes down firmly on the side of the “nothing option”.
That same day I heard him interviewed on radio about his column, where he extolled the virtues of the USA system where that same “nothing option” operates.
That’s the same USA which lacks universal healthcare or social welfare, whose draconian legal system keeps record numbers in jail, mainly blacks, and executes large numbers each year, and where the Christian right constantly and publicly seeks to exercise political influence with some success, notably in the case of President Bush.
Contrast that with the Ireland of today, seemingly crippled under the weight of Catholicism in O’Toole’s view. Some of his concerns are valid e.g. the over-reliance of the state on the churches for education and hospital care, but some are simply prime examples of political correctness .
The Dail’s opening prayer, Bertie’s ashes and RTE’s Angelus are long-established custom and practice which may offend the super-liberals and the bigots, but they oppress no-one and that is the most important consideration.
From the perspective of societal outcomes, I’d suggest to Fintan that USA theory looks somewhat better than USA practice with, hopefully, the reverse situation pertaining in Ireland.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Festival of World Cultures.
I’m not a great fan of my local authority DLRCoCo, but top marks to them for the Festival of World Cultures.
It’s a great reminder that culture & craic are not synonymous with wealth - great music and dance from some of the poorest countries on the planet.
Respect!
It’s a great reminder that culture & craic are not synonymous with wealth - great music and dance from some of the poorest countries on the planet.
Respect!
Friday, August 24, 2007
Pat Rabbitte - the next leader of Fine Gael.
This may seem like an outside bet, but “what-if”…
Following the precedent set by Michael O’Leary in 1982 - Pat Rabbitte resigns from the Labour Party and joins Fine Gael.
FG & the country would benefit greatly from a revivial of the “just society” ethos in one of the major parties and a Rabbitte-led FG could be just the ticket. A combination of “left-wing” social policies funded by “right-wing” economic policies could well be a winning combination.
In 5 years time we could have a Labour Party which has moved to the Left and is scaring the middle classes with socialist economics, a Green Party which is mortally wounded by the embrace of FF and no PDs to contend with. FF may still be mired in the fallout from the various tribunals (which hasn’t seemed to deter voters to date).
In such an electoral scenario, a “Just Society” FG could clean up. Unfortunately, there’s not enough liberalism within the existing FG to achieve that change of direction without an injection of external talent. Enter Pat Rabbitte.
Following the precedent set by Michael O’Leary in 1982 - Pat Rabbitte resigns from the Labour Party and joins Fine Gael.
FG & the country would benefit greatly from a revivial of the “just society” ethos in one of the major parties and a Rabbitte-led FG could be just the ticket. A combination of “left-wing” social policies funded by “right-wing” economic policies could well be a winning combination.
In 5 years time we could have a Labour Party which has moved to the Left and is scaring the middle classes with socialist economics, a Green Party which is mortally wounded by the embrace of FF and no PDs to contend with. FF may still be mired in the fallout from the various tribunals (which hasn’t seemed to deter voters to date).
In such an electoral scenario, a “Just Society” FG could clean up. Unfortunately, there’s not enough liberalism within the existing FG to achieve that change of direction without an injection of external talent. Enter Pat Rabbitte.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Fintan O'Toole calls for Willie O'Dea's head.
In today’s Irish Times, Fintan O’Toole calls for the political head of Defence Minister Willie O’Dea on the grounds that O’Dea has opposed agreed Government policy on the Aer Lingus Shannon-Heathrow decision and that he is breach of collective cabinet responsibility. But are either of these serious charges valid?
O’Toole quotes Article 28.4.2 of the Constitution: "The Government shall meet and act as a collective authority, and shall be collectively responsible for the Departments of State administered by the members of the Government."
O’Toole then outlines the basis for his charges: “Last week, in a statement issued through the Department of the Taoiseach - implying that she was in effect acting Taoiseach at the time - and explicitly "speaking on behalf of the Government", Mary Hanafin issued a strong statement of its policy on the Aer Lingus decision to end its Shannon to Heathrow service.
She could not have been clearer about Government policy on the matter: "As a listed plc, Aer Lingus has to take its own decisions. It is inappropriate for the Government to intervene in the decision making of a private company. To do so would ultimately be damaging to the company and its customers."“
And later in his article he says that “a Government decision not to interfere with the Aer Lingus move was taken last week - otherwise Mary Hanafin could not have issued her statement.”
Surely Article 28.4.2 of the Constitution implies that a some sort of meeting of Government is required to determine Government policy and, as far as I’m aware, no such meeting has taken place. How can a statement issued by the Minister for Education, on a topic that is totally unrelated to her brief, assume the weight of a policy position formally agreed at a cabinet meeting? Does Fintan O’Toole believe that this is how the constitution envisaged that cabinet decisions would be taken and communicated to cabinet members?
In addition, the assertion in Minister Hannifin’s statement that “it is inappropriate for the Government to intervene in the decision making of a private company” is somewhat misleading, particularly in light of the fact that many cabinet members have indicated that they are unhappy with the Aer Lingus decision. It's quite common for minority shareholders to vote their shareholding in whatever way suits their broader business objectives and not necessarily the interests of the company in question e.g. Ryanair’s holding in Aer Lingus!
O’Toole quotes Article 28.4.2 of the Constitution: "The Government shall meet and act as a collective authority, and shall be collectively responsible for the Departments of State administered by the members of the Government."
O’Toole then outlines the basis for his charges: “Last week, in a statement issued through the Department of the Taoiseach - implying that she was in effect acting Taoiseach at the time - and explicitly "speaking on behalf of the Government", Mary Hanafin issued a strong statement of its policy on the Aer Lingus decision to end its Shannon to Heathrow service.
She could not have been clearer about Government policy on the matter: "As a listed plc, Aer Lingus has to take its own decisions. It is inappropriate for the Government to intervene in the decision making of a private company. To do so would ultimately be damaging to the company and its customers."“
And later in his article he says that “a Government decision not to interfere with the Aer Lingus move was taken last week - otherwise Mary Hanafin could not have issued her statement.”
Surely Article 28.4.2 of the Constitution implies that a some sort of meeting of Government is required to determine Government policy and, as far as I’m aware, no such meeting has taken place. How can a statement issued by the Minister for Education, on a topic that is totally unrelated to her brief, assume the weight of a policy position formally agreed at a cabinet meeting? Does Fintan O’Toole believe that this is how the constitution envisaged that cabinet decisions would be taken and communicated to cabinet members?
In addition, the assertion in Minister Hannifin’s statement that “it is inappropriate for the Government to intervene in the decision making of a private company” is somewhat misleading, particularly in light of the fact that many cabinet members have indicated that they are unhappy with the Aer Lingus decision. It's quite common for minority shareholders to vote their shareholding in whatever way suits their broader business objectives and not necessarily the interests of the company in question e.g. Ryanair’s holding in Aer Lingus!
Saturday, August 11, 2007
From Major to Minor.
After 2 rounds of the USPGA, the final Major of the season, normal service has been resumed with Tiger Woods on -6, leading the field by 2 strokes.
One of the interesting practices of the USPGA is to put the winners of the previous three majors of that season into the same three-ball, so Padraig Harrington (British Open), Zach Johnson (Masters) and Angel Cabrera (US Open) played together for the first two rounds.
After the first two rounds, the cut came at +5, the only survivor of the trio is Harrington (+2), with Johnson (+10) and Cabrera (+11) both eliminated.
Among the other former Major winners to miss the cut were Ben Curtis, Jim Furyk, Vijay Singh, Justin Leonard, Michael Campbell and Jose Maria Olazabal.
Small consolation perhaps to Colin Montgomerie, (once described as the best golfer never to win a major, but no longer playing well enough for that title) who just made the +5 score and survives to compete in the final two rounds.
But wouldn’t you think that two men who’ve actually won majors in the current season could at least make the cut? Sort of confirms that this “winning a Major” lark is actually a bit of a lottery, particularly when looking at those players who’ve only done it once.
One of the interesting practices of the USPGA is to put the winners of the previous three majors of that season into the same three-ball, so Padraig Harrington (British Open), Zach Johnson (Masters) and Angel Cabrera (US Open) played together for the first two rounds.
After the first two rounds, the cut came at +5, the only survivor of the trio is Harrington (+2), with Johnson (+10) and Cabrera (+11) both eliminated.
Among the other former Major winners to miss the cut were Ben Curtis, Jim Furyk, Vijay Singh, Justin Leonard, Michael Campbell and Jose Maria Olazabal.
Small consolation perhaps to Colin Montgomerie, (once described as the best golfer never to win a major, but no longer playing well enough for that title) who just made the +5 score and survives to compete in the final two rounds.
But wouldn’t you think that two men who’ve actually won majors in the current season could at least make the cut? Sort of confirms that this “winning a Major” lark is actually a bit of a lottery, particularly when looking at those players who’ve only done it once.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Greens mean spin.
In today’s Irish Times (Opinion & Analysis) Mary Raftery, under the heading “Greens mean business”, sings the praises of our new Green party ministers, citing specifically Environment Minister John Gormley’s reversal of rezoning decisions made by Monaghan Co Co and a supposed hardening of Ireland’s position on GMOs.
However, Minister Gormley’s predecessor Dick Roche had taken the same action against Laois Co Co in October 2006, while her statement that “at the EU Standing Committee on Food Chain and Animal Health, Trevor Sargent abstained in a vote on a GM animal feed ingredient called Herculex which continues to be banned“ hardly suggests a new or radical stance.
An article could just as easily be written under the alternative heading “Greens mean spin”? In the past month we’ve had Trevor Sargent’s big photo opportunity buying a Toyota Prius, Eamon Ryan paying (with our money) for his carbon footprint and taking a subway with a camera crew in tow, while John Gormley got tough with the litter bugs. The decision to increase the on-the-spot fine for littering from €125 to €150 is supposed to send a stern message to offenders, but it’s laughable. If non-enforcement of the current fine isn’t working, non-enforcement of an increased fine is unlikely to do the trick.
It’s time for Green ministers to stop these petty PR stunts and start to show us some substance, other than simply replicating what their FF predecessors would have done anyway.
However, Minister Gormley’s predecessor Dick Roche had taken the same action against Laois Co Co in October 2006, while her statement that “at the EU Standing Committee on Food Chain and Animal Health, Trevor Sargent abstained in a vote on a GM animal feed ingredient called Herculex which continues to be banned“ hardly suggests a new or radical stance.
An article could just as easily be written under the alternative heading “Greens mean spin”? In the past month we’ve had Trevor Sargent’s big photo opportunity buying a Toyota Prius, Eamon Ryan paying (with our money) for his carbon footprint and taking a subway with a camera crew in tow, while John Gormley got tough with the litter bugs. The decision to increase the on-the-spot fine for littering from €125 to €150 is supposed to send a stern message to offenders, but it’s laughable. If non-enforcement of the current fine isn’t working, non-enforcement of an increased fine is unlikely to do the trick.
It’s time for Green ministers to stop these petty PR stunts and start to show us some substance, other than simply replicating what their FF predecessors would have done anyway.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Green Ministers adopt 3 wise monkeys approach to Govt
To date, the Greens have brought a us new form a laid-back Government and on RTE's Morning Ireland we’ve just had another instalment from Minister John Gormley.
When asked about Finian McGrath’s deal re Dublin Port - he responded with a question: has RTE asked Finian about it?
Gormley claims to know nothing about whatever arrangement was agreed between the Taoiseach and McGrath on this important topic. It doesn’t seem to strike him as odd that he doesn’t know, and it clearly hasn’t occurred to him that he should ask anyone, especially the Taoiseach, to put him in the picture. Surely the Taoiseach should have briefed the cabinet on any material matters he agreed in his deals with the independent TDs, items which clearly will impact on the work of various Departments?
Given that
(a) part of Dublin Port is in the minister’s own constituency
(b) there’s a proposal to extend the port by reclaiming about 50 acres of sea
(c) it’s PD policy (a partner in Govt) to move Dublin Post altogether to Bremore.
(d) either of the above proposals have potentially major consequences for the “environment” of Dublin City
you'd imagine that Minister Gormley might wish to keep himself informed about port-related developments.
So far, the Green ministers seem to be keeping their heads down and their mouths shut in Cabinet/ Government. This 3 wise monkeys approach may well keep their cabinet colleagues happy for the moment, but I doubt it’s impressing the electorate.
When asked about Finian McGrath’s deal re Dublin Port - he responded with a question: has RTE asked Finian about it?
Gormley claims to know nothing about whatever arrangement was agreed between the Taoiseach and McGrath on this important topic. It doesn’t seem to strike him as odd that he doesn’t know, and it clearly hasn’t occurred to him that he should ask anyone, especially the Taoiseach, to put him in the picture. Surely the Taoiseach should have briefed the cabinet on any material matters he agreed in his deals with the independent TDs, items which clearly will impact on the work of various Departments?
Given that
(a) part of Dublin Port is in the minister’s own constituency
(b) there’s a proposal to extend the port by reclaiming about 50 acres of sea
(c) it’s PD policy (a partner in Govt) to move Dublin Post altogether to Bremore.
(d) either of the above proposals have potentially major consequences for the “environment” of Dublin City
you'd imagine that Minister Gormley might wish to keep himself informed about port-related developments.
So far, the Green ministers seem to be keeping their heads down and their mouths shut in Cabinet/ Government. This 3 wise monkeys approach may well keep their cabinet colleagues happy for the moment, but I doubt it’s impressing the electorate.
Monday, July 09, 2007
Who killed who in the NI "Troubles"?
In the run-up to the election, I heard someone on radio extolling the virtues of a forum called www.politics.ie so I started to engage there. However,the forum has a large number of contributors there who are unreconstructed republicans who don’t accept the Good Friday agreement and hijack almost any topic thread to vent their rabid anti-Brit feelings. These are dressed up as being anti-war, anti-imperialism etc., but you don’t have to scratch hard to find the Northern Ireland gorilla perched firmly on their backs.
Many of the anti-Brit contributors on politics.ie routinely present the British as the army from hell, marching through civilian settlements, killing, raping, burning, looting etc.. We’re left with the impression that this is what happened in Northern Ireland during the “troubles”.
Am I alone in having difficulty reconciling this picture with some of the actual facts which emerge from that conflict? (without in any way seeking to excuse the British army for Bloody Sunday or other atrocities).
During the “troubles” in Northern Ireland, the British army presence peaked at 30k+ in the 1970’s, supplemented by c. 20k combined RUC & UDR. That’s a total of about 50k armed personnel on the government side of the conflict. In addition, the British army were equipped with armoured vehicles, helicopters and had ready access to a vast array of weaponry of all types.
Facing this large and well-armed force, republican paramilitaries had a much more limited arsenal of weaponry and their active service volunteers never numbered more than a small fraction of their “crown forces” adversaries.
So, logically, the ruthless, jack-booted British killing machine should have been responsible for the vast majority of deaths in the troubles. And that this number killed by the crown forces should greatly outnumber their own casualties.
Yet the tables below, from the CAIN website, http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/ , which analyses all troubles-related deaths from 1969 to 2001, shows that Republicans were actually responsible for the majority (58%) of such deaths.
In fact, British Security Force deaths outnumbered Republican deaths by a ratio of almost 3 to 1!
Even allowing that some portion of the Loyalist killings were proxy killings on behalf of British Forces, the Republicans still win the killing race hands down.
One conclusion that can clearly be drawn from these statistics is that republicans were far more ruthless killers than their British opponents.
The data below includes deaths caused by military vehicles and heart attacks caused by explosions etc.. 1581 (45%) deaths occurred in the 5-year period 1972-1976. It also covers all relevant jurisdictions , in NI (3268), Britain (125), RoI (113) & Europe (18),
Killed by
Republican Paramilitary = 2056 (58%)
Loyalist Paramilitary =1020 (29%)
British Security Forces*= 362 (10%)
Irish Security Forces = 5 (0.1%)
Not known = 81 (2%)
TOTAL = 3524
Victim Status
Civilian = 1857 (53%)
British Security =1112 (32%)
Republican Paramilitary = 394 (11%)
Loyalist Paramilitary = 151 (4%)
Irish Security = 10 (0.3%)
Total = 3524
Many of the anti-Brit contributors on politics.ie routinely present the British as the army from hell, marching through civilian settlements, killing, raping, burning, looting etc.. We’re left with the impression that this is what happened in Northern Ireland during the “troubles”.
Am I alone in having difficulty reconciling this picture with some of the actual facts which emerge from that conflict? (without in any way seeking to excuse the British army for Bloody Sunday or other atrocities).
During the “troubles” in Northern Ireland, the British army presence peaked at 30k+ in the 1970’s, supplemented by c. 20k combined RUC & UDR. That’s a total of about 50k armed personnel on the government side of the conflict. In addition, the British army were equipped with armoured vehicles, helicopters and had ready access to a vast array of weaponry of all types.
Facing this large and well-armed force, republican paramilitaries had a much more limited arsenal of weaponry and their active service volunteers never numbered more than a small fraction of their “crown forces” adversaries.
So, logically, the ruthless, jack-booted British killing machine should have been responsible for the vast majority of deaths in the troubles. And that this number killed by the crown forces should greatly outnumber their own casualties.
Yet the tables below, from the CAIN website, http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/ , which analyses all troubles-related deaths from 1969 to 2001, shows that Republicans were actually responsible for the majority (58%) of such deaths.
In fact, British Security Force deaths outnumbered Republican deaths by a ratio of almost 3 to 1!
Even allowing that some portion of the Loyalist killings were proxy killings on behalf of British Forces, the Republicans still win the killing race hands down.
One conclusion that can clearly be drawn from these statistics is that republicans were far more ruthless killers than their British opponents.
The data below includes deaths caused by military vehicles and heart attacks caused by explosions etc.. 1581 (45%) deaths occurred in the 5-year period 1972-1976. It also covers all relevant jurisdictions , in NI (3268), Britain (125), RoI (113) & Europe (18),
Killed by
Republican Paramilitary = 2056 (58%)
Loyalist Paramilitary =1020 (29%)
British Security Forces*= 362 (10%)
Irish Security Forces = 5 (0.1%)
Not known = 81 (2%)
TOTAL = 3524
Victim Status
Civilian = 1857 (53%)
British Security =1112 (32%)
Republican Paramilitary = 394 (11%)
Loyalist Paramilitary = 151 (4%)
Irish Security = 10 (0.3%)
Total = 3524
Sunday, July 08, 2007
Michael Moore - new book reviewed
There’s a new book “Citizen Moore: The Making of an American Iconoclast” by Roger Rapoport, reviewed a couple of weeks back in the Sunday Times - on the attached link.
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/biography/article1936972.ece
It doesn’t seem to be a particularly flattering account of the man and his methods.
His first big hit “Roger & Me” supposedly portrayed Moore’s futile efforts to get to meet the General Motors CEO, Roger Smith. While the film claims that Moore never succeeded in getting to meet Smith, the book reveals that he actually met him three times, with the interview filmed on two occasions. This fact was completely suppressed in the final production.
According to reviewer Rod Liddle, the picture of Moore that emerges “is of an at times unscrupulous, overambitious, often incompetent and always arrogant hybrid of journalist and comedian, with a monstrous ego. His former manager, who also seems to hate him, describes him contemptuously as a “vaudevillian”. Rapoport marshals a parade of disgruntled former associates and employees to fling the ordure”.
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/biography/article1936972.ece
It doesn’t seem to be a particularly flattering account of the man and his methods.
His first big hit “Roger & Me” supposedly portrayed Moore’s futile efforts to get to meet the General Motors CEO, Roger Smith. While the film claims that Moore never succeeded in getting to meet Smith, the book reveals that he actually met him three times, with the interview filmed on two occasions. This fact was completely suppressed in the final production.
According to reviewer Rod Liddle, the picture of Moore that emerges “is of an at times unscrupulous, overambitious, often incompetent and always arrogant hybrid of journalist and comedian, with a monstrous ego. His former manager, who also seems to hate him, describes him contemptuously as a “vaudevillian”. Rapoport marshals a parade of disgruntled former associates and employees to fling the ordure”.
A new international role for Bertie Ahern?
RTE are reporting that the Government is to set up a new Conflict Resolution Centre, based in the Dept of Foreign Affairs, with an annual budget of €25m.
Foreign Affairs Minister Dermot Ahern said that while the conflict in the North was a local one, it had global resonance and, using the experience gained in the peace process, the new centre will seek to assist in bringing peaceful solutions to international trouble spots.
Could this be Bertie Ahern’s next stop - a state-funded role as an international peace-maker to rival good friend Tony Blair’s recent appointment as representative of The Quartet in the Israel/Palestine conflict?
And when will he be taking up that position? Anything to do with his appearance at the Mahon Tribunal later this month? Probably just wishful thinking on my part.
Foreign Affairs Minister Dermot Ahern said that while the conflict in the North was a local one, it had global resonance and, using the experience gained in the peace process, the new centre will seek to assist in bringing peaceful solutions to international trouble spots.
Could this be Bertie Ahern’s next stop - a state-funded role as an international peace-maker to rival good friend Tony Blair’s recent appointment as representative of The Quartet in the Israel/Palestine conflict?
And when will he be taking up that position? Anything to do with his appearance at the Mahon Tribunal later this month? Probably just wishful thinking on my part.
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
The Raj still rules.
Empire’s Children, a new series on Channel 4, started last night, tracing the colonial roots of Dame Diana Rigg who was born in India in the 1930’s, where her father worked as a railway engineer.
During the programme, Dame Diana did a certain amount of hand-wringing about the fact that even the relatively low-ranked English sahibs were waited on hand and foot by an army of Indian servants.
Her conscience was assuaged by meetings with a number of Indians who had known her father and gave him good references with regard to his treatment of themselves and other natives. She told us that she now felt somewhat less guilty about their time in India, knowing that her father had not been a typical Sahib.
Her father was working for the Maharaja of Jodhpur at the time his career in India ended, following the granting of independence in 1947. Dame Diana had a photo of a social event in the Rigg house in the early 1940‘s, which included a lady known as Baiji, who was a member of the Jodhpur royal family. Rigg visited this lady, now in her 90’s, who still lives in the Maharaja’s palace.
The documentary showed Rigg being admitted to the Maharaja’s Palace where she was shown into a sitting room. Then Baiji enters the room and Rigg waves her hand at a sofa and invites her to sit there. It struck me as odd, as a guest in someone else’s house, to be inviting your host to sit down.
Clearly the ways of the Raj are not easily forgotten.
During the programme, Dame Diana did a certain amount of hand-wringing about the fact that even the relatively low-ranked English sahibs were waited on hand and foot by an army of Indian servants.
Her conscience was assuaged by meetings with a number of Indians who had known her father and gave him good references with regard to his treatment of themselves and other natives. She told us that she now felt somewhat less guilty about their time in India, knowing that her father had not been a typical Sahib.
Her father was working for the Maharaja of Jodhpur at the time his career in India ended, following the granting of independence in 1947. Dame Diana had a photo of a social event in the Rigg house in the early 1940‘s, which included a lady known as Baiji, who was a member of the Jodhpur royal family. Rigg visited this lady, now in her 90’s, who still lives in the Maharaja’s palace.
The documentary showed Rigg being admitted to the Maharaja’s Palace where she was shown into a sitting room. Then Baiji enters the room and Rigg waves her hand at a sofa and invites her to sit there. It struck me as odd, as a guest in someone else’s house, to be inviting your host to sit down.
Clearly the ways of the Raj are not easily forgotten.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Venus v. Mars - again!
On Saturday last, the Irish Times published this photo of two young women mud-wrestling at Glastonbury on its front page.
The following Tuesday, the paper published letters from two female writers who objected to the photo. Then on Wednesday, the paper published three letters from male writers who didn’t seem to be offended at all.
Clearly Venus and Mars continue to maintain their independent orbits.
Footnote: Published as a letter in the Irish Times
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Britain to reciprocate with Ahern Chair endowment
It’s good to see the Government taking steps to create a long-term acknowledgement of Tony Blair’s role in the resolution achieved in Northern Ireland.
There is a strong rumour that, in a reciprocal gesture, the British Government will endow a Bertie Ahern Chair of Cash-flow Management in a suitable north side academy of learning?
There is a strong rumour that, in a reciprocal gesture, the British Government will endow a Bertie Ahern Chair of Cash-flow Management in a suitable north side academy of learning?
Friday, June 22, 2007
Tony Blair's Legacy - and he hasn't even left yet.
Tony Blair faced his last PMQs on Wednesday and yesterday hosted his final cabinet meeting as Prime Minister. In 10-20 years time, how will political historians assess his term in office? It's far too early to make any definitive assessments, but the medai are already at it so I thought I'd just jump on the bandwagon.
In the immediate aftermath, it’s easy to point to Northern Ireland and Iraq as the high and low points respectively, but will there be any other achievement/failure which merits comment in the longer term?
These are just some ramblings on the Blair Legacy - more questions than answers, undera number of broad headings.
Labour Party
New Labour - moving Labour & UK politics to the centre, to be followed there by the conservatives.
New Labour’s “3rd way” - “left-wing” social policies funded by “right-wing” economic policies.
A 3-term, longest serving Labour PM, unlikely to be repeated by his successor.
Spin/Relationship with media. Will it even merit a footnote in history?
“Cash for Honours” - will anything stick, or does the public believe they‘re all at it anyway?
Domestic
Northern Ireland - peaceful resolution of the constitutional position, probably his greatest political achievement. But will it last 10-20 years? When eventually transition to real Govt/Opposition political structures takes place, will the dam hold? Will NI vote for United Ireland within the next 20 years?
Devolution - Scottish Parliament, Welsh & NI Assemblies. Will these be hailed as examples of devolution of power at its best, or cited as the start of the process that led to the break-up of the UK? Alex Salmon for Head of the Commonwealth?
Education reform- will City Academies be remembered for changing the educational prospects of inner city kids or just be a footnote” in the “cash for honours“ chapter?
Reform of Lords - partially complete, will it stall? Will the hereditaries hang on? Will House of Lords reform also be just a footnote in the “cash for honours” chapter?
Economy: a decade of steady growth, growing employment, industrial peace. Will this just be taken for granted, or will all the credit be given to Gordon Browne?
International
Iraq will be engraved on his tombstone - though he’s still probably hoping for a miracle turnaround there which will result in a positive outcome, eventually. Afghanistan may go either way. He’ll hope to be gone before Iran comes to a head.
A big fan of the EU, he promised to place the UK at the heart of Europe. Instead, his alliance with Bush may have created a new barrier there. The paradox is that Sarkozy & Merkel might be much more amenable to stronger US ties, in contrast to Chirac and Schroder. Despite his initial desire for sterling to join the Eurozone, it looks further away than ever. And he seems to be ending his premiership doing a Mgt Thatcher at his final EU summit.
3rd World - his Commission for Africa, established in 2004, work in the G8, relief of 3rd world debt, WTO Doha round etc - what long-term impact will these have?
Ditto the Environment and initiatives such as the Kyoto Agreement and successor agreements e.g. G8 summit at Heiligendamm in 2007.
There are many other potential topic areas e.g.
National Security post 9/11, London bombings July 7th 2005
Law & Order/Society - ID cards, ASBOs, CCTV, extended detention
NHS reform
Immigration issues/policy
Balkans
Middle East
Zimbabwe, Darfur
Etc etc etc
In the immediate aftermath, it’s easy to point to Northern Ireland and Iraq as the high and low points respectively, but will there be any other achievement/failure which merits comment in the longer term?
These are just some ramblings on the Blair Legacy - more questions than answers, undera number of broad headings.
Labour Party
New Labour - moving Labour & UK politics to the centre, to be followed there by the conservatives.
New Labour’s “3rd way” - “left-wing” social policies funded by “right-wing” economic policies.
A 3-term, longest serving Labour PM, unlikely to be repeated by his successor.
Spin/Relationship with media. Will it even merit a footnote in history?
“Cash for Honours” - will anything stick, or does the public believe they‘re all at it anyway?
Domestic
Northern Ireland - peaceful resolution of the constitutional position, probably his greatest political achievement. But will it last 10-20 years? When eventually transition to real Govt/Opposition political structures takes place, will the dam hold? Will NI vote for United Ireland within the next 20 years?
Devolution - Scottish Parliament, Welsh & NI Assemblies. Will these be hailed as examples of devolution of power at its best, or cited as the start of the process that led to the break-up of the UK? Alex Salmon for Head of the Commonwealth?
Education reform- will City Academies be remembered for changing the educational prospects of inner city kids or just be a footnote” in the “cash for honours“ chapter?
Reform of Lords - partially complete, will it stall? Will the hereditaries hang on? Will House of Lords reform also be just a footnote in the “cash for honours” chapter?
Economy: a decade of steady growth, growing employment, industrial peace. Will this just be taken for granted, or will all the credit be given to Gordon Browne?
International
Iraq will be engraved on his tombstone - though he’s still probably hoping for a miracle turnaround there which will result in a positive outcome, eventually. Afghanistan may go either way. He’ll hope to be gone before Iran comes to a head.
A big fan of the EU, he promised to place the UK at the heart of Europe. Instead, his alliance with Bush may have created a new barrier there. The paradox is that Sarkozy & Merkel might be much more amenable to stronger US ties, in contrast to Chirac and Schroder. Despite his initial desire for sterling to join the Eurozone, it looks further away than ever. And he seems to be ending his premiership doing a Mgt Thatcher at his final EU summit.
3rd World - his Commission for Africa, established in 2004, work in the G8, relief of 3rd world debt, WTO Doha round etc - what long-term impact will these have?
Ditto the Environment and initiatives such as the Kyoto Agreement and successor agreements e.g. G8 summit at Heiligendamm in 2007.
There are many other potential topic areas e.g.
National Security post 9/11, London bombings July 7th 2005
Law & Order/Society - ID cards, ASBOs, CCTV, extended detention
NHS reform
Immigration issues/policy
Balkans
Middle East
Zimbabwe, Darfur
Etc etc etc
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Government saving buyers from sellers!
The Government has published proposed legislation to eliminate all stamp duty liability for first-time buyers, to apply to all contracts signed on or since 31st march 2007.
There will be no change in the stamp duty regime for all other house buyers, who will continue to pay punitive rates of duty e.g. 9% on house/apartment purchases of over €635,000.
Thus Stamp Duty will continue to act as a disincentive to people who wish to trade-up or trade down e.g. it currently adds €58.5k to the buyer’s costs for a house/apartment purchased at €650k.
The Government offers the following explanation for not modifying the stamp duty costs to non-first-time buyers:
They argue that the reduction in stamp duty would simply be added to the asking price by the vendor, thus increasing house price inflation and removing any benefit to the buyer arising from the reduction in stamp duty.
In other words, to prevent the risk arising that the vendor might screw the seller for the amount of the stamp duty, the Government itself will guarantee that the buyer continues to be screwed for the amount of the stamp duty. That’s some deal!
The reality is that the Government raises billions of euros each year through this punitive tax. They'd have to work harder if they gave some of it up.
There will be no change in the stamp duty regime for all other house buyers, who will continue to pay punitive rates of duty e.g. 9% on house/apartment purchases of over €635,000.
Thus Stamp Duty will continue to act as a disincentive to people who wish to trade-up or trade down e.g. it currently adds €58.5k to the buyer’s costs for a house/apartment purchased at €650k.
The Government offers the following explanation for not modifying the stamp duty costs to non-first-time buyers:
They argue that the reduction in stamp duty would simply be added to the asking price by the vendor, thus increasing house price inflation and removing any benefit to the buyer arising from the reduction in stamp duty.
In other words, to prevent the risk arising that the vendor might screw the seller for the amount of the stamp duty, the Government itself will guarantee that the buyer continues to be screwed for the amount of the stamp duty. That’s some deal!
The reality is that the Government raises billions of euros each year through this punitive tax. They'd have to work harder if they gave some of it up.
Monday, June 18, 2007
Bertie's Missing Money
From The Irish Times today:
"Meanwhile, Mr Ahern's spokesman said yesterday the Taoiseach has instructed his legal team to pursue the €60,000 costs and damages arising from his circuit court libel action against Denis "Starry" O'Brien. The six-year period in which Mr Ahern can claim the damages and costs he won is up on July 11th."
Mr Ahern was awarded £30,000 + costs in the Dublin Circuit Court in July 2001. The money has not been paid to date and the debt becomes statute barred after 6 years.
The spokesman’s statement suggests that Mr Ahern’s instruction to pursue the debt is a recent one. Presumably Mr Ahern’s legal team have long since been paid their appropriate fees, so he’s been out of pocket in a real sense for several years now.
What is it with uncollected monies and Bertie Ahern? Is he just forgetful, or too polite, or both?
Despite revelations regarding monies given to prominent FF members, e.g. Ray Burke, Charlie Haughey, Pee Flynn, which the donors claim were intended as donations to the Fianna Fail party, ending up in their private bank accounts, there appears to have been little or no effort to recover these monies on behalf of the party.
Presumably the original purpose of £5,000 NCB donation, included in the recently revealed “dig-out” to Mr Ahern in the early 1990's, will be clarified in due course by the Mahon Tribunal.
"Meanwhile, Mr Ahern's spokesman said yesterday the Taoiseach has instructed his legal team to pursue the €60,000 costs and damages arising from his circuit court libel action against Denis "Starry" O'Brien. The six-year period in which Mr Ahern can claim the damages and costs he won is up on July 11th."
Mr Ahern was awarded £30,000 + costs in the Dublin Circuit Court in July 2001. The money has not been paid to date and the debt becomes statute barred after 6 years.
The spokesman’s statement suggests that Mr Ahern’s instruction to pursue the debt is a recent one. Presumably Mr Ahern’s legal team have long since been paid their appropriate fees, so he’s been out of pocket in a real sense for several years now.
What is it with uncollected monies and Bertie Ahern? Is he just forgetful, or too polite, or both?
Despite revelations regarding monies given to prominent FF members, e.g. Ray Burke, Charlie Haughey, Pee Flynn, which the donors claim were intended as donations to the Fianna Fail party, ending up in their private bank accounts, there appears to have been little or no effort to recover these monies on behalf of the party.
Presumably the original purpose of £5,000 NCB donation, included in the recently revealed “dig-out” to Mr Ahern in the early 1990's, will be clarified in due course by the Mahon Tribunal.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Political Banners
Published in Today's IT - the writer is the architect I used almost 20 years ago to remodel the house. He's also a rabid Shinner (note the "a chara" etc). I'm sure he's delighted to score a "hit" on me.
A chara, - Peter Molloy (June 9th) is dismissive of Richard Boyd Barrett's impressive electoral result in Dun Laoghaire, insinuating that Mr Boyd Barrett deceived the "middle classes" by standing for a People Before Profit Alliance rather than the Socialist Workers Party.
I suggest that Mr Boyd Barrett was no more deceptive than those candidates who stood as members of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael rather than a "Profit before People Alliance". - Is mise,
So I've banged off the following response, but I don't expect they'll publish.
Madam - E F Fanning (letters June 16th) justifies the action of the Socialist Workers Party in hiding behind the “People before Profit” banner during the recent general election by claiming that Fianna Fail and Fine Gael might have campaigned under a “Profit before People” banner.
In that scenario, the Sinn Fein banner would be “Pragmatism before Policy”, having ditched all their inconvenient tax policies in the weeks before the election. However, the winner would still be the Greens whose banner would proclaim “Pragmatism & Power before Policy & Principle“. Yours etc
A chara, - Peter Molloy (June 9th) is dismissive of Richard Boyd Barrett's impressive electoral result in Dun Laoghaire, insinuating that Mr Boyd Barrett deceived the "middle classes" by standing for a People Before Profit Alliance rather than the Socialist Workers Party.
I suggest that Mr Boyd Barrett was no more deceptive than those candidates who stood as members of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael rather than a "Profit before People Alliance". - Is mise,
So I've banged off the following response, but I don't expect they'll publish.
Madam - E F Fanning (letters June 16th) justifies the action of the Socialist Workers Party in hiding behind the “People before Profit” banner during the recent general election by claiming that Fianna Fail and Fine Gael might have campaigned under a “Profit before People” banner.
In that scenario, the Sinn Fein banner would be “Pragmatism before Policy”, having ditched all their inconvenient tax policies in the weeks before the election. However, the winner would still be the Greens whose banner would proclaim “Pragmatism & Power before Policy & Principle“. Yours etc
Friday, June 15, 2007
An Taoiseach mis-speaks, again.
Taoiseach Bertie Ahern has a bit of a reputation for mangling the English language. Could he have done it again?
On RTE’s 6.1 News on Thursday 14th June, Bryan Dobson interviewed An Taoiseach, in advance of the announcement of his new cabinet.
Towards the end of the interview Dobson asks what the Government’s priorities will be for the next 5 years. Bertie Ahern speaks about the economy and finishes on the need to help the less well off in society.
His final sentence in the interview ends with the words “and we’ll continue to make great strides to deal with the issue of social exclusiveness”.
Could he possibly have meant “social exclusion”?
The 4min 20sec clip is available on www.rte.ie/news/2007/0614/6news_av.html?22588991,null,
On RTE’s 6.1 News on Thursday 14th June, Bryan Dobson interviewed An Taoiseach, in advance of the announcement of his new cabinet.
Towards the end of the interview Dobson asks what the Government’s priorities will be for the next 5 years. Bertie Ahern speaks about the economy and finishes on the need to help the less well off in society.
His final sentence in the interview ends with the words “and we’ll continue to make great strides to deal with the issue of social exclusiveness”.
Could he possibly have meant “social exclusion”?
The 4min 20sec clip is available on www.rte.ie/news/2007/0614/6news_av.html?22588991,null,
Outgoing FF Minister claims authorship of Environment Policy
On RTE's "Today" programme this morning (with Tom McGurk), Dick Roche said that he was proud that only THREE lines of the Environment section of the Programme for Govt had not been written by him! If true, you'd have to wonder what exactly took 10 days to negotiate???
The most interesting thing about the Green Party position is the 180 degree political turn they’ve managed to perform in the past week.
For 10 days of negotiations, the country was repeatedly assured that getting Green policy in a programme for government was the complete focus and priority. Nothing as tawdry as cabinet seats was even considered.
Once the deal was signed and the paucity of the policy concessions to the Greens was revealed, we were told that having Green Ministers at cabinet to influence Govt was the only thing that actually mattered. The negotiated programme for Govt is almost dismissed by Green TDs as being relatively unimportant.
Correction: I've listened again to the interview and Roche's claim regarding authorship of all but 3 lines related to the Local Government Reform section of the Programme for Government. His claim with regard to ownership of the Environment policy in the Programme for Govt was a more modest 85%.
I'll excuse myself this error on the basis that it was significantly less misleading than FF's 97% v. 3% tax benefit pre-election ads, which were a straightforward, bare-faced and deliberate lie.
The most interesting thing about the Green Party position is the 180 degree political turn they’ve managed to perform in the past week.
For 10 days of negotiations, the country was repeatedly assured that getting Green policy in a programme for government was the complete focus and priority. Nothing as tawdry as cabinet seats was even considered.
Once the deal was signed and the paucity of the policy concessions to the Greens was revealed, we were told that having Green Ministers at cabinet to influence Govt was the only thing that actually mattered. The negotiated programme for Govt is almost dismissed by Green TDs as being relatively unimportant.
Correction: I've listened again to the interview and Roche's claim regarding authorship of all but 3 lines related to the Local Government Reform section of the Programme for Government. His claim with regard to ownership of the Environment policy in the Programme for Govt was a more modest 85%.
I'll excuse myself this error on the basis that it was significantly less misleading than FF's 97% v. 3% tax benefit pre-election ads, which were a straightforward, bare-faced and deliberate lie.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)