03-Feb-12
An anonymous source suggests Slugger look more closely at the position of Jim Nicholson who despite the parting of the ways between the Conservatives and the UUP is still apparently taking the Tory whip in Brussels and Strasbourg [Are they still here? - Ed].
However, at home he has, from yesterday at least undergone a conversation from a Conservative and Unionist to a UUP MEP on his press statements. So Tom, Jim, are you guys still taking the Tory whip after all that's been said in recent weeks/months?
The Irish Times reports from France, where the inheritors of L Ron Hubbard's greedy and manipulative anti-science cult of scientology have lost their appeal against a 2009 ruling that "two French branches of the US-based organisation were guilty of "organised fraud" and gave four of its leaders suspended jail sentences of up to two years." A Huffington Post report notes
During the appeals process, the prosecution had asked for the church to be fined at least euro1 million ($1.3 million) and its bookstore euro500,000. But the appeals court on Thursday instead ordered the same fines as the trial court, euro400,000 ($530,000) for the church and euro200,000 for its bookstore.
Five members of the church who were convicted in the first trial were ordered to pay fines ranging from euro10,000 to euro30,000. Four of them were also given suspended sentences between 18 months and two years.
In the original trial, prosecutors had tried to get the group disbanded in France, but the court declined even to take the lesser step of shutting down its operations, saying that French Scientologists would have continued their activities anyway.
[Other supernaturalists take note! - Ed] Well, it's been a tax-empt religion in the US since 1993... Blame the IRS...
As the Huffington Post report adds
Karin Pouw, a spokeswoman for the church in Los Angeles, denounced Thursday's decision, calling it a "miscarriage of justice."
She said the group would appeal the decision to the Court of Cassation and plans to bring a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights. Another complaint is pending with a U.N. special rapporteur.
If you haven't seen it before, I highly recommend this 1967 World in Action documentary with access to the inner sanctum of the cult that simply would not be allowed today... Video via XenuTV.
Before the landmark Crotty vs the Taoiseach judgement in 1987, the Irish Constitution had amassed nine amendments in the previous fifty years of its existence. In the twenty five years since it has scored another seventeen. Some of those were responses to the massive social changes the country has undergone in those years.
Three originate from reversals of previously negative decisions over the very sorts of treaties Anthony Crotty originally hoped to stymie, and fourth though approved is still waiting to be acted upon. Every other European treaty has failed to fall at the hurdle. In other words, with regard to Foreign Policy in this reference to the people, the government always win.
I recently heard of a study of a number of otherwise similar Swiss cantons, which found a rate of happiness marginally higher in those where the relied more heavily on plebiscites than those which didn't. It doesn't mean that referenda make for a happier demos, but perhaps people are happier where their sense of wider agency is tangible than where they are largely ignored.
The question is what sort of agency do referenda offer? Paul Evans has previously warned of the dangers of simplification posed by the Referendum mechanism. It does make some sense at the constitutional level, as in the Scottish situation where there is anything up to three years to frame the problem and the more thoroughly explore what the options mean on a human scale:
Paul notes quite a long list of problems:
- Time and time again, the public don't answer the question they've been asked. They use one question to send an unrelated message to an unpopular government.
- Referendums privilege the weight of opinion (in numbers) over the weight of arguments.
- By making policy questions explicit, as Cass Sunstein illustrates at length, youpolarise the arguments instead of promoting a rich debate and useful complex legislative responses.
- People who don't have the capacity to engage in the debate on a given issue are effectively disenfranchised - especially when the referendum makes decisions that could be taken by elected representatives who would deliberate on everyone's behalf and defend their decisions at subsequent elections. The low-paid, people who work long hours, people with enough problems of their own, people who don't have the confidence to express their views or the opportunity to discuss them become unrepresented
- In referendums, power is exercised without responsibility. No-one is under any pressure to obey The General Will or to ensure that a policy is actually in the long-term public interest.
That last is one of the bugbears of many in the constitutional reform lobby, though avoiding the calling referenda is by no means a guarantee that long term policies are intelligently set. A few years back Gavin Barrett wrote on the ongoing controversy that this habit of calling referenda on any piece of European legislation has become a habit than acting in accordance with precedent:
The responsibility for Ireland's unique record in holding referendums on European issues is usually attributed to the 1987 Supreme Court decision in Crotty v. An Taoiseach. The majority ruling in Crotty gave an extraordinarily broad (and, it must be said, extraordinarily unconvincing) interpretation of the description in Article 5 of the Constitution of Ireland as a 'sovereign' state. Although there is far more to Crotty than this, it was on the basis of this interpretation that the Court held ratification of the rather innocuous foreign policy provisions of the 1986 Single European Act unconstitutional, effectively forcing the then Government to hold a referendum before it could ratify it.
Crotty started a trend. Since Crotty, wary Irish Governments have unvaryingly made every major EU Treaty the subject of a constitutional amendment (and referendum), thus fireproofing each successive Treaty's ratification and incorporation against any constitutional challenge. However, notwithstanding the almost monotonous regularity with which Irish referendums on European Treaties have subsequently been held (with no less than six in the last 21 years), the supposed legal requirement to have a referendum post-Crotty is much less cut and dried than is sometimes thought. It is far from clear that the application of Crotty would invalidate the ratification even of the entirety of the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum. Current suggestions to ratify only part of the Lisbon Treaty without a referendum would be even less likely to fall foul of Constitutional censure. It is even unclear whether the present Supreme Court would even follow all of its own reasoning in Crotty (at least insofar as its finding concerning sovereignty is concerned).
Sovereignty is probably the most undercooked dish in the Irish polity. If there is a problem with this recent convention of submitting anything remotely sombre relating to the Irish state's relationship to the European to the will the of the people is fine. But what use is it if every time they are asked again they just change their mind?
In research, if you get confused and messy answers, the first place you look is to the question you asked. The major questions these techno referendums are nearly always obscured by reference to the inscrutable international treaty, very few people in the country actually understand. A battle of the white coated experts ensues.
So that every time someone shouts: "Ref-er-end-um!" the cynicism deepens. Something has to give.
Northern Ireland's DDP, Barra McGrory has made an interesting intervention. Gerry Moriarty in the Irish Times:
"I think there is an imperative in the public interest that society finds a mechanism to deal with the past," he said.
"Whether that be simply giving more resources to the investigators to get on with the investigating, and then consequentially the prosecution service to prosecute cases if the evidence emerges, or whether or not society is ready for a solution to the past outside of the prosecutorial system, is a matter that I think this society needs to confront," he said.
"In my view, the sooner it confronts it the better - but confront it, it needs to. I think at the moment there perhaps isn't a will to confront it in political circles because of the enormity of the decisions that have to be taken . . . But that is not for me, that is for politicians and for society."
The shadow of the past falls too readily on many individual life's even as our politicians are rightly focus on increasing the beneficial shadow of the future...
Apparently, according to economist Jim Power in today's Irish Examiner, in a very odd place indeed:
It is intended that 12 out of the 17 eurozone member states would be sufficient to ratify the treaty. It appears this will be achieved easily enough. Consequently, unlike the case with the Lisbon Treaty, if Ireland were to reject it in a referendum, that would not be sufficient to prevent it from becoming enshrined in EU law. The big question then is where that would leave Ireland?
Presumably we could remain part of the euro area but would not have access to funding mechanisms and the like. Longer term, we couldn't remain part of the euro if we do not sign up to the rules governing it.
Unlike in previous referenda, the European political system would not lose too much sleep if Ireland were to hold a referendum on this issue and reject it. Ireland would be placed in a type of limbo situation.
Those who are pressing for a referendum, even it is not legally required, should ask themselves what they would do if such a referendum were to be rejected.
It would ultimately place a serious question mark over Ireland's continued participation in the single currency. If that is the choice of the people, fine, but they should be made aware of the possible consequences.
Quite so. His point is bolstered somewhat by another of today's op eds, this time in the Irish Times by lawyer Gavin Barrett (of whom more later):
The treaty's core consists of debt and deficit rules. However, its preamble provides that the treaty is not to be interpreted in any way as altering the economic policy conditions under which financial assistance is granted to a state (like Ireland) in a stabilisation programme.
Thus the treaty's deficit and debt requirements simply don't apply here for the duration of the present bailout (or any second one). Moreover the exemption under existing EU law from the application of debt-reduction provisions for three years after any such programme ends will evidently also continue.
Only after this transitional period will the fiscal treaty's debt-reduction requirements apply: article four requires an annual reduction of one-20th of the excess of national debt-to-GDP ratios exceeding 60 per cent. However, precisely the same obligation already applies under EU "six-pack" regulations - adopted by EU leaders with little protest last November. The treaty's debt rules thus involve nothing new.
He continues:
We have just seen that after Ireland's stabilisation programme exit, existing EU "six-pack" debt rules will require an annual reduction of one-20th of the excess in Ireland's debt-to-GDP ratio. In other words, Ireland will be required to run structural surpluses rather than deficits for many years. The treaty's ban on structural deficits of over 0.5 per cent will thus involve no extra burden, because under existing law, we will not legally be entitled to run deficits anyway.[Emphasis added]
It's been taken as read by some parts of the Dublin establishment that there must be a referendum, and that the AG has no choice in the matter. Ireland has never had monetary sovereignty in any real degree. The crunch point is whether this treaty actually interferes with fiscal sovereignty (an important matter for countries much larger than Ireland).
Barrett believes that the nature of the preamble puts an important break on any sanctions that might be applied, is the deal maker on this matter, which he claims:
...provides that the treaty is not to be interpreted in any way as altering the economic policy conditions under which financial assistance is granted to a state (like Ireland) in a stabilisation programme.
So it's another promise to be good, not an enforceable treaty. Whether or not that applies the necessary oil to get Irish wheels under it, the country, short of seceding from the Euro, is going to be stuck with the conditions it sets and if not willingly opted-in, may, as Power notes, eventually find the heat is too much to bear.
Which I suspect is part of Frau Bundeskanzlerin's cunning plan to weed out the fit from the unfit and sustain the Euro as a credible currency on the world markets.
Interesting snippet from across the water regarding the £9k fees students from Northern Ireland now have to pay if they want to follow what's become for many a traditional route to graduation at Glasgow, Edinburgh, or St Andrews. Dundee even runs a fairly successful degree course in Northern Irish law.
The Rutherglen Reformer reports a spat in the House of Lords:
Peers from all sides angrily hit out at the "unfairness" of allowing Scottish students to study for free at universities north of the border, while those from the rest of the UK had to pay up to £9,000 a year.
Advocate General for Scotland Lord Wallace of Tankerness agreed to take up the issue with his ministerial colleagues, but he also warned that to challenge the Scottish Parliament's policy risks undermining the principles of devolution.
Cross-party unrest over the imposition of tuition fees north of the border emerged during committee stage debate on the Scotland Bill, which hands further powers to the Scottish Parliament.
Leonard Peltier is a Native American serving his thirty-sixth year in prison. The events that led to arrest and the falsification of evidence used to convict him have long been highlighted by award-winning films like Michael Apted's 'Incident at Oglala' and best-selling books such as Peter Matthiessen's 'In the Spirit of Crazy Horse'.
The Courts may not be able to act but Barack Obama, as President, can.
Please join with us to free an innocent man. On February 4, 2012, tell Obama to grant clemency to Leonard Peltier. Leonard is an example of how a person can be imprisoned but not broken. His struggle is compared to Nelson Mandela's and his message is also one of hope. His prison writings are full of love and belief that his people are stronger than the miserable conditions they experience on the reservation or the poverty many of them find in cities. Despite his ailing health and diminishing eyesight, Leonard is still an inspirational leader to Native Americans generally and his own Lakota people particularly.
Leonard Peltier web site.
In the past few months he's announced reductions in school budgets, given a partial reprieve after finding extra money for his department, and most recently announced a shake up of SEN/statementing. I asked whether this was all not a lot for school principals to have to deal with? As well as explaining the sequencing, John O'Dowd expressed his hope that further money would be secured for education "in the latter years of this Executive".
Asking @JohnODowdSF about education & unblocking the transfer debate (mp3)
The transfer conundrum hasn't gone away. Stalemate is the default position. So what could happen that would free the logjam? In his answer, John O'Dowd suggested that the debate was slowly changing.
... the voice of the non-selective sector is beginning to be heard ... schools that do not practice academic selection are providing first rate education and they want to be recognised and identified and acknowledged for that, and they're out there making their point heard ... we await the report of the Catholic Commission in terms of the future shape of post-primary education in the Catholic sector.
He said "the debate continues, it's continuing in a better atmosphere".
So is it time for all-party talks on education? During the previous Assembly, all parties except Sinn Fein met to talk about education. John O'Dowd characterised those meetings as being about "how you keep academic selection" rather than "putting all the issues on the table".
I'm not sure political talks at this stage would be beneficial ... I think there has to be a wider community debate, a wider debate about all the issues around education ... let that take place, and then allow the politicians to catch up.
The panel consisted of Alliance MLA Chris Lyttle, DUP MLA Sammy Douglas, Sinn Fein Education Minister John O'Dowd, UUP MLA Michael Copeland, PUP councillor John Kyle. (For the third year in a row, Owen Paterson didn't turn up at the event. For the first time, the reason may have been that he wasn't invited.)
Women were under-represented on the panel - though Chris Lyttle was a late substitute for Judith Cochrane who was originally meant to be representing Alliance. However, the audience was very mixed, and my recollection is that a shade more than half the questions came from women in the packed school assembly hall.
Avoiding the pitfall of allowing each panellist to comment on each question, panel were steered through an enormous number of questions.
What's been done to help young males in East Belfast? Educational underachievement in (Protestant) males. Educational maintenance allowance. Why is doing 4 or 5 exams in a strange school better than sitting 2 in a familiar place? Supergrass trials. Increasing number of unemployed graduates. Bill of rights. Cutting school budgets and the SEN review. Integrated education rather than sectarianism. NI Housing Executive complaints. Belfast City Airport. Supergrass trials again, brought up this time by a representative from FAST. Difficulty a family faced getting suitable rented accommodation when their child was ill and had to use a wheelchair. Corporation tax. Young people leaving NI to study elsewhere. Mental health issues.
You can listen to the audio of the ninety minute community hustings in four parts. [There is a dip in sound at one point during the question from FAST to avoid contempt of court.]
Jenny Muir has an excellent summary of the evening's event on her blog - East Belfast Diary.
Kudos to James Smyth and his team for pulling together the event and handing over control to those who attended.
East Belfast Speaks Out (part 1) (mp3)
East Belfast Speaks Out (part 2) (mp3)
This weekend sees the start of the most unpredictable Six Nations for a while. (There's still time to make your predictions here).
Are those Polish freezers still working for Wales? (BBC)
Keith Earls has some pretty big boots to fill....(Belfast Telegraph)
If you were Mr Lancaster would you like to start things anew at a freezing hostile Murrayfield.....?
From the Record Andy Robinson is pressing the right buttons. Of England's World Cup:
What surprises me about England is they fell into a downward spiral while winning. It wasn't results that undermined them but the other stuff. They self-destructed.
Italy? – Joe.ie previews here. Targeting the Scots probably...
France, as always, find new stars...meet Wesley Fofana (You Tube)....hmmm!
It's a defining first weekend - from the Herald:
France meet Italy seeking revenge for the biggest shock in tournament history; Scotland take on England in the oldest international fixture in the world; and Ireland welcome Wales for a rematch of the best match at last year's World Cup.
Just a routine start to the RBS 6 Nations Championship, then.
This could be fun.
02-Feb-12
In a work capacity, I was invited to attend the Spirit of Enniskillen's annual Together schools conference at the Wellington Park Hotel, which brought together over 100 Year 13 pupils from 20 schools across Northern Ireland, to explore and discuss 6th Form leadership for the Sharing in Education programme that is supported by the International Fund for Ireland.
I arrived for the afternoon workshops, and we were introduced to a video highlighting the overall work of the Spirit of Enniskillen, who were the winners of the Guardian Charity Awards 2011.
The first workshop was among practitioners. In our group, former SoE Director, Chuck Richardson, expressed his fear that the Northern Ireland Executive may support shared education programmes for economic reasons (i.e. the inevitable need to reduce stock of school buildings), but not include programmes that will prepare pupils for the mixed contact that will bring. Robin Wilson added that this risks what has developed in parts of Scotland, where pupils end up segregating themselves within the shared space.
The second workshop was with a group of about a dozen Together participants; I was the only non-participant. They asked themselves a series of questions about leadership among young people, how it could be developed. Some of them didn't see themselves as leaders, yet, but I said that I thought they were being a little hard on themselves — the fact that each of them care enough to want to change something they don't see as right in their community and that they've put themselves through this course was evidence that they were already leaders.
But it became apparent to me that these young leaders aren't necessarily getting enough mentoring support. They all had praise for the facilitation during the course, and acknowledged those in their school environments, but felt they weren't yet given due respect in the wider community. Indeed, one participant remarked that she came up against a gatekeeping scenario, where the young leaders weren't given true ownership of a particular external programme.
My concern is that without leadership developed beynod these programmes, through mentoring, each tranche of SoE participants become pioneers but ultimately frustrated. An important factor for some consideration.
It was great to hear feedback from the participants themselves, in an informal plenary session:
http://mrulster.podomatic.com/player/web/2012-02-02T09_31_13-08_00
Some points made were:
- Together programme is useful because it brings people together to do things together, which otherwise isn't going to happen
- Talking about contentious issues doesn't change your identity, but it does improve understanding of another's perspective
- It builds confidence in speaking with those that you do not know
- Participants serve as advocates for this work in their own schools
- The importance of mixing with others at a younger age, "because we all live in the same place"
- Discussions with others can be hard at first, but easier as you get to know them
- The positive role that facilitators play
Department of Education Minister, Liam O'Dowd MLA, was a guest speaker and he made positive remarks:
http://mrulster.podomatic.com/player/web/2012-02-02T09_32_56-08_00
The Minister said that building a new society requires leadership, and that the Good Friday Agreement was created to serve as a device to build a new society, with leadership at all levels. He said more than once not to let the politicians get away with all the leadership roles.
And that leadership can be lonely, and when they feel this way, to remember why they joined this SoE programme, why they set out on this journey — to make change.
Ms Mary Southwell, International Fund for Ireland board member, also made some brief remarks, describing all the programme's participants as role models for society: "There is no doubt that our future is in really good hands."
It was up to Maeve Grimley (SoE School Support Worker and acting emcee, and as the Minister would have her, a future journalist!) to conclude the conference. She said that she hoped the participants enjoyed the programme's opportunities to meet others and discuss important issues. And fittingly, she evoked the memory of SoE founder, Gordon Wilson, whom she described as someone who wanted to enable ordinary people to do extradorinary things with good leadership.
Last seen somewhere off the Irish coast, US company Odyssey Marine Exploration have announced that they have "executed an agreement with the Maritime Heritage Foundation for the financing, archaeological survey and excavation, conservation and exhibit of HMS Victory (1744) and artifacts from the shipwreck site."
That's Admiral Balchin's HMS Victory - a 100-gun first-rate ship of the line lost in 1744 in the English Channel.
It confirms an earlier report in the Sunday Times. There may be four tonnes of gold and silver coins in the vicinity of the wreck...
Odyssey Marine found the wreck site back in 2008 and, in cooperation with the UK Ministry of Defence, recovered a 42 pounder and 12 pounder bronze cannon – after a little legal flurry Odyssey and the UK Government came to an arrangement.
Although there has been no sign, so far, of the Victory ‘bonanza', the agreement covers the potential recovery of "any private property including coins". From the Odyssey Marine press release
The agreement calls for Odyssey's project costs to be reimbursed and for Odyssey to be paid a percentage of the recovered artifacts' fair value. The preferred option is for Odyssey to be compensated in cash. However, if the Foundation determines, based on the principles adopted for its own collection management and curation policy, that it is in its best interest to de-accession certain artifacts, the Foundation may choose to compensate Odyssey with artifacts in lieu of cash.
- Odyssey will receive the equivalent of 80% of the fair value of artifacts which were primarily used in trade or commerce or were private property and bear no direct connection to the construction, navigation, defense or crew of the ship, such as coins or other cargo.
- Odyssey will receive the equivalent of 50% of the fair value of all other objects typically associated with the construction, crewing and sailing of ships including, but not limited to, the ship's hull, fittings, fasteners, construction elements, clothing, organic remains, foodstuffs, cooking utensils, pottery, weapons, ammunition, ground tackle and navigational equipment.
- For any private property including coins or other cargo administered through the Receiver of Wreck, the Foundation has agreed that Odyssey shall receive 80% of the value.
Meanwhile, the Guardian reports an update on the long-running saga of the treasure of the ‘Black Swan', aka the Nuestra Senora de las Mercedes, a Spanish vessel that perished in 1804. I mentioned it in detail in this post from September last year.
From the Guardian report
It is one of the greatest underwater treasure troves of all time, a glittering haul of gold and silver recovered from a mysterious sunken Spanish galleon and secretly flown across the Atlantic to the US.
But now an epic battle over ownership of 594,000 gold and silver coins scattered on the ocean floor has ended with victory for the Spanish government, with the American treasure-hunter Odyssey Marine Exploration ordered to send the valuable haul back home.
A jubilant Spanish government announced on Wednesday that the $500m-worth (£308m) of gold and silver coins found at a site that Odyssey called "Black Swan" would be back on Spanish soil within 10 days.
"This sentence gives Spaniards back what was already theirs," said the culture minister, José Ignacio Wert. "There is a space of 10 days in which the coins must be returned."
The court decision puts an end to nearly five years of intrigue on the high seas since Odyssey scooped the precious haul from the Atlantic seabed in May 2007. To the fury of Spanish authorities it secretly landed the trove in Gibraltar and flew it out in chartered aircraft to its base in Florida.
Odyssey Marine haven't noted that ruling on their website yet. But a spokeswoman for the company is quoted in the Guardian report
A spokeswoman for Odyssey, Laura Barton, indicated an appeal might be forthcoming. "Currently, there is no final order from the court to give the Black Swan coins to Spain," she told the Guardian without giving further details.
"It is certainly reasonable to assume that should the cargo recovered by Odyssey be transferred to Spain, it will never be returned," the exploration company had argued before the appeals court.
It should be recognised as a plan with cross-party and cross-institution agreement. All the parties represented in the City Hall have put their name to the plans. It's a coordinated effort with OFMDFM, DSD, DFP (small business rate relief) and other departments. And yet, it's not a plan full of mirrored investments: notably, there's no Falls Road plaza to match the Shankhill Road piazza. While it's been dubbed Belfast's "Marshall Plan", it should be noted that the US version started in 1948. The Belfast plan has taken a lot longer to agree since the "end of the war". You can see the result of the cross-party negotiations in the small pockets of money set aside for a myriad of minor activities, £300k here, £700k there.
Not all the money is new. And not all the money is guaranteed and in place. It's a basket of new and existing initiatives, plans, and funding requests. While no one would want investment to be delayed until the Review of Public Administration concludes and council boundaries are changed, it should be noted that these plans are all within the existing BCC wards, and will need to be reviewed post-RPA.
£75m capital investment in council facilities. New "third generation hybrid pitches" and "state-of-the-art changing facilities" are promised along with playgrounds and refurbishment of local facilities. [Ed - a zero-value prize for the first person to explain what can be state of the art about a changing room?] And another £75m capital (partnership and European money) split across large and small city regeneration projects, as well as economic infrastructure and sectoral development.
A £20m extension to the Waterfront Hall will provide exhibition and conference space. (They could build a glass walkway/bridge across to the nearly-complete building opposite the Waterfront for a lot less than £20m!) Improving the Waterfront's conferencing offer is at the expense of other smaller commercial venues. Will the council invest public money to help a public facility become more popular at the expense of competing commercial facilities, or will bringing bigger conferences to Belfast boost the smaller venues too?
£300k bursary fund to help 16-24 year olds move into further education, training and employment.
Belfast City Council employs over 2,500 people. The draft investment programme will target the creation of 400 work placements, internships and apprenticeship opportunities within Belfast City Council (focussed on graduates, young long-term unemployed and disabled people).
Belfast City Council spends £170m locally. There's a commitment in the draft programme to buy local - targeting a rise from10% to 60% of local council spend with local suppliers by 2015. (No indication of what qualifies as 'local'). Suppliers will also be delighted to hear that the council are committing to pay 90% of their creditors within 28 days to improve business cash flow, something they should have been doing before now.
On top of any capital investment, there's £34m to grow tourism/major events, arts and culture, and targeted sectoral business growth. Working with Invest NI, 400 "local companies" will be helped "explore export opportunities for the first time or grow into new markets", and 60 community organisation will "explore the potential of becoming social economy enterprises".
Belfast Enterprise Academy (and competitions) will introduce 150 undergraduate students to the practicalities of managing a business, with a target of creating 80 new business start-ups. A positive move, but a drop in the ocean.
£29m overall investment for people, communities and neighbourhood. Includes £2.4m for advice/support centres. Playgrounds (ten in total) and community gardens get £2m along with £4m to tart up Dunville and Woodvale Parks (with matched funding from DSD). £3m for community safety, including £700k for further alleygating.
Councillors voted through a below inflation 2.6% rates increase last night. (Small business rate relief should offset much of this rise for local traders.) This additional money is ringfenced for capital initiatives in the investment programme. The parties have agreed to keep future rates increases at or below the level of inflation. Social and community benefit clauses will be introduces to contracts.
Reading through the brochure, North Belfast seems to be the weakest area. A bid of £8m to develop an green business park on the North Foreshore. Improving the recreation/community facilities on the Loughside. And a £9m EU PEACE III funding proposal for a community hub at Girdwood. A partnership proposal to regenerate St Kevin's Hall and develop a cultural corridor linking the city centre to north Belfast. OFMDFM and DSD want to reopen Crumin Road Gaol as a tourism and business centre. Little of this is committed funding yet.
There are just four paragraphs devoted to "positive relations and shared space" mentioning just £4m of EU PEACE III funding. The creation of an interfaces regeneration strategy that amongst other things will include "sensitively [work] towards reducing barriers" may not deliver much change on the ground.
While there is a commitment to monitoring and review, there is no indication of any provisional payback period or targets for how the city's ratepayers will recoup their investment.
In all, the draft investment programme is underpinned by a strategy to raise and spend additional public money in a bid to boost confidence in Belfast and encourage private investment, inward investment from businesses in GB, Ireland and beyond, and lift tourist income.
Attendees I spoke to at this morning's launch were pretty positive about the Council's plans. They welcomed the forward thinking, and felt that the investment was credible and would benefit the city.
Belfast City Council are consulting on their draft investment programme. Deadline for responses is Friday 27 April 2012.
Leo Tolstoy began his novel Anna Karenina with the memorable assertion that "happy families are all alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." Last night even the Belfast City Council was a fount of brotherly love. In the Bel Tel, Lindy McDowell has been counting the ways in which Northern Ireland's been getting happier:
...cynicism may be missing the public mood. Because for once the public mood seems to be one confident step ahead of the eternal realists.
There aren't many people here, for example, who didn't get that wee jolt of shared pride at the accomplishments of our hat-trick of golfing heroes last year. Ditto the MTV awards. All of that made us look good.
This year we've got the Titanic centenary – finally we're making something of our connection with that legend. And MTV will be back for that too – an endorsement in itself.
Then there's the Irish Open. And now the All-Ireland Fleadh which we are assured will rake in somewhere in the region of £40m for the local economy.
So are we getting less and less like our old unhappy selves with every passing year?
There isn't really an upside to the UUP's problems at the moment. Although they were never what you might even remotely call political friends, Mr McNarry's exit bears a lot of resemblance to the early departure of Trevor Ringland. Already the consequences are closing in.
So early in his career as leader to have lost allies or potential allies from both the right and the left, is a little more than careless. His problem is – not dissimilar to the SDLP – is whilst that his party is more open, gregarious and sociable, they are not really fit for the new political game.
Elliot is leader partly because he is all those things. His constituency association almost along can cheerfully outgun almost any other in the party. HIs instinct, as an innately small ‘c' conservative is to swing to the right. But there is no political space for his party in particular to exploit out there.
And any credentials he might have won on the left (by going to a GAA match for instance) have now been collected in magisterial style by the First Minister. The best analogy I've heard (pre Tom) is that the UUP is like a boxer who genuinely doesn't know which fist to lead with.
Jackie Ramos first video on you tube which helped expose Bank of American as economic terrorists who ruin peoples lives can be watched here.
In recent years, a perception has sprung up suggesting that those forced to claim benefits to survive, regardless of whether they may be living with a disability that prevents them working or are unable to obtain one of the few jobs available nowadays, must be no good lazy 'scroungers'. I recall, whilst a junior doctor, hearing the somewhat unpleasant conversations of a couple of my colleagues who never had much else to discuss at lunch apart from whine about the lazy, 'live off the state' characters they had encountered. Though I worked in the same trust, I cannot say that I ever had the pleasure of meeting any such mythical 'scroungers'.
A book which goes far to smash the narrow-mindedness that seems to be infecting our society, across the board, has recently been published by welfare rights worker and unashamed formed benefits claimant Felix McHugh.
Mr McHugh explains in his book, 'Damned Scroungers', that the public are becoming increasingly negatively predisposed towards those down on their luck as a consequence of the torrents of venom unleashed by daily newspapers such as the Mail, the Express and the tabloid Sun. He reveals that during the 1980s when unemployment was high, those out of work were viewed with genuine sympathy and few then dared level the charge of 'scrounger'.
McHugh begins his book with a series of sensationalist and absurd headlines that have featured in newspapers that are sadly read by millions in Britain. He points out that '…there is more rubbish spoken and printed on the subject of welfare benefits in Britain than on any other subject, with the possible exception of immigration from Eastern Europe and Asia.'
He proceeds, without too much difficulty, to analyse these headline claims of 'lazy' benefit cheats and immigrants getting vast amounts of freebies from a 'generous' state. With the ground work being laid down, McHugh discusses cases of people he has represented at appeals to show the difficulties and delays that mar the process of obtaining benefits; a far cry from the attention grabbing headlines and sound-bites of Tory politicians damning claimants. He gives examples of less than satisfactory fitness for work reports, compiled by assessors from ATOS Healthcare, and cites stories of the unfriendliness of tribunal panel members he has crossed swords with in the past at appeals.
I took special note when the author mentioned a study carried out by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation which found that an individual requires an income of at least £14400 a year to have a 'decent standard of living'. McHugh points out that this equates to £276.92 a week; far more than most individuals on benefits receive. The title of the book is not entirely a parody of prejudice. McHugh does name and shame those who have 'scrounged' vast sums of money from the public purse - enter Messers Fred Goodwin, Phillip Green and friends. He muses on why one rarely sees these 'damned scroungers' being lambasted and hounded in the lesser quality newspapers, though the fraud of these few far exceeds that of the petty cash 'swindled' by the odd individual on benefits.
One of the chapters I found particularly useful was the one called 'A brief overview of UK benefits 2011/12'. Whereas many newspapers cite the number of people claiming various benefits and grumble over the total cost, few explain concisely the various benefits available or the eligibility criteria. McHugh explains this clearly so that readers can have a better grasp of how the benefits system works and a greater awareness of the paltry sums available. As he sensibly points out, who in their right mind, being fit for work and having the opportunity, would seriously choose to sit at home all day with a double digit weekly allowance and the company of Jeremy Kyle.
A fine book that not only shines a much need spotlight on the lives of millions struggling to obtain and survive on their meagre benefits in a climate of public hostility, the welfare support workers who go above and beyond the call of duty to see that justice is obtained for the vulnerable and the unsupported, and a system that seems set to become even less generous in future.
Readers of this book will find themselves properly armed with the right facts and figures to challenge any tabloid reading bigot they may have the misfortune of encountering.
By Tomasz Pierscionek
In today's New Statesman, David Miliband has released a new essay on building Britain a social democratic future. It's disappointing.
Miliband's focus on Labour's electoral strategy neglects a more urgent and, for progressives, a more difficult question: What's the point of the progressive project anymore?
Against the backdrop of mass bankruptcies and near-bankruptiies – and, consequently, the bankruptcy of supply side economic policies – could there be an easier, more ripe time for progressive parties to articulate the dangers of unregulated finance and, more importantly, an agenda for remedying the follies wreaked by the unchecked financial sector? Yet, instead of piercing analysis and a compelling vision, Milliband rifles his only almost-zinger towards the not even low-hanging so much as long since plucked, Mr. Roy Hattersley.
"But in his article, liberty, rights, social justice and equality are listed as a range of desirable values, when the issue is how to resolve clashes between values, not whether you can make a list of them."
A passable criticism - if you're on the high school debate team. Less so if you're attempting to re-imagine and inspire the realignment of middle and working Britain's political passions.
Having set his bar so low, I politely await the underwhelming all-too-easy grand finale he's obviously teed-up. Instead, New New Labour serves up this:
"...we are enjoined ... to put power as well as wealth and opportunity in the hands of the many, not the few."
Got that? And that abstract nothing-speak was one of his more impassioned sentences.
At a time when, as Miliband concedes himself, Europe has 24 out of 27 left-leaning parties out of power despite the FT running a Capitalism in Crisis series while one populist GOP presidential candidate is attacking his Republican colleague as a "Vulture Capitalist", the question, while it still retains some relevance, must be: Progressives: Is this all?
Where's the progressive critique for the new century? Is there none?
A Russian graffiti artist P183 aka "Bankski" to some, has been doing what is being described as Banksy-like murals around Moscow. Such comparisons though shouldn't be taken too far. He could as easily be linked with Blek le Rat as an influence - in the end it's about P183 and his brave venture in sometimes tough terrain. The Banksy comparison has helped give him some profile.
There is little out there about the man himself. According to reports 183's a 28-year old dude named Pavel. Other sources claim he's an active member of the Russian LiveJournal community.
P183's street art - raw eye-catching stuff - has drawn the Banksy comparisons for obvious reasons. In and around Moscow his mural-style graffiti turns up on median dividers, walls, even on bridges. He has also undertaken some fairly ambitious mixed media installations.
P183 and Banksy have their own distinctive styles. Wit and message are neatly combined in Banksy's work. His best stuff can make you smile without detracting from the power of the statement. The intent is rarely lost in translation. P183's work also sends a strong message. There is a visceral, dramatic quality to some of it. It will be interesting to see where he takes it.
Check out the video beneath with more of P183's work to accompanying beats.
For larger versions of the murals try this Guardian gallery.
01-Feb-12
Now free of having to notify the UUP press office about media interviews and statements – something that Tom Elliott has adhered to as Party Leader – David McNarry is everywhere. This morning's News Letter. The Belfast Telegraph. Though nothing fully authored by him in the Irish News. [Ed: Maybe he's saving that as a treat for Thursday?]
In recent days he has appeared on UTV Live, Stormont Today, and this morning gave a remarkable thirty minute interview to the Nolan Show. He opened with the statement:
McNarry: I haven't really wanted to be making the headlines. I'm not really concerned about me when you put it into perspective, Stephen, from what I hear on your programme about sick babies, about the economy, and dissidents and job losses and vulnerable families. They're all more important to me.
McNarry then went on to discuss at length the talk, his involvement and his impression of the UUP leader, suggesting that Tom Elliott dithers.
He said that "other senior figures" agree with him that "[Tom Elliott] has a problem" with how he was dealing with the DUP/UUP cooperation talks (before McNarry gave the interview and resigned).
Nolan: Are you suggesting that there are senior members of the Ulster Unionist Party who agree with your assessment of Tom Elliott?
McNarry: Yes.
Nolan: Are there many?
McNarry: Yes
Nolan: Would they be in the majority?
McNarry: In terms of senior members? Yes.
Nolan: So you're suggesting this morning that Tom Elliott does not have the support and confidence of the majority of the senior members of the Ulster Unionist Party?
McNarry: Not to the same extent as I have. People react in different ways. It's quite possible that the Ulster Unionist Party will organise a photocall today or Monday and they'll have all MLAs and senior people around Tom and they'll be smiling. That's all it would be, a photo.
With bridges well and truly ablaze, it would be amazing if McNarry could ever take back the UUP whip.
Nolan: Could you see yourself joining the DUP?
McNarry: No. [later] I don't jump ship. My heart is in the Ulster Unionist Party.
Also writing in this morning's News Letter, DUP MP (and UUP escapee) Jeffrey Donaldson remarked that "the plight now facing David McNarry is one with which I am very familiar". Yet even if McNarry softened on jumping ship, would the DUP be able to control David McNarry's fury? Numbers-wise, McNarry's exit from the UUP assembly group helps Sinn Fein (in terms of extra committee positions) more than it impacts the DUP.
More likely that a career as an independent unionist beckons, sitting beside David McClarty and Jim Allister in front of Alliance in the Assembly chamber.
Stephen Nolan asked what would happen next?
McNarry: I think what will happen = and it will happen because this is what parties do – there'll be more disinformation and bad mouthing circulated, briefed about me David McNarry and the party will close ranks and anybody who wants to be a hypocrite will get their photograph taken. But it is quite amazing what people say to me in private and then say in public.
At times, it feels like more of a human interest story than a political one. It's very one sided at the moment. Over the weekend, there were those within the party who viewed McNarry's resignation as "one of the best things to happen to the UUP", expressing "[relief] that he's finally done it, as he's threatened too enough". The bad mouthing in public has yet to begin.
In the meantime, David McNarry is eeking out Tom Elliott's punishment. What started of as "panto" is becoming more damaging.
By only revealing a few details at a time about the UUP/DUP talks, and by being so available to the media, he is singlehandedly keeping the story in the news agenda. Think what it would be like if McNarry could use twitter!
Only time can tell whether McNarry can claim his leader's scalp – but to me that seems to be his intention.
'THERE WILL BE ANOTHER DAY'.By Peadar O'Donnell ; first published in January 1963.
Shortly before he died , Colonel Maurice Moore asked my wife to promise him that she would keep at me until I wrote an account of the land annuity agitation in which he and I - and for that matter, she - played active roles. She took her promise seriously - "One dare not fail so good a man" , she said , and put me under geasa not to fail him.
I promised her , and told myself, I would chase along country roads for a few weeks and gather the story , life-living, from the lips of those who lived it. Every now and then I made a false start, and wrote bits of notes in this townland and that , which I proposed to fit into a framework of time later , by checking them against the files of 'An Phoblacht'. I had no sense of urgency about the work until Phil McCauley , secretary to the most important of all the committees, died suddenly.
Looking around me then , I was startled at how many of those from whom I was to gather the story had died , and with some regret for my delay I set about writing, at least enough of an outline to meet the obligation laid on me.......
(MORE LATER).
THE PETER BERRY PAPERS....... The Top Secret Memoirs of Ireland's Most Powerful Civil Servant : Dirty Tricks, Election '69/ Spying on a Unionist Politician/ Keeping the (State) Taoiseach informed/ The Garda Fallon Murder/ Advice to Jack Lynch- 'Fire the pair of them...'/ Vivion De Valera's advice to O'Malley/ Rumours of a Coup D'Etat/ The Internment Plot, November 1970/ Secret Meeting with William Craig.From 'MAGILL' magazine , June 1980.
" When reading in 'The Irish Times' an account of the dismissal of the two Ministers I came across references to Mr. O Morain which seemed to me to misrepresent his attitude and, at lunch time , I went to see him in Mount Carmel Hospital . I showed the offending statement to him and offered to draft a correction which I would bring to the notice of the Taoiseach before a Fianna Fail Parliamentary Party meeting which was scheduled for 6.00 pm : I felt that a misrepresentation of Mr. O Morain's attitude would not be helpful to the Taoiseach and I had always understood from Mr. O Morain's manner and speech that he held the Taoiseach in the highest respect. Mr. O Morain declined."
MAY 7 , 1970 :
" The President appointed Mr Des O Malley , on the nomination of the Taoiseach , to be Minister for Justice. Earlier , I had said to the Taoiseach that I had had a dreadful time since 1965 as principal adviser to the Minister , under the Minister and Secretary's Act , and he said that he was well aware that I had been working under difficulties : " - " I will give you a good one this time."
" Although Mr. O Malley took office formally as Minister for Justice on this date he moved in on 6th May , the day that he was nominated in the Dail. He made an immediate impact as full of energy , boyishness and humour. Before this he had been Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach since the General Election in 1969 so that he was a comparative newcomer to the political scene with no experience in administration of a public Department. I enquired and was told by his office staff that '...he was one of the best but shockingly impulsive and would need to be advised to think again.......' " .
(MORE LATER).
BLOODY SUNDAY , DERRY : 40TH ANNIVERSARY , SUNDAY 29TH JANUARY 2012 , IN PICS....
"I went with Anger at my heel
Through Bogside of the bitter zeal
- Jesus pity! - on a day
Of cold and drizzle and decay.
A month had passed. Yet there remained
A murder smell that stung and stained.
On flats and alleys-over all-
It hung; on battered roof and wall,
On wreck and rubbish scattered thick,
On sullen steps and pitted brick.
And when I came where thirteen died
It shrivelled up my heart. I sighed...."
(By Thomas Kinsella , from here.)
More pics from the 40th Anniversary of 'Bloody Sunday' in Derry can be viewed here.
FINE GAEL HYPOCRISY - JUST THE SAME AS ANY OTHER LEINSTER HOUSE-PARTY HYPOCRISY....
"(It is) morally unjust and unfair to tax a persons home and by so doing grind him into the ground. It reminds me of a vampire tax, in that it drives a stake through the heart of home ownership, through enthusiasm and initiative, and sucks the the life blood of the people who want to own their own home and better their position....(Fine Gael)...will be opposing it by every means possible...."
- Enda Kenny , Fine Gael , when he was the leader of the then main 'Opposition' party in Leinster House (from here) .
"However, given the large majority of the Government we know it can railroad through any legislation. If residential property tax, or family home tax as I prefer to call it, is amalgamated with service charges it will crucify hundreds of thousands of people and develop into a super-tax which will be fought tooth and nail. The odium which the poll tax in Britain, under the redoubtable Mrs. Thatcher, caused a number of years ago will pale into insignificance when our electorate deal with this Government's outrageous intention to introduce such a tax....."
- anti-home-tax hero Enda Kenny , again - and again , he was in supposed 'Opposition' to the then Leinster House Fianna Fail-led 'government'. And it worked , as expected : enough politically-stupid voters took the man at his word and voted for him and his Fine Gael party last February to put them in power resulting in this u-turn , amongst others.
#
Erm, don't tell Squinter [aye, like he didn't know already - ed], but Martin McGuinness is contemplating a reciprocation the First Minister's visit to watch the McKenna Cup final last weekend...
Martin McGuinness has revealed he would cheer on the Northern Ireland football team and hopes to get the chance on a visit to Windsor Park.
With many nationalists hostile to the international team, viewing its home stadium in south Belfast as a cold house for Catholics, the remarks from the Sinn Fein Deputy First Minister potentially represent another landmark in improving cross-community relations.
There's a good discussion to be had about the tensions between populism and parliamentary politics. If there is a side lesson to taken from the ups and downs of the Republican party, it's probably buried in here somewhere. As Mike from PoliticalBetting notes, the famous victory of Mitt Romney in Florida (one of the big ‘swing' states) came at a drop in turn out:
In Iowa the number of self-identifying Republicans was down by 11%, in New Hampshire 15% the reduction was 15% while in Florida overnight it was 16%.
Only Newt Gingrich managed to pull them out in South Carolina... Lack of agency (expectations of which have grown exponentially on either side of Congress since the onset of the net)... Or maybe they just don't think any of the candidates on offer have what it would take to knock Obama out of the Whitehouse?
In yesterday's Belfast Telegraph, Brian Rowan attempted to explained the thinking behind Sinn Féin's expressed concerns about the "Dark Side" [It's "a sound working partnership and one that is to be commended" - Ed] Indeed. From the Belfast Telegraph article
...this is not a row for the sake of being awkward. It is a serious attempt to engage Matt Baggott sooner rather than later.
I think it would be fair to say that a degree of briefing was involved in the writing of the article.
Which, if we are to take those concerns at face value, as the timely front-page story of today's Irish News would suggest – the gist is in the BBC newspaper review and it relates to a previous intervention by the NI deputy First Minister in an ongoing police investigation – makes this section of the Belfast Telegraph article of particular interest.
The dissident threat means a continuing intelligence need. But explanation is required when suspected agents are seen at play in republican communities.
At play in terms of articulating the thinking and strategy of armed dissidents, including those behind the killing of Constable Ronan Kerr. And at play pulling the strings in riotous confrontations with the PSNI. [added emphasis]
This is a read-back into the so-called ‘dirty war'.
[Well, it worked the last time! - Ed] That was before the dissidents, erm, dissented...
Daniel Hannan, Daily Telegraph blogger, staunch Eurosceptic MEP and romantic unionist warms to his theme.
Like most British people, I love Ireland. It's a separate country, but it's not really foreign. The Irish talk as we talk, dress as we dress, eat as we eat (and, tragically, drink as we drink). We watch the same television programmes, follow the same football teams, shop at the same chains. We share that half-humorous, half-cynical mode of conversation that sets us apart even from other Anglosphere nations.In fact, Britain and Ireland are joined by pretty much everything except politics: history and geography, habit and outlook, commerce and settlement, blood and speech.
But mightn't this same welcome trend make it easier to bring about a united Ireland one day? And isn't his euroscepticism stretched too far? Such an acute observer of political behaviour should also concede that however penetrating the complaints about bureaucratic strangleholds and affronts to national democracy, the great EU project is carrying on, bloodied but unbowed, towards some as yet unknown destination, with all of us on board.
A devastating wave of hunger, which saw approximately 1 million people starve to death and 1 million more flee in search of a better life elsewhere, the great Irish Famine resulted in the island's population dropping by what is estimated to be as much as 25 percent between 1845 and 1852.
Yet in 1847, at a time when the Irish found themselves largely forsaken by the rest of the world, not least their rich neighbors across the water, the Ottoman ruler of the time, Sultan Abdülmecid, who caught wind of the disaster from his Irish doctor, decided to send not only monetary aid to the far off island but also three ships carrying provisions and food supplies.
Legend has it that the sultan had pledged the considerable sum of 10,000 pounds to the cause, but the ruling monarch of the time, Queen Victoria, laid down the law, requesting that he send only a 10th of this because she herself had only donated 2,000 pounds. Abdullah Aymaz noted in an article in The Fountain magazine in 2007 that despite the fact that the British administration did not give permission for the three ships to enter the ports of Belfast or Dublin, the vessels managed to secretly discharge their load in the tranquil town of Drogheda, approximately 70 miles north of Dublin.
An act of kindness which remained largely unknown for many years, the episode entered the wider public consciousness when Irish President Mary McAleese sang the praises of Sultan Abdülmecid on a state visit to Turkey in March 2010, relating how, "at the insistence of the people, the star and crescent of Turkey forms part of the town's coat of arms."
Indeed, to this day a silver star and crescent maintain their place at the top of the Drogheda coat of arms and the official badge of Drogheda United Football Club is simply a red crescent and a star -- the lasting legacy of a historic act of kindness. A letter signed by the Anglo-Irish gentry of the time, now on display at the European Commission office on Dawson Street in Dublin, expresses gratitude to the sultan of the Ottoman Empire for the donation. Sunday's Zaman reported in 2010 that the then Turkish foreign minister, Abdullah Gül, stated in 2004 that copies of documents confirming the donation had been sent to the National Library of Ireland and the Drogheda Municipality.
Amongst those intrigued by the story of 19th-century international comradeship following McAleese's comments in 2010 was Turkish filmmaker Ömer Sarıkaya, who this week announced plans to make a movie, titled "Famine," based on the tale.
"It's a little-known but inspiring story," Sarıkaya told Sunday's Zaman this week. "I would say 99 percent of the people in Ireland and Turkey know nothing about this episode, which is something we hope to change," he said, adding that since he has expressed his plans to make the movie he has received numerous emails and letters from people in Ireland expressing shame that they did not know of the episode before.
Sarıkaya, who is traveling to Ireland in three weeks time to audition Irish actors for the project, said that 60 percent of the film will be shot in Ireland, while the remainder will be filmed in İstanbul. With filming expected to begin in July, Sarıkaya has his eye on Irish director Neil Jordan to steer the story to the big screen, although this appointment has yet, he says, to be confirmed.
A story of love, jealousy, betrayal, hope and honor, "Famine" will tell the story of an Irish girl, Mary, whose life changes when she meets Fatih, a young Turkish man sent over by the sultan with the aid relief for sufferers of the famine. The two decide to marry and Mary plans to return with Fatih to Turkey. The only problem is that Mary is trapped in an unhappy engagement to James, a fiery Brit who is prepared to do anything to stand in the way of her plans to escape.
"The film will represent the good, the bad and the ugly," Sarıkaya told Sunday's Zaman, adding, "The good are the Irish, the bad are the English and the ugly is the famine."
Yet the Turkish filmmaker is keen to attest that the focus of the film is not on the Irish-English divide but on the unlikely union between Turkey and Ireland, two countries separated by 4,000 miles. "The characters may be fictional but the film is based on the true story of Turkey lending a charitable hand to Ireland during their hour of need," he said.
Ireland and Turkey are certainly not the most potent of international allies. However, despite the fact that Sultan Abdülmecid's random act of kindness was little spoken of for many years, it forged a small bond between the two nations which lives on to this day.
In 2007 Turkish journalist Aymaz delivered an account of an interesting memory of Yahya Kemal Beyatlı, a former Turkish ambassador who participated in the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923. According to Beyatlı, whilst each of the representatives from the Allied powers voted in unison against Turkey, the delegate from Ireland was an exception, raising his hand in favor of Turkey for each vote. When questioned why he had acted so, the representative said: "When we suffered from famine and disease, your Ottoman ancestors shipped loads of food and monetary donations. We have never forgotten the friendly hand extended to us in our difficult times. Your nation deserves to be supported on every occasion."
In an age where humanitarian aid has become an ordinary phenomenon, it may be easy to understate the goodwill of such an action. But for those starving citizens who greeted the Ottoman ships in Drogheda in 1847, Sultan Abdülmecid's gesture would have been seen for what it truly was: an unprecedented and progressive act of humanity.
by the Creative Workers Cooperative
It looks that way.
From Fox News - looks like a landslide for Romney.
But can Romney beat Obama?
Piles of stuff to read on RealClearPolitics...make up your own mind.
31-Jan-12
Welfare Reform
The dread of things to come
Everyone seems to be talking about the headline of Lord Feldman's press release today, and no one is talking about what he actually said.
Let's be clear, there is to be no "new party" in Northern Ireland. They are not farming off their existing branch, they are attempting to tart it up a bit. And what are these momentous changes? They MIGHT get a seat on the Conservative Party board (hardly a sign of a new party is it?), they MIGHT be allowed to elect a leader, and they will be allowed to have a Chairman (so what has Irwin Armstrong been doing all this time?)
It all begs the question, what is the point? It sounds a bit like they will attract a few failed UUP candidates, but is that together with some semantic dressing up really going to turn an electorally insignificant and utterly failed group into the vanguard for liberal Unionism?
The Conservative Party has no hope in Northern Ireland without an existing local base, the best fit being the UUP. The UUP is visionless and increasingly rudderless without the Conservative Party (the real one that is, not what passes for it in Northern Ireland). Seems obvious what to do really.
At the Guardian's Politics Blog, Michael White has some fun with reports that Nicolas Sarkozy has enlisted Frau Bundeskanzlerin in his French presidential re-election campaign. Although this post's title quote, from the Wall Street Journal blogs, suggests he may already be having second thoughts... ANYhoo... From Michael White's post
We can assume that pollsters have advised Sarko that the pluses of being identified positively with the much-admired German economy will outweigh the risks . Marine Le Pen, the National Front (NF) leader, could play the nationalist card to good effect - or the socialist candidate, François Hollande (attacked by a Merkel ally for his redistributive economic policies this week), could do so in a more dignified way.
In France, as across most of the EU including Britain, jobs are increasingly the issue. How to create them? Sarko has nailed his colours to the German mast, though the Germans are flying the flag of austerity driven by central bank orthodoxy, even though the French are historically inclined to political control of the bankers.
It's never black and white. Merkel has been nice to Cameron since the veto row in December because she needs Anglo-Saxon economic liberalism to offset the instincts of (er, um) the French. Hollande is to campaign - as Sarko did last time - in London to soothe the City, but also to woo expat French voters who live in Britain in large numbers. Why? It's not the food or weather, it's the economic opportunities, François.
Still we can safely assume that Cameron will not be campaigning with Sarko as Merkel will. So it's one to watch. I've been taking holidays in rural France for years and, in my experience, there are more memorial plaques and exhibits to German misbehaviour today than there were when I started. Europeans always walk a delicate tightrope when their history is disturbed.
Read the whole thing.
A UTV report acknowledging the contribution of PSNI Chief Superintendent Stephen Martin in Londonderry's successful bid, against Sligo, to host the All-Ireland Fleadh during the UK City of Culture year notes another reason for denizens of the city to celebrate in 2013. From the UTV report
The addition of the Fleadh means 2013 is shaping up to be a year to remember for the city.
It will coincide with the Derry/Londonderry UK City of Culture – and it is all taking place during the 400th anniversary of the city being granted its Royal Charter.
[I'm sure the city council are planning to mark the quadricentennial - Ed] I'm sure they are...
Torture technique used in the 1800s ...and the 1980s
Given the Slugger community's interest in Haiti, I thought it worthwhile to note the regrettable decision by a Haitian court not to charge the country's former dictator, Jean-Claude ‘Baby Doc' Duvalier, over allegations of torture and murder.
Duvalier returned to Haiti this time last year after 25 years in exile in France. Since then, he has been under investigation for serious human rights violations - including torture, disappearances and extrajudicial executions - that took place during his rule from 1971 to 1986. In September, Amnesty International published You cannot kill the truth: The case against Jean-Claude Duvalier (pdf), a report that revisits the organization's previous research on widespread human rights abuses committed in Haiti in the 1970s and 1980s.
Despite the wealth of evidence to the contrary, Carves Jean, the judge responsible for investigating the case, has decided: "I did not find enough legal grounds to keep human rights charges and crimes against humanity against him. Now my job is over. The case is no longer in my hands."
As the UN high commissioner for human rights Navi Pillay has already noted: "The thousands of Haitians who suffered under this regime deserve justice."
This court ruling cheats them of any such chance.
1974 and 1975 were rich years for student politics at the University of St Andrews - not one, but two general elections in 1974, followed by the 'EEC' poll of 1975; throughout the endless debates stimulated by the miners' strike and consequential three-day week, the narrow Labour leads in February and October, followed by a large vote in favour of remaining in the European Economic Community I can never recall the possibility of a referendum on Scotland's future being posed by my Nationalist friends and opponents, as we sharpened our political skills on each other's ankles. The discourse concentrated on whether it was possible to win a (simple) majority of Scottish seats at Westminster, as the mandate for change.
Now 40 years later Alex Salmond, who landed many more bites on my ankles than I on his, I'm certain, is within sight of his prize, even if he had not predicted it would arise in referendum shape, as opposed to the traditional UK-wide electoral contest; even though Nationalists were small in number, at our very 'English' seat of learning, they were more than vigorous in debate, and not bad, in Salmond's case, at prediction, referendums apart.
Now, we must all become more rigorous in the conduct of this most critical plebiscite on the future not just of Scotland, but of the UK.
First, ten rules about the referendum as a constitutional tool:
- Referendums are not elections - they have different political characteristics, focussing on issues, not parties or candidates, and therefore conform to different rules of campaigning; they require specialist understanding (just look at last year's UK referendum on AV debacle for evidence)
- Most referendums are lost - only just, across over 10,000 that have been held over three centuries, but the lesson is that nothing can be taken for granted; for example, only eight have passed, out of 44 in Australia over the past 106 years; there are no certainties and voters cannot be 'told' what to do, as European Treaty tests demonstrate (Remember Nice l in 2001 and Lisbon l in 2008, both of which necessitated second outings, one year later, prompting the cynical cry of 'Neverendum'!);
- Most referendums proposed by governments towards the end of their term are lost - timing and the political cycle are key here; honeymoon periods are popular for polls of this sort (e.g. Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland quickly after Labour's landslide in 1997) while delay until end of mandate risks attacks of gimmickry and desperation; think Scotland 1979
- As Charles de Gaulle, a strong proponent and user of the tool, opined, 'the trouble with referendums is that people tend to answer the wrong question'; voters often use their votes to punish the government of the day, responding to other current issues or scandals; remember the Monarchy poll in Australia in 1999, when the unclear issue of the elected replacement, became the fatal flaw, dividing the generally republican electorate which had been expected to deliver a clear Yes vote for change
- Voters, as Bill Clinton famously observed, follow 'the economy, stupid'; there is substantial evidence that in referendums, too, they weigh up their economic interests - 'will I be better off?' or 'can I take a risk on my economic future for a point of principle'. In St Vincent and the Grenadines the people voted against a new constitution in 2009, fearing isolation in the global downturn, but returning the same Prime Minister, Ralph Goncalves shortly thereafter; voters don't vote for change unless the outcome is overwhelmingly and obviously beneficial (recall Danish and Swedish votes on Euro entry)
- Nationalist referendums usually win? Whilst the SNP is correct to point out that most secessionist polls since the second world war have been successful, their circumstances (former soviet states, Balkan realignment and Southern Sudan most recently in 2011) are highly unusual and not analogous; think Quebec 1980 and 1995; not to mention Western Australia in 1933, the only known example where the mother government declined to respect a majority vote for independence
- Multi-option questions confuse voters - there are very few examples of this; famously Sweden voted inconclusively between options on the speed of nuclear decommissioning, after the Three Mile island disaster; but positively on pension proposals in 1957; Belarus voted clearly on four options in 1995, but variously only a year later on seven alternatives, after the leadership pushed too far, too fast for more; although they were arguably different and non-contradictory or overlapping questions
- Voters do not take their cue from their favoured political party - research shows they do nod to party views, but are significantly less bound by them, feeling that if an issue is so important as to deserve a poll, they must look more widely to civil society and other opinion-formers; the Catalan and Basque experience is instructive here
- The people take advice from far beyond the political class - because the referendum poses a wider policy or national question, and is not about which candidate best serves their interests, voters look to others - sometimes to famous actors, celebrities and sports stars, often to business, trade unions, faith groups and civic society, often, however, as mediated and interpreted by the media
- Citizens like to see their politicians working together - they expect legitimate differentiation for elected institutions, but in referendums especially, expect to see coalescence around issues; the Good Friday / Belfast Agreement 'YES Campaign' of 1998 represents a case in point, based indeed, by me, on my observation of the critically essential cross-party campaign for 'Yes, Yes' in the Scottish outing the previous September; what if the SNP had boycotted that 'halfway-house' option?
Turning now to the present and the situation prevailing in Scotland, in as far as I can judge it from outside, there are three textbook flaws in the execution of the SNP stratagem thus far:
- Risking the long delay from triumphant electoral success in 2011, until autumn 2014 risks everything; it falls foul of rules 3, 4, 5 and 6 above; what state will the SNP government be in? Where will Scotland be economically? What question will voters really prefer to answer?
- Arguing over process, entitlement and conduct confuses and irritates the voter - do we really care about the Electoral Commission not being devolved, so we will set up our own? Does the voter be excited about whether a manifesto commitment on the date was indeed inserted? Consultative or binding? Scottish or UK? Give us the central arguments, please!
- The debate on Devo-max or Indy-lite risks further disenchantment; is the SNP serious about its central mission; does it need a fallback position; is it manoeuvring for a consolation prize; can it explain what it actually means for the average hard-pressed Scot; above all, is it being honest with its electorate?
Nevertheless, the game is only really just starting, after the phoney war of words between Holyrood and Westminster about the terms of engagement over recent months. Westminster has all but conceded the date; the SNP has conceded on the Electoral Commission's role, obviating the hugely risky option of setting up its own version (which might have dogged the campaign and diverted attention from the issues). The only matter of substance remaining appears to be the matter of the single or multi-option question.
My first observation here is the absence of much serious commentary that I have seen, on deployment of the recently tested (although rejected in the UK) Alternative Vote as a way out of the 'Sweden Conundrum', when voters in 1980 opted indecisively for conflicting alternatives on the speed of decommissioning the nuclear industry, one of which actually included an increase in nuclear turbines.
One could easily devise and negotiate the wording that would allow voters to opt in order, by the now familiar 1,2,3 for independence, for Devo-max or for the status quo; if the lowest successful option were then eliminated, and preferences transferred, a simple majority would then have been achieved for one of the three. The natural bias towards the 'middle' option, however, may become a political barrier to this simple solution, unless a credible 'outlier' to the status quo is found. It also treats the electorate with more sophistication, albeit short of the contested 'preferendum'.
My second thought is that, notwithstanding some of the above commentary, every referendum brings its own characteristics and dynamics; the allocation of resources (whisky, oil, wind) and debt (RBS, HBOS), the redistribution of 'UK' resources ('National' galleries, museums, academies and institutes), the status of the Crown Estate, the future of the BBC and its lucrative licence fee, the UK non-ministerial departments (like OFT and FSA), consumer affairs, cross-border transport, civil aviation and air-traffic control, DWP and benefits, taxation and the currency... the list, and soon the debate will go on and on, for three years -and rightly so.
As an aside, remember that when the Electoral Commission tested the words 'powers' and 'devolution' in Wales, be
One thing, I think, that is better, or at least more widely, understood in the Republic than in the UK is that the credit crunch is still screwing up almost every other well intentioned effort to get our economies moving again. This is because the banks still haven't owned up to the extent of their bad debt, and they are barely lending anything to anyone.
So far, the pattern seems to be that they keep the good (ie, unimpaired) investment of taxpayer's money whilst not surrendering the bad (more than £24bn in the case of the RBS). Stephen Donnelly, TD for Wicklow and East Carlow, writing in the Sunday Independent (H/T Bodger at Broadsheet.ie) at the weekend has an excellent article, coincidentally demonstrating the value of having knowledgeable independents in parliament:
...think of this: last year we gave four of our banks more than EUR7.5bn to address residential mortgages. AIB got EUR2.5bn of the EUR7.5bn. But its senior team admitted to us at a Finance Committee hearing that the total amount of mortgage debt it had written off was a mere EUR600,000. One 50th of one per cent of what we gave AIB. Bank of Ireland got EUR1.8bn of the EUR7.5bn. It told us it had forgone nothing, not one cent. [Emphasis added]
Yet it's not clear from much of the reporting of Stephen Hestor's £963,000 bonus, why he is being paid a bonus (of any sort) in the first place. Tom Bradby's much plugged blog takes a simpler and more pragmatic view: if the bank can make the taxpayer money, why disincentivise a top rated man from getting on with the job?
Well, Sir Fred Goodman was one such ‘top talent' who burnt £19 billion of good money and 9,000 jobs before jumping ship. Chris Dillow argues that this kind of expensive top talent is required precisely because the banks have made themselves too complex for any normal human being to manage without, at the very least, a PhD in financial modelling from LSE or Imperial:
Bank bosses have played a trick which countless ordinary workers do. The IT support guy who introduces lots of "security features" to his firm's IT systems, or the secretary who has an incomprehensible filing system, make themselves indispensable by inconveniencing others.
In the old days of banking's 3-5-4 model (borrow at 3%, lend at 5%, be on the golf course at 4 o'clock) bank bosses were well paid but not astronomically so. It's management's own introduction of complexity that has enabled their pay to soar. And whether this complexity is a social good or not is, to say the least, debateable.
It's hard to escape the idea that at their core, the banks have not yet tumbled to the fact that they are living in an unsustainable bubble. Yet, one of the problems politicians have is that they, in many cases, were complicit in the problem. This may be one reason why the Tea Party in the US proves less of an unalloyed good for the Republican party than it may have seemed a year or so back.
Alan Greenspan speaking to ABC a couple of years ago noted that...
If the Fed as a regulator had tried to thwart what everyone perceived as a fairly broad consensus that the trend was in the right direction, homeownership was rising and that was an unmitigated good, then Congress would have clamped down on us. There's a lot of amnesia that's going on.
Nevertheless, the longer term historical patterns suggest that whatever the dangers of eliding the arms length relationship between RBS and the UK government, banker's salaries are at an all time high in relation, not simply to the public sector, but more importantly to the private sector as well. Gillian Tett in the FT:
After the 1929 crash, for several years, financial pay remained high because pay in other parts of the economy fell and some bankers traded cannily during and after the crash. However, in the late 1930s the ratio slumped back towards parity and stayed there for the subsequent three decades; in the years following the second world war, American bankers were paid roughly the same as other professionals. But from the the late 1970s onwards, a new cycle turned: the total cost of financial intermediation jumped to 9 per cent in 2010 from 4 per cent in 1950. The ratio of financial sector pay to pay in the rest of the private sector hit 1.7 times in 2006 - in a delicious irony, the same level as in 1929.
None of which addresses the real problem. How much debt have these mathematical geniuses burnt and when will they return to what banks have traditionally been able to do, i.e. find a sustainable means that allows them to borrow and lend to business and citizens at a profit?
Oh, yes. And is Mr Hestor actually doing a good job? Or is that too complicated for us to bother our poor little heads with?
There has been a lot of fuss recently about high level benefit payments. One
major component of high benefit payments is costs in terms of Housing
Benefit for the unfortunate people stuck in private sector housing.
I'm struck by the fact that you can often see "To Let" signs on the council
estates around Exeter were I live. It strikes me that there must be a
significant proportion of council houses that were purchased using "Right to
Buy" that are now in the hands of the private sector profiteers - people who
own numerous properties who let them at exorbitant rents.
New Labour has apparently bought into the feeding frenzy about the enormous
cost of Housing Benefit on society. See for example:
I agree that it is an outrage that so much money is expended in making a
small proportion of the population stinking rich by exploiting the low paid
and the unemployed. There are a vast number of people who can't get housed
by the Local Authority and who can't afford to buy their own home. They have
no security of tenure and a vast proportion of their wages goes into making
someone else wealthy.
Protected Tenancies prior to the 1986 Housing Act allowed tenants to have
both security of tenure and the right to demand that the local Rent Office
determine a Fair Rent. A Fair Rent was a legal maximum rent that a private
landlord could charge. My personal experience of getting a Fair rent fixed
in the early 80s was that my rent was more than halved. In a household of 5
people this saved the tax payer a lot of money in terms of housing benefit
for those that were claiming housing benefit and for the rest of the tenants
their living stand on a low pay increased substantially. These days private
sector tenants pay a ridiculous proportion of their income towards rent and
they don't even know whether they will have the right to remain where they
live 6 months later - it is a disgrace!
I have some questions for which I would love to see some answers, does
anyone know the facts and figures:
Around 2 million council houses were sold using "Right to Buy" between 1980
and 1998.
1. How many of these are Owner Occupied and how many now privately rented?
2. What is the additional cost to the tax payer of former council properties
being privately rented in terms of increase to the housing benefit bill?
I know these look like simple questions and there may be more complicated
pictures behind them. For example it may be more constructive to look at the
total number of properties in 1980, those council owned, and those owner
occupied and those privately rented and compare with the figures today and
then take into account Housing Benefit costs.
Also how many people are in a poverty trap where they can't get council
housing and can't exercise "freedom of choice" to buy their own home?
There is an ideological battle over the benefits bill. Part of this relates
to Housing Benefit. I don't think we should defend the status quo. It is an
outrage that so many people are super exploited by being damned to the
private sector. It is a scandal that there is so little public housing. I
wonder whether it would be true that a fraction of the cost to the state in
Housing benefit and B&B costs for the homeless could actually economically
buy back a lot of housing - I don't know the answer to that - but it is
worth asking!
What does democracy look like? How about this: a governor, swept into office on the GOP wave of 2010 with a financial assist from the billionaire Koch brothers, pivots immediately from moderate talk about job creation to radical austerity that divides his state more than any in the Union. He attacks the collective bargaining rights of public workers and teachers. When hundreds of thousands of citizens rally to oppose his agenda, the governor and his allies respond by attempting to bar protests in the Capitol. They reject their state's tradition of open and transparent government, dismiss criticisms from the opposition—even from moderates in their own party—and begin gerrymandering districts and changing election rules, actions Common Cause and the League of Women Voters recognize as assaults on voting rights. Faced with a serious threat to basic rights and democracy, citizens organize a grassroots campaign to recall and remove the governor, the lieutenant governor, the State Senate majority leader and key legislators.
30-Jan-12
So, it's official. The Irish people want a referendum, whether the Constitution says they need one or not? Micheal Martin thinks it's overblown, and that the real problem is that the current treaty does not actually address any of the real problems facing the Irish (nay, the European) economy:
For all of the fighting in December about the place of existing European Union treaties and institutions, existing treaty law will remain fully in force. The draft treaty explicitly states that the whole issue of real change is being kicked down the road - with a target for doing something within five years.
As drafted, it is a minimalist pact which does little more than put a small amount of extra enforcement behind policies which are already incorporated in EU regulations.
The treaty's fiscal targets are those which were agreed last year and finalised in a regulation which came into force in November.
Some groups are talking about how this pact is revolutionary and dangerous. This is nonsense. As drafted it is a tokenistic effort which entrenches already agreed policies but fails completely to address the causes of the crisis.
In a thinly veiled dig at Sinn Fein (and their eagerness to have another good day in the High Court), he talks about groups in a rush ‘to have something to campaign against'. But he then goes on to suggest that instead of putting all its efforts to avoid a referendum vote, the Irish government should
...make sure that something emerges which is worth voting on. As things stand, the problem with this treaty is not that it does too much, it is that it does nothing about the real causes of this crisis. In particular it completely ignores the policies required to return growth and job creation to Europe.
Whether of course Ireland (or any of the small countries whose courage to stand up for themselves Mr Martin plainly commends) has the means never mind the clout to withstand Frau Bundeskanzlerin's persistent calls for coercive powers over smaller countries (which pretty much comprises all of the EU these days), is another question.
But what Mr Martin is looking for is a premise upon which this government might fight and win (unlike the last) the first time round.
The Deputy First Minister seems to have changed the Sinn Fein position of achieving a United Ireland by 2016, amending their pledge to that of referendum in 2016 or shortly after, in an article in today's Irish Examiner Martin states
"It just seems to me to be a sensible timing. It would be on the question of whether or not the people of the Six Counties wish to retain the link with what is described as the United Kingdom, or be part of a united Ireland. It could take place anytime between 2016 or 2020-21,"
However as the article goes on to point out the decision to hold such a poll does not rest with the Assembly or Executive even with DUP agreement, but with the Secretarty of State, and if remaining true to the Agreement it can only be called when certain conditions prevail, to refresh your memory here is the relevant sections-
1. (1) It is hereby declared that Northern Ireland in its entirety remains part of the United Kingdom and shall not cease to be so without the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland voting in a poll held for the purposes of this section in accordance with Schedule 1.
(2) But if the wish expressed by a majority in such a poll is that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament such proposals to give effect to that wish as may be agreed between Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the Government of Ireland.
1. The Secretary of State may by order direct the holding of a poll for the purposes of section 1 on a date specified in the order.
2. Subject to paragraph 3, the Secretary of State shall exercise the power under paragraph 1 if at any time it appears likely to him that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland.
The onus is therefore on Sinn Fein to convince the SoS that such a majority is likely to exist within the next 4 years, an uphill task considering the most generous reading has a Nationalist vote at an average 42% (a level which hasn't changed for the last decade) and many indications that many of these voters would not vote for a United Ireland when the time came. Therefore know all these facts as well as any of us do, is there not a case that raising possibility of a referendum is false, destabilising and in breach of the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement that Sinn Fein negotiated?
Despite the declaration by the organising committee last year following the publication of the Saville Inquiry report, and the absence of endorsement by the Bloody Sunday Trust this year, a sizeable number of people took part in the 40th anniversary Bloody Sunday march in Londonderry yesterday. Estimates range from several hundred to almost 3000.
And, although Eamonn McCann doesn't directly cite the absence of the Trust's endorsement of yesterday's march among the reasons for his resignation as chairman, he does register his disagreement with that decision.
Four years ago I wrote a 'Note from the Next Door Neighbours' called 'Can we become the best border region in Europe?' in which I listed some of the distinguished people from the Irish border region over the past 20-30 years and appealed to some of them to come together to promote, develop and celebrate this peripheral and often forgotten region.
I am now renewing that call, spurred on by a piece of research, a speech in Cavan, and a new website. The research is a study - commissioned by the Centre for Cross Border Studies and nearly complete - by two eminent economists, Dr John Bradley and Professor Michael Best, on ways to revive the border region's economy. The speech was given at a November 2011 conference to discuss the findings of this study by Padraic White, the Leitrim man who was the highly successful Managing Director of IDA Ireland in the eighties and early 1990s when many of the major multinationals who now provide much of Ireland's growth were attracted to the country. He is now, among many other things, chair of the Louth Economic Forum.
Bradley, Best and White agree on one thing: the time has come for the cross-border region to forget about waiting for the development agencies in Dublin and Belfast to attract in big multinational firms and to look to their own entrepreneurial companies and local authorities to take a lead in providing and promoting jobs and prosperity in the region. As Bradley and Best say in the conclusion to their study:
'If regions such as the Irish border region are to prosper, other than by depending on transfers from more developed regions, then they must build on and strengthen their productive base. And the existing productive base - good, bad or indifferent - is where you must start.'
In their study they provide case studies of some outstanding border region firms: Walter Watson (cranes and steel fabrication) in Co Down; Castlecool (food cold storage and logistics) and Bose (wooden cabinets for sound systems) in Co Monaghan; and Hunter Apparel Solutions (uniforms) in Derry. I can think of many others, beginning with Silver Hill Foods (poultry) and Combilift (forklift trucks) in Co Monaghan; the cluster of engineering and food processing firms around Dungannon, Co Tyrone; Norbrook (pharmaceuticals) and First Derivatives (financial services) in Newry; Open Hydro (tidal energy) in Co Louth; Glen Dimplex (electric heating appliances) in Louth and Newry, and SF Engineering (conveyor systems) in Co Sligo. Everyone will have their own list.
Padraic White gave five reasons why the Irish border region will have to learn to stand on its own feet in the foreseeable future:
- central governments will be focusing on national economic revival in the present dire circumstances and peripheral border regions will be well down their agenda;
- public spending cutbacks will mean little or no capital investment in border regions;
- multinational company investment will be concentrated on cities and metropolitan areas as such firms become more research-based;
- Enterprise Ireland, IDA and Invest NI are not geared to respond to the particular challenges of the border region; and
- (in the Republic) the current higher level of incentives to border regions permitted to government under EU rules may not be renewed after 2013.
He proposed that current cross-border initiatives such as the 2011 Newry and Mourne/Louth Memorandum of Understanding, the North West Partnership Board and the three cross-border local authority partnerships could form the basis of a 'Strategic Development Plan along the entire border area from Derry/Donegal to Newry and Mourne/Louth. The number of key players on both sides - elected chairs/mayors and county managers/district council chief executives - is small enough to facilitate an effective momentum.'
He said this Strategic Development Plan should focus on four key sources of indigenous growth and enterprise: SME enterprise in goods and services with an export potential; tourism and recreation; agriculture, food and fish processing; and low carbon initiatives, energy saving and renewable energy. Funding support for such an initiative could come from the EU INTERREG programme and technical support from the Centre for Cross Border Studies and the International Centre for Local and Regional Development.
But are there the dynamic people in the Irish border region to make this visionary initiative begin to happen? We believe there are. The border region is famous for dynamic business leaders, even if occasionally some of them - such as Sean Quinn and Larry Goodman - 'lose the run of themselves' and crash and burn in spectacular circumstances (Mr Goodman has, of course, since risen from the ashes). Dundalk and Newry have a particularly impressive cluster of entrepreneurs, with men like Martin Naughton, the McCanns, Feargal McCormack and Gerard O'Hare. There are also some excellent county managers and local authority chief executives, people like Con Murray in Louth, Jack Keyes in Cavan, Jackie Maguire in Leitrim, Seamus Neely in Donegal, Tom McCall in Newry, Danny McSorley in Omagh and Sharon O'Connor in Derry. There are idealistic senior educationalists like the heads of the three Institutes of Technology: Denis Cummins in Dundalk, Terri Scott in Sligo and Paul Hannigan in Letterkenny, and Richard Barnett, vice-chancellor of the University of Ulster. There is the hugely committed head of the Ilex urban regeneration company in Derry, Aideen McGinley. Again, everyone will have their own list.
Another dynamic leader in a smaller place, Brian Morgan, a Clones solicitor, has recently started to put many of these people in contact with each other in order to discuss new ideas for the future of the region. He has started an online Linkedin group called The Border Counties Forum (http://bordercountiesforum.com/) which has very quickly grown to over 200 members, most of them business people. Go on line and discuss Padraic White's and other people's ideas for how we should revive the Irish cross-border region at this very difficult but also opportunity-rich time in the island's economic history.
Andy Pollak
Nice piece from David Torrence at the Steamie (H/T Phil)
Is any of this important? I think it is, not only because the history of any state is important, but also because the story of the United Kingdom gave rise to much of the political terminology we still use today. For example the term "Unionist", in party political terms, refers not to those wishing to preserve the Union between Scotland and England, but those who want to retain the Union between Great Britain and Ireland/Northern Ireland. When the Liberal Party split over Home Rule for Ireland in 1886, the party became two: Liberals and Liberal Unionists (the latter being opposed to Home Rule). Gradually, the Liberal Unionists merged with the Conservatives to form, in England, the Conservative and Unionist Party, and in Scotland - between 1912 and 1965 -the Scottish Unionist Party.
Yes, it could be argued that that the term "Unionist" has assumed a broader meaning in recent decades, but it's still important to understand its origins. Judging by the pronouncements of many "Unionist" Conservatives, they do not. So if Scotland does vote for independence, it would not mean the end of the "United Kingdom", as many Nationalists seem to believe: it would simply be seceding from that Union just as the Irish Free State did 90 years ago. The state might change its name, but the Union Jack would most likely remain unaltered, just as it did after 1922.
This brings me to Northern Ireland and Wales. If anyone's been listening to Peter Robinson or Carwyn Jones recently, you might have got the impression they aren't terribly thrilled at the prospect of Scottish independence, not least because it might weaken their status within the UK. Sensing this, Alex Salmond continues to cast "independence" purely in terms of England and Scotland, which is astonishingly simplistic. The United Kingdom comprises four nations, not two, and its history is a lot more complicated than many die-hard Nationalists, or indeed Unionists, seem to appreciate.
Bearing in mind this is still firmly in the realm of political science, nevertheless Roddy Thomson is a Scot embedded in the hub bub of Brussels daily life and has assembled an approximation as to how Scotland and the UK might stand postpartum...
As part of NICVA's series of masterclasses from its Centre for Economic Empowerment project, there was a morning seminar on the topic of the "creative class" (as popularised by Richard Florida) and its applicability to Northern Ireland.
The agenda was to:
- Explain Richard Florida's idea of the "creative class" and the link between economic outcomes and the ability of a region to facilitate creativity and diversity
- Explore the link between a successful economy and social issues, such as community division, crime and income inequality
- Examine how Northern Ireland fares as a place that facilitates creativity and diversity, and what actions could improve its performance
Audio: http://mrulster.podomatic.com/player/web/2012-01-30T02_33_38-08_00
In introducing the concepts and guest speakers, Lisa McIlheron (Head of Public Affairs, NICVA) highlighted some statistics in relation to tolerance, e.g. racist comments by co-workers and managers at migrant workers, homophobic comments at schools.
In regards to the costs of segregation in Northern Ireland, McIlheron highlighted that the siting of investment goes to the "neutral hinterlands", areas that are politically acceptable and practically viable, such as Sprucefield, the Titanic Quarter and the Odyssey. She argued that this is because "we can't get over the line of community division and its impact on the economy".
Audio: http://mrulster.podomatic.com/player/web/2012-01-30T02_35_03-08_00
Dr Nick Clifton is a Reader in Economic Geography and Regional Development, and the first guest speaker. His interest is in how firms use networks to acquire knowledge and innovate, and the factors that influence the location choices of creative individuals.
Clifton gave an overview of the creative class theory, including the argument that whereas in the Industrial Age people followed jobs, in the contemporary Knowledge Economy jobs follow people (who move to "talent pools" or "creative cities").
His research applied the creative class model of Richard Florida to European cities. One interesting result was that social diversity on its own is not a determinate factor for creativity (which includes bohemian artists but extends to those who develop creative knowledge, such as industrial patents). Clifton gave the specific comparative example of English cities Leicester and Camden, where Camden is notably a more creative city with the same level of division as Leicester.
In discussing the Northern Ireland picture, Clifton displayed some data provided by the British Council's Open Cities project. Among British cities, Belfast does less well in: (1) openness; (2) migration; (3) quality of living; and (4) education.
Of interest to me is comparing other cities that have, like Belfast, experienced deep societal divisions. I produced the following graph, comparing Belfast with Barcelona, Bilbao and Cape Town (see link for definition of indicators):
So, in this set of cities Belfast performs better in areas of openness, freedom, barriers of entry, infrastructure, quality of living and standard of living; and worse in migration, international events, international presence, international flows and education.
Audio: http://mrulster.podomatic.com/player/web/2012-01-30T02_36_13-08_00
Tony Macauley (now famous for his book and imminent film, Paper Boy) was the next guest speaker. He wants to know how Northern Ireland will address its divisions within its economic policies.
Macauley said that evidence of prejudice in Northern Ireland is not surprising, as it is a feature demonstrated in other societies in a post-conflict/transformative situation — discrimination towards the "other" group gets easily transferred to any "other" group in its society, what he called a "dynamic of prejudice". He gave an example of his research experience in the Balkans, where surveyed individuals responded in a similar way towards "others" as in Northern Ireland.
He went further, and described how Northern Ireland's complicity in "an acceptable level of intolerance" led to a policy drift in community relations policy over the past ten years. That is, while there has been progress in good relations policy, there hasn't been much at all in areas of service provision.
Hard-to-reach individuals/neighbourhoods/communities are an example. Macauley prefers to use the term "low peace impact area", and he believes there is significant untapped talent in such areas, citing his own personal experience growing up in one and how education helped him to develop his skills and talents.
Macauley argues that the Northern Ireland Executive's currnet Programme for Government has the wrong relationship between a strong economy and societal tolerance and stability, i.e. instead of the former leading to the latter, proactive policies addressing the latter will help produce the former.
He was concerned with the long term viability of present shared education initiatives, as they are currently funded by philanthropies such as the International Fund for Ireland and Atlantic Philanthropies, with significantly less funding by Executive agencies.
Macauley also noted the Executive's draft Economic Strategy makes no mention of social diversity, and on matters of migration, only in terms of dealing with problems it presents, not as opportunities it creates.
He concluded by saying that the Executive's community relations policy, Cohesion, Sharing and Integration, needs to be ambitious and seen as a driver for economic growth. This provoked a participant to ask whether there was a risk of convincing politicians to support good relations not on intrinsic values. "Hypocrisy matters," replied Macauley, but added that in political terms, it was worth doing whatever it took to get the right policies into place. I sensed some in the room weren't entirely comfortable with this more pragmatic (if not Machiavellian) perspective. Yet this masterclass is part of a concerted effort by NICVA to better inform its clients of the decision making process, especially on policies that affect them in the voluntary and community sector. It is a professional approach, and I hope everyone in the room will apply the day's lessons well.
Original posting: http://mrulster.org/the-creative-class-and-northern-ireland
This little quote may not be the answer to everything but is part of a quite uplifting overview in the Guardian from a Derry women of the younger generation, Jeananne Craig, "a Derry journalist now living and working in London."
Bloody Sunday was not a talking point when I, a Catholic, moved on to my predominantly Protestant grammar school. My schoolfriends growing up in the city's largely unionist Waterside area no doubt had a different viewpoint to the one I held, but it wasn't something we discussed - our friendships were more important to us than our politics.
There is a degree of hypocrisy when it comes to Islam and its relationship with fashion. There has been an explosion of websites, magazines, fashion houses and events that showcase what can be described as "Islamic fashion" and yet there are those in the Islamic community who see the term as an oxymoron. They believe fashion and Islam are incompatible or an uneasy mix.
A new Turkish women's magazine Âlâ - roughly translated as 'superb, excellent' - features models in headscarves wearing Islamic-style dress. Some of the inspiration for Âlâ came from the British magazine Emel. One of the founders of Âlâ, Volkan Atay, has reservations about the term "Islamic fashion" preferring "fashion details" as a way of describing what the magazine is about. His reasoning is that fashion is trend-driven and what is "in" one year is out the next. This in his view is unIslamic.
It's a fine line that not everyone might get. On the surface Âlâ presents pretty much like a western fashion magazine. Some of the photo shoots are similar to the type of spread you might find in Vogue or Elle. Even though the models are wearing Islamic dress there is still sex-appeal, although less overt.
Since its launch Âlâ has been a hot item. According to Turkish media reports it has been outselling Vogue and Elle in that country.
Der Spiegel has a photo gallery of the inside world of Âlâ - here.
Criticism of Âlâ has comes from religious rather than secular quarters. Journalist Ihsan Eliacik claims that the magazine caters to the "nouveau riche." He takes issue with putting women on display, something he considers un-Islamic. He says that even though the women are wearing headscarves they are still being objectified in the same manner as models 'wearing bikinis.' The era of the 'invisible' Muslim woman is changing fast so maybe Mr Eliacik should fast forward.
An article in The Atlantic mentions Tekbir Giyim, CEO of a Turkish textile company, who argues that fashion and Islam are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
A look at some of the better known magazines catering to Muslim women that feature stylish hijabs and designer outfits suggest that "Islamic fashion" is a real and happening fashion curve. There certainly seems to be growing interest. Blogs dedicated to hijab styles are just one example with names like Hijabulous, Hijabi Couture, Hijabs High, Hijabib Style, Random Hijabi and Stylish Muslimah.
More about Âlâ and reactions to it in the video beneath:
In that interview trailed by Pete below, the Examiner itself highlights the DPM's soft voiced approach to an early referendum on unity. Have Alex Salmond's tactics found their Irish imitator?
The deputy first minister believes the Democratic Unionist Party can be persuaded to agree to such a dramatic move.
The general theme of the evening is still:
How responsive is the Assembly to the real concerns of the electorate?
John O'Dowd MLA (Sinn Féin) will be joined on the panel by Michael Copeland (UUP), Sammy Douglas MLA (DUP), John Kyle (PUP councillor) and Chris Lyttle MLA (Alliance). Mark Devenport will be back again to chair the evening.
While welcoming questions on all subjects of concern to the people of East Belfast, with an Executive Minister present, education may be a hot topic.
Ashfield Boys School on the Holywood Road will once again be the venue. Doors open at 7pm for a 7.30pm start.
This warning notice greeted me as I entered my place of work. Plastered along Donegall Road and Sandy Row.
Mick Hall
Having produced illustrated commentary to slugger for over a year now I've decided to experiment with the idea of giving my cartoons a voice through a written accompaniment. Perhaps this is a bold move and certainly the thought of breaking out of my cartooning-comfort zone and assembly words and sentences together instead of ink, tones and colours is a little daunting, especially when some of the target audience are seasoned slugger bloggers and critics, but I'm willing and ready for it and I'm going to give it a go.
So here goes my first cartoon-plus-commentary submission to slugger, and what better an occasion to comment than on the event of the Reverend Ian Paisley's retirement from the full-time ministry.
Indeed last Friday night was quite the occasion with over 3000 people – and for many standing room only, but don't worry soloist William McCrea eased that pain – coming from all over Northern Ireland to pay their respects to the big man with the once biggest voice in Northern Ireland politics. The fanfare on Friday brought an end to Lord Bannside's regular full time schedule and pulled the curtain on 65 years of preaching.
However it almost certainly won't be the last time the Reverend Ian Paisley takes to the pulpit and as such we can presume that congregations around the world will have the future delight of hosting Paisley as guest speaker.
Paisley who's no stranger to farewells and sendoffs, having pulled his voice from party politics in May 2008, can now enjoy his retirement in full free of major responsibilities, allowing him to focus his attention in full on writing his memoirs, as has been much reported in this weekend's papers. Certainly it was noted in the Daily Mail that Paisley remarked last year that he would be putting pen to paper and recounting stories that would make some laugh and others blush; certainly something to look forward to.
In any case whilst the Mr. Marmite of Northern Ireland may have retired his voice from politics and now from the full time ministry, it's rather clear to say that the big man with the big voice won't be retiring his voice from the public domain anytime soon. Indeed it's my guess that Paisley has a few more orations up his sleeve or elsewhere that will be hitting the headlines in the months or years to come.
29-Jan-12
That's according to the Northern Ireland deputy First Minister, Sinn Féin's Martin McGuinness, in an interview to be published in the Irish Examiner tomorrow. He's referring to RTÉ presenter Miriam O'Callaghan and her questioning of his version of his past during a televised debate with candidates in the Irish Presidential election last year. From the Irish Examiner report
In an interview to be published in full in Monday's Irish Examiner, Mr McGuinness says Ms O'Callaghan apologised on count night."Miriam came off the stage after she had spoken to RTÉ and went to my wife and two children, two daughters, and apologised for her performance on the show [the Prime Time debate]," he said.Pressed on whether Ms O'Callaghan apologised specifically for the murder question, he said: "Well, as far as I was concerned she apologised for her behaviour, and that, as far as I'm concerned, was the end of it. Miriam didn't apologise to me -- she apologised to my wife and two daughters," he said.
[Miriam O'Callaghan] "I remember he asked me to come over and meet his wife and daughters in Dublin Castle, and I do remember apologising to them for any stress caused to them during the presidential campaign -- as I am always very conscious that families and loved ones have to endure a lot during election campaigns, particularly very tough ones."I would never, however, have apologised for asking that question. That is just not something I would do."It's my job to ask tough questions. I will never apologise for that. I am just doing my job."
...Miriam dismissed suggestions that she treated the Ulster MLA unfairly, adding that she was just doing her job."Look, it's like every political party and group from the north and south of the border have got really annoyed at me at one stage or another, so I think that probably means I'm doing my job as best I can ... you need to ask tough questions or give up the game."
On the other hand,
Things have been quiet around these parts of late. I moved to Dublin, started working for Storyful, and have been kept very busy over at thestory.ie doing FOIs. Do readers want me to cross post everything from thestory.ie to here?
[posted to thestory.ie]
Readers will be aware that Anglo Irish Bank was nationalised in January 2009. This came after the bank guarantee scheme of September/October 2009. Anglo became a prescribed body under the Ethics in Public Office Act last summer, which was expanded through a statutory instrument in February 2010 to cover many subsidiaries of the bank.
However, Anglo has not become a prescribed body under the Freedom of Information Act 1997/2003. This would require the signature of Finance Minister, Brian Lenihan. Given the sheer volumes of public money already given to the bank, and the volumes of public money due to be given, it is outrageous that the public has no recourse to information as to how this money is being spent. We cannot quantify expenditure by the bank, nor has the Government made any effort to inform the public about how much public money has been given to the banks, and how it is exactly spent.
I gave a great deal of thought to this problem over the last number of months, and decided on a course of action that will be unknown to many. I have decided to publicise this process in the hope that others will follow. We have a right to know what is going on. As a result I started a process that I believe is the most significant and important request for information we have sent to date.
On February 8, 2010, I sent the following email to the Anglo Board through then secretary to the Board, Natasha Mercer.
Request for access to environmental information under European Communities (Access to Information on the Environment) Regulations 2007
Dear Sirs,
In accordance with the above mentioned regulations, I wish to request the following records which I believe to be held by Anglo Irish Bank Corporation Limited ("the Bank"):
1) All minutes of board meetings from January 2009 to January 2010, inclusive, insofar as such meetings relate to property or property related loans.
2) A breakdown of all properties owned or controlled by the Bank, or its agents or subsidiaries, (including any charges held over any properties, by it or its subsidiaries companies), to include the following data: for how much they were purchased, the date of the purchase, any amount owed, the address and/or land coordinates of the properties, the current estimated value of the properties, all environmental impact assessments, risk reports, other assessments and economic analyses carried out in relation to all properties and lands and their related loans. The date range for this request is January 2009 to January 2010, inclusive.
3) A breakdown of all security, collateral or charges held by the bank in relation to property.
In order to clarify the legal position, and to identify the legal arguments at an early stage to save costs, I put forward the legal arguments on possible defences here.
Anglo Irish Bank is a public body according to Section 3 (1) (vii) of the European Communities (Access to Information on the Environment) Regulations 2007 (S.I. No 133/2007). In addition, according to S.I. 320/2009, Anglo Irish Bank is a public body for the purposes of the Ethics in Public Office (Prescribed public bodies, designated directorships of public bodies and designated positions in public bodies)(Amendment) Regulations 2009.
Regulation 2 of the EIR provides the interpretation of terms in the EIR and in regulation 2(1) it states: "environmental information" has the same meaning as in Article 2(1) of the Directive, namely any information in written, visual, aural, electronic or any other material form on -
(a) the state of the elements of the environment, such as air and atmosphere, water, soil, land, landscape and natural sites including wetlands, coastal and marine areas, biological diversity and its components, including genetically modified organisms, and the interaction among these elements;
(b) factors, such as substances, energy, noise, radiation or waste, including radioactive waste, emissions, discharges and other releases into the environment, affecting or likely to affect the elements of the environment referred to in (a);
(c) measures (including administrative measures), such as policies, legislation, plans, programmes, environmental agreements, and activities affecting or likely to affect the elements and factors referred to in (a) and (b) as well as measures or activities designed to protect those elements;
(d) reports on the implementation of environmental legislation;
(e) cost-benefit and other economic analyses and assumptions used within the framework of the measures and activities referred to in (c); and
(f) the state of human health and safety, including the contamination of the food chain, where relevant, conditions of human life, cultural sites and built structures inasmuch as they are or may be affected by the state of the elements of the environment referred to in (a) or, through those elements, by any of the matters referred to in (b) and (c);
The information sought relates directly to properties and lands and therefore are "measures (including administrative measures), such as policies, legislation, plans, programmes, environmental agreements, and activities affecting or likely to affect the elements and factors referred to in (a) and (b)".
This may be in the form of affecting "landscape" and "natural sites including wetlands, coastal and marine areas", or biological diversity and its components". It may also affect "factors, such as substances, energy, noise, radiation or waste, including radioactive waste, emissions, discharges and other releases into the environment, affecting or likely to affect the elements of the environment referred to in (a)".
The information clearly falls under (e): "cost-benefit and other economic analyses and assumptions used within the framework of the measures and activities referred to in (c)".
Including economic and financial information in the definition in the Aarhus Convention stems from the recognition that it is important to integrate environmental and economic considerations in decision-making. This section is qualified by referring back to paragraph (c) measures and activities; so they are the economic and financial aspects taken into account when framing and operating these measures and activities. It ensures that the definition of environmental information extends not only to environmental measures and activities, but also to any of their economic aspects.
In the case of (f), lands and properties referred to in the reports would also be relevant, in terms of "the state of cultural sites and built structures".
In addition Recital 10 in the introduction to the Directive includes:
"The definition of environmental information should be clarified so as to encompass information in any form on the state of the environment, on factors, measures or activities affecting or likely to affect the environment or designed to protect it, on cost-benefit and economic analyses used within the framework of such measures or activities and also information on the state of human health and safety, including the contamination of the food chain, conditions of human life, cultural sites and built structures in as much as they are, or may be, affected by any of those matters."
Article 2(1) aims to provide that clarification. With that in mind, there is little to be gained from considering the subtle differences between, for example, "air and atmosphere" or "discharges and releases". The examples are there to help identify what is environmental information, not to confuse.
Also, as they are only examples, there will also be other elements of the environment not mentioned in regulation 2(1)(a) and other factors not mentioned in regulation 2(1)(b). The examples are not intended in any way to limit the general definitions of environmental information.
Please note that according to Article 3 (2) (a) of the Directive, you are obliged to provide the information requested "as soon as possible, or at the latest, within one month" (20 working days) of being requested. I look forward to a response within the time period prescribed.
I wish to obtain all information in electronic format via email. I understand that much if not all of the sought information is held digitally, I therefore seek it in this format to save time and costs.
Please contact me by email to discuss any problems which may occur with this request.
Sincerely
Gavin Sheridan
The Bank, via Anglo Head of Legal Lizanne White, replied within the 20 day time period prescribed under the Regulations. This is the reply, my emphasis:
Having considered the European Communities (Access to Information on the Environment) Regulations 2007 (the "Regulations") we have concluded that the Bank is not a public authority within the meaning of the Regulations. It is clear from the wording of the Regulations, read in light of the Guidance Notes on the Regulations, Directive 2003/4/EC on Public Access to Environmental Information, and the UN/ECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, that the range of public authorities subject to the Regulations is primarily defined by paragraphs (a) – (c) of the definition in regulation 3(1). Paragraphs (i) – (vii) simply clarify the range of bodies which may fall within paragraphs (a) – (c). A body of a type mentioned in paragraphs (i) – (vii) will not be a public authority unless, in addition, it falls within one of the categories in paragraphs (a) – (c). We do not believe that any other interpretation of the Regulations would be co
[Crossposted to thestory.ie]
Readers may recall a blog post I wrote back in December detailing my dealings with the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism (DAST). After gleaning information from the footers of Ken Foxe's FOIs concerning John O'Donoghue, I established that the Department was using Oracle iExpense software to store expenses information.
I wrote an FOI request in October asking for a ‘datadump', of the entire database since inception (in other words, a copy of the database). The Department refused both the original request and the appeal for internal review (conducted by a more senior official in the Department).
In January I appealed the decision to the Office of the Information Commissioner. The request, internal review and appeal have cost a combined EUR240 (kindly made available by you, the public).
The Appeal letter to the Information Commissioner
Today I am pleased to say that I have reached a settlement with the Department, brokered by the Office of the Information Commissioner. The Department have agreed to release almost the entire database, with some elements removed. This is not a formal decision of the Commissioner, but is instead a settling of the issue. This just means that a formal OIC Decision was not required as the two parties reached an agreement.
The settlement is this: the entire expenses database of the Department, to include the follow expenses data headings:
Description, Grade, Full Name, Claim, Date, Purpose, Status, Total Claimed, Distribution Line Number, Start Date, Expense Type, Euro Line Amount, Currency Code, Currency Rate, Amount Quantity Unit, Rate Net Total, (EUR) Payment Date, Withholding Amount Invoice, Amount, Amount Paid.
Cost Centre numbers, employee cost centre numbers, named approvers and justification fields have been removed. There are also some removals from other fields which is either considered personal information or information obtained in confidence. These removals do not mean the information is redacted per se, it just means that in order to get the data, I agreed to remove certain columns in order to expedite the process. It does not preclude me from seeking the justification field, for example, in the future.
The data contains EUR774,882.29 of expense claims by named civil servants over a five year period (2005 to 2009 inclusive). The amount involved might appear relatively small, but it is the quality of the data that is more significant.
I cannot overstate the importance of the release of this data, and there are a number of reasons why this is the case.
Firstly, it sets an important precedent in terms of what information can be obtained from public bodies. In their refusals to release this data, the Department cited three sections of the Act which they felt exempted them from releasing it. The OIC felt differently. While not a formal decision of the OIC, a settlement was justified in this case as the Department were amenable to releasing the majority of the data sought. Decisions can take far longer to get (up to two years), so I felt that on balance the offered information in the settlement was acceptable.
Second, are the broader implications.
Following this settlement with DAST, I have started the process of requesting similar expenses data from the Department of Agriculture and Food, the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, the Department of Community Rural & Gaeltacht Affairs, the Department of Defence, the Department of Education and Science, the Department of the Taoiseach, the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission, the Department of Justice Equality and Law Reform, the Courts Service, the Industrial Development Authority, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, the Department of the Environment Heritage and Local Government, the Department of Finance, the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of Health and Children, the Department of Social and Family Affairs, the Department of Transport, the Health Service Executive, the Revenue Commissioners, FÁS and Enterprise Ireland.
I believe the combined expenses data for these (and other) bodies will run to tens, if not hundreds of millions of euro.
But perhaps most critical is this: I sought the data not as a journalist looking for a scoop, not as a member of the public with an axe to grind, but as a transparency advocate only interested in the public interest. By publishing this, and coming data, I believe the public is served by a more open and accountable State – where data related to how some public monies are spent is no longer hidden, but is in full view. Transparency keeps the system honest.
I should also make clear that publishing this data is not an attempt to embarrass any one person, nor does it form the basis of any claim that somehow there was something unjustified about any expense claimed by civil servants. It is simply an exercise in transparency, and no more.
And I will leave readers with one question.
If I am getting this data and intend publishing it in its entirety online for the public to see, what is stopping the Government from doing the same, proactively, without question, and as a matter of course?
In the end, sunlight benefits us all.
The dataset, presented as is (and containing some macros):
Our esteemed Senators have been at it again. Hold onto your hats. Senator Donie Cassidy kicked it off:
Donie Cassidy (Fianna Fail): Senators Fitzgerald, Coghlan, Quinn and Norris congratulated the Jekyll and Hyde foundation for the wonderful work it is doing. Senator Fitzgerald outlined the huge difference between the cost of the services being provided by the foundation and those provided by the HSE. It is something we must examine—–
Frances Fitzgerald (Fine Gael): It is the Jack and Jill Children's Foundation.
Dominic Hannigan (Labour): Jekyll and Hyde is something different.
Donie Cassidy (Fianna Fail): My apologies. It is the Jack and Jill Children's Foundation....
Your tax euros hard at work there.
You would have to wonder whether you could call the proposal for a bank inquiry an ‘inquiry' at all. It certainly does not appear to have much in the way of grilling the people who caused the mess, or of dealing with the decisions post September 2008, all of which were the critical ones.
I made the point earlier to Senator Dan Boyle (who is said to have offered his resignation over the inquiry). I tweeted to him: "...forgive my cynicism then. Will I see TV pictures of our leaders for the past 12 years being held to account for their decisions?"
To which he replied:
Brian Cowen, at least, is a start. But Bertie Ahern, being the Taoiseach who oversaw the entire period would be another must see. And Messrs McCreevy (Finance), Cullen, Dempsey, Roche and Gormley (Environment) would be others. As I said to Mr Boyle, accountability behind closed doors is not accountability. Accountability must be seen to be done, a bit like justice. Getting a report at the end of a process is not enough.
But then accountability seems to be a rather novel concept to most of our politicians.
[cross posted to thestory.ie]
I have received copies of all financial support given by Enterprise Ireland for 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008. It details tens of millions of euro worth of grants to companies throughout the country. The supports are broken down by county.
For now I have not ‘cleaned' the data, ie I have not removed spaces and extra sentences that are not needed for the purposes of better presentation. The document is ‘as
is' and is based on PDFs which have been imported into Google spreadsheets.
Enterprise Ireland grants 2005 – 2008
You can view each year of data by clicking the respective year at the bottom of the spreadsheet.
[cross posted to thestory.ie]
[Cross posted to thestory.ie]
Last month I put an FOI request in with the Department of the Taoiseach for the following:
(1) All transcripts of public sittings of the Moriarty Tribunal from its inception to the date on which this request is received.
(2) The contract for transcription services and a breakdown of fees charged for transcription services.
(3) The breakdown of fees for the maintenance and building of the Moriarty Tribunal website, and the contract for this.
Today I received the reply. I had to read it twice to let it sink in.
I can, in some way, live with the fact that the taxpayer spent the bones of EUR1 million on transcription fees since the inception of the Tribunal in 1998. But I cannot fathom how a) the transcripts are not available online and b) that I have to pay (again) to see the transcripts of the Tribunal and c) that Doyle Court Reports retains copyright on transcripts of public sittings of a Tribunal of Inquiry setup by the Department and paid for by the Irish people.
I called Doyle Court Reporters this morning and they were very courteous and helpful. I asked for a quote as to how much I would have to pay for digital (.doc) copies of all 370 days of public sittings of the Moriarty Tribunal. They called me back a short time later, stating that for all days the cost would be EUR16,600 @ EUR45 per day. But if I was bulk buying they would be prepared to offer a discount of 25%.
I did suggest to DCR that since the public had already paid nearly EUR1 million for the transcripts, it seems a little odd that I would, as a citizen, have to fork out another EUR16,600 to get copies of the transcripts. DCR were again courteous and helpful, and suggested I speak with the Moriarty Tribunal.
I then called the Moriarty Tribunal, where I spoke with the registrar, Siobhan Hayes. First I asked if the Tribunal had copies of all transcripts, to which the answer was yes. Are these subject to FOI I then asked... to which she eventually replied no, and that copyright was with DCR. I then asked why other Tribunals, such as Mahon and Morris, had published transcripts on their websites, and Moriarty ones were unavailable. I was told that the original agreement was that copyright would stay with DCR, and that was the way it was. I then asked for a copy of the contract or agreement between the Tribunal and DCR in relation to stenography services. Siobhan said she would get back to me on this issue.
Of course a couple of questions arise. First is whether the Department of the Taoiseach does hold the transcripts, but simply pointed me in the direction of Doyle Court Reporters for copies of them. Second is how, exactly, copyright on transcripts of a public sitting of a Tribunal applies.
Third, and most importantly, is why the transcripts are unavailable for public consumption as a matter of public record. These are historically important transcripts containing the sworn evidence of former Taoisigh including Charles Haughey and Bertie Ahern, as well as other former senior ministers, civil servants and businessmen, all in relation to extremely serious issues of public concern. Indeed when a Tribunal is established it is invariably included in the Terms of Reference that it concerns "definite matters of urgent public importance".
Yet in relation to a matter of urgent public importance, for a Tribunal that is shortly to issue its second and final report, I can't see who said what in relation to anything on any given day, whatsoever.
Mad, isn't it?
Related post:
Morris transcript FOI
Another year down... a happy new year to everyone!
I can't really add much to Mr Kelly's excellent analysis. What it says to me is that the next 12 to 18 months are going to be among the most difficult, if not the most difficult, time this country has faced. I encourage everyone to read the entire document.
I will emphasise his conclusion:
Despite having pushed the Irish state close to, and quite possibly beyond, the limits ofits fiscal capacity with the NAMA scheme, the Irish banks remain as zombies whose only priority is to reduce their debt, and who face complete destruction from mortgage losses. The issue therefore is not whether the Irish bank bailout will restore the Irish banks sothat they can function as independent commercial entities: it cannot. Rather it is whether the Irish government's commitments to bank bond holders when added to its existing spend-ing commitments, will overwhelm the fiscal capacity of the Irish state, forcing outside entities such as the IMF and EU to intervene and impose a resolution on the Irish banking system.
[cross posted to thestory.ie]
I don't want this post to seem like an "I told you so" post. But it might appear that way. I started irishcorruption.com/publicinquiry.eu back in 2005. One of the biggest issues myself and my uncle Anthony covered, and still cover on that blog, is the lack of regulation of the banks. And when the country was in a credit boom, and nobody, or at least very few, were asking questions about regulation of the banks, myself, and to a much deeper degree Anthony where highlighting this issue ad nauseum. Almost all of these posts were also copied to the office of the Financial Regulator.
August 22, 2005 Toothless IFSRA
August 25, 2005 Allied Irish Banks investigates itself
September 28, 2005 Banana Republic
October 10, 2005 Irish/Italian accountability
November 15, 2005 The sheriff is not for the good guys
December 13, 2005 Irish (Banks) Mafia
December 23, 2005 Legal actions, dodgy dealings and resignations
January 9, 2006 The (Irish financial) Wild West Show
March 24, 2006 Still waiting for law enforcement
March 26, 2006 Former AIB executives settle with Revenue for EUR323,313
June 7, 2006 Ireland - The Wild West of European finance
August 1, 2006 Irish Financial Regulator - Bizarre and toothless
August 2, 2006 Rampant corruption - rampant profits
September 28, 2006 A corrupt state
October 13, 2006 Bank robbers and bank robbers
December 12, 2006 Failing to make connections
December 14, 2006 Maintaining the illusion
January 23, 2007 State contempt for consumers
March 20, 2007 Irish Financial Regulator - Betraying the consumer
April 4, 2007 The Financial Regulator, banks and credit unions
April 25, 2007 Insider watchdog
May 3, 2007 It's all in the mind
June 17, 2007 AIB: Still ripping off customers with impunity
June 13, 2007 Man of steel turns to straw
August 23, 2007 A corrupt and secretive financial market
August 21, 2007 Dublin - A conduit for dodgy deals?
August 27, 2007 Dublin operation - A sloppily-run pig sty
And that's just the first two years of blog posts. Never let anyone tell you that no one could have seen what was coming.
Two good articles by IT journalists over the weekend.
First up, Simon Carswell, via FoI:
THE INTERNATIONAL Monetary Fund (IMF) told the Government that the definition of "long-term economic value" on bank loans in the draft Nama Bill was "masterful" as it was "sufficiently specific" and "sufficiently vague" to allow "appropriate flexibility".
Steven Seelig, an adviser at the IMF, made the comments in an e-mailed response to a request by the Department of Finance for his opinion on the draft National Asset Management Agency Bill published last August.
"It is both sufficiently specific and sufficiently vague to allow appropriate flexibility. I hope you can retain this language," said Mr Seelig, an expert on "bad banks", in a private e-mail to department officials sent on August 25th.
The e-mail was among records released to The Irish Times under the Freedom of Information Act relating to representations made to the department on Nama.
And Laura Slattery, also via FoI:
THE NATIONAL Asset Management Agency (Nama) should be required to register with the Land Registry or the Registry of Deeds, Minister for Finance Brian Lenihan has been advised.
In correspondence released to The Irish Times under the Freedom of Information Act, the Law Society of Ireland and the Property Registration Authority both expressed concern about the exemption for Nama assets to register in the Land Registry or the Registry of Deeds.
The society wrote to Mr Lenihan in September to say "normal conveyancing practice" should not be disrupted by Nama and that the agency should be required to register its interest in a land bank or property title.
The Property Registration Authority said the exemption for Nama assets to register "would appear to run counter to public policy and the necessity of transparency and reliability in land registers".
Registration on a State register "provides clarity and certainty", John Coleman, chairman of the Property Registration Authority, wrote to the Department of Finance. Other letters written to Mr Lenihan expressing concerns about the workings of Nama included a note from Bernard Allen TD, chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts.
I will be seeking copies of these FoI in my own future FoIs.
[Crossposted to thestory.ie]
I will post the document first and tell the story below, it's worth a look. The information contained in this FOI, is I believe, valuable.
Cost-benefit analyses, impact reports or preparatory reports for NAMA
Why is this information valuable? It contains a timeline of what companies were involved in consulting the Government on the formation of NAMA, and gives us insight into the process. It also contains previously unknown titles, such as HSBC's "Project Neo". This is likely relates to the rumoured formation of a "New Anglo Irish Bank" in 2010. And it gives us an idea as to the level of involvement of Merrill, Arthur Cox, Rotschilds, PwC and HSBC.
The background:
A little bit of a saga ended today, finally. It is worth noting the dates involved in this request.
On August 17 I sought the following information from the Department of Finance:
1) A list of all cost-benefit analyses, impact reports or preparatory reports that have been carried out by the Department in relation to the proposed National Asset Management Agency (NAMA). Please can you list the title of the document, its date, and by whom it was written.
2) A list of all cost-benefit analyses, impact reports, or preparatory reports that have been carried out by people or companies working on behalf of, or at the request of the Department, in relation to the proposed National Asset Management Agency (NAMA). Please can you list the title of the document, its date, and by whom it was written.
I received my acknowledgment as standard, which was followed up with an email. The email said it was unlikely my request would be successful but if I wanted, I could be given information outside of my request. I went along with this and it resulted in this blog post on September 30. That's in and around the 20 day limit under the Act.
But I didn't feel the information provided was sufficient, and I always wanted information should my request be refused. So I said I still wanted to proceed with my original request. The Department then took the date of my re-request as the initial date, thus giving them another 20 working days. This brought the result of the request into early November, despite an initial request in August.
Numerous emails were sent, and replied to. The civil servants involved were "busy" with NAMA and it was taking longer than normal to reply to my request. Last week I had enough, and wrote an email seeking an internal review as my request was now a deemed refusal since the 20 day limit had expired. Today, December 8, nearly four months later, I got the reply.
N Irish Blogs
1169 And Counting..... Balrog Drive-by Planet Everything Ulster fdelondras Gavin's Blog James O'Malley... Living Legend » Politics Malcolm Redfellow's World Service ORGANIZED RAGE revolutionaryireland SAOIRSE32 SINN FÉIN - KEEP LEFT Slugger O'Toole Splintered Sunrise Splintered Sunrise The Choice Of A New Irish Republican Generation! We Perish If We YieldGreen Party of England and Wales
Green Party of Scotland
Labour
Liberal Democrats
Scottish National Party
Plaid Cymru
Respect - The unity coalition
Scottish Socialist Party
Sinn Fein
Social Democratic and Labour Party
UK Independence Party
Ulster Democratic Unionist Party
Ulster Unionist Party
They Work For You
UK Parliament
Blog Your MP
The Big Conversation
BBC iCan
