Behind the political show boating lies real fear. “With inflation at 4.4 per cent, a 16-year high, workers are being given pay rises as low as one per cent while others receive no increase at all despite earning close to the minimum wage.”

A sharp cut in immigration is backed by 81% of Labour voters, 83% of Liberal Democrats and 89% of Conservatives, found the (YouGov) survey, commissioned on the group’s behalf by think tank Migrationwatch UK. Frank Field explains his plans

“The government would wish to ensure applicants’ qualifications were genuine. These workers would then be admitted, but only for a maximum of four years. They would come to the UK on that clear understanding. Employers would have to produce evidence that workers had left at the end of their contracts. No departure, no approval for new contracts.”

Can they really make companies responsible for this? Like many of Field’s ideas, these are too complex and have unintended consequences. But what this signifies is that a serious debate about immigration is over. All it’s about now is the best way of controlling it.

Overall, people are beginning to realise that a financial crisis is like floods. You can take emergency measures but they won’t stop it happening. And maybe you shouldn’t have been there in the first place, down in the flood plain of over-spending. We’ll be lucky to get through this winter without mass protests or worse.

.....Or less often, over the city itself? They should try living in west London, where it’s two flights minute. Belfast objectors lack one of the arguments used against a third runway at Heathrow, that high speed rail would be a more environmentally friendly alternative for many of the half of its 67 million passengers a year who are short haul flyers. The same choice doesn’t apply to City – though I suppose there’s always Aldergrove, sorry, Belfast International.  And then again, in the case of NI, travel broadens the mind, or so I like to think.

We need to reflect on the dangers of the decision-making protections acting as decision making prevention on more and more important issues. The possibilities for political realignment with new or changing party offerings in the future could be stunted by permanent reliance to the present degree on designation. If we are serious about a truly shared future then we have to allow for truly shared politics where parties can – and have to – appeal across the traditional divides. The fault-line in our society will still be there but it should not determine the party political cleavage for future generations.

Protections of rights, interests and identities will still be needed but not only for, or only as, either unionists or nationalists. In the stance-off over other issues recently, little attention is being paid to the rut that the Bill of Rights debate is stuck in. There are those who dismiss the need for such a bill or for it to be robust and extend to some social and economic issues. Maybe they and the rest of us need to start thinking about how a sound Bill of Rights in Northern Ireland might offer more productive and articulate protection for all our rights in a new democratic society than vote-locks and tit-for-tat vetoes in perpetuity. ‘One man-one vote’ was the start of a journey – made longer and harder than it needed to be. ‘One side- one vote’ should not be the final destination of that journey.

That would probably have to be accompanied by poet Michael Longley’s process of civilisation.

And, of course, some people would “just have to be tolerant of that..”

“These meetings represent an opportunity to engage and discuss the process of transition from paramilitary organisations to people playing a full part in a peaceful and democratic Northern Ireland with violence and criminality being firmly a thing of the past. “

One might regard trying to stop these organisations as laudable; however, to my mind the next sentence betrays Robinson’s error:

“The response from both the UDA and the UVF/RHC has been positive and there was a commitment to an ongoing engagement.”

The idea of a positive response from the loyalist terrorists is utterly specious. They continue to hold onto their weapons and have repeatedly refused to give them up. The problem with the DUP approach exists at several levels.

Firstly there is a simple moral argument: these groups and those individuals with whom the DUP members were discussing have been involved in some of the most unpleasant terrorist murders in Northern Ireland. They are also involved in ongoing criminality and murders such as, it would seem, Thomas Devlin, possibly Lisa Dorrian etc. They continue to exert a malevolent and destructive influence on mainly working class Protestant areas: the same areas which frequently vote DUP (but very rarely for the representatives of loyalist terrorists). As such to entreat with the persecutors of their constituents seems extremely inappropriate.

The DUP will of course claim that these people (the working class Protestants) will benefit from the ending of loyalist paramilitarism. That may well be true and may be an honest position but it exposes a large flaw in their moral argument, and it becomes very difficult for the DUP to criticise the likes of John Hume indulging in discussions with SF, in the aftermath of some of the worst terrorist atrocities of the troubles. It also as Jim Allister has noted undermines the line which needs to be kept to on SF and policing and justice.

The next reason why it is a foolish plan from the DUP is the simple fact that the strategy (entreating with loyalist paramilitaries) has been shown on numerous occasions to be utterly useless: Mo Mowlam went to talk to them, all manner of people with good or bad motives have engaged with them yet as I noted above the paramilitaries continue to indulge in criminal activities: not merely the criminal activity of being in loyalist criminal organisations but also in numerous organised crimes. Discussions with these groups will inevitably centre on what will persuade them to go away. Essentially these groups require some sort of carrot or Danegeld to buy them off and then they may consider starting to do what the rest of us have always done: obey the law; the law which bans owning weapons, the law which bans being in illegal organisations, killing people, robbing people, dealing drugs, etc. etc. They have also repeatedly said that they will not give up “The people’s guns” and similar nauseatingly evil statements: nauseating especially when the “people” they claim to support and help, the working class unionist population, have always been those who most frequently suffered at the muzzles of “The People’s Guns.”

Sadly the DUP is going down the well travelled and utterly ineffective path with these people. All they will do is undermine the very thing most people want; that these people are stopped, preferably by arrest and ideally held accountable for the very large numbers of crimes they have committed. Margaret Ritchie has shown one of the few ways forward in this: stopping their money. The DUP would, I fear, be far better employed in meeting with the police and indeed the Secretary of State and encouraging a much more muscular and aggressive policing response to loyalist criminality. Loyalist paramilitaries have always been utterly useless and as I have discussed earlier it is long past time to stop appeasing them. The only meetings which the leaders of loyalist paramilitarism should be holding are: firstly with the PSNI serious crime squad, then hopefully with their lawyers and ideally many years thereafter with their probation officers.

Both Irish teams start with crucial road trips. The Republic of Ireland face Georgia (in Germany) and then Montenegro, with Northern Ireland facing a key trip to Slovakia before hosting Group favourites, Czech Republic. Trapattoni has somewhat daringly declared he’d be disappointed with a return of four points from the trip, whilst Worthington must hope that the Hampden Park draw suggests that the sort of away day meltdowns experienced in Iceland and Latvia this time last year are not repeated.
Elsewhere, England should start with a thrashing of Andorra, whilst the Scots begin with an awkward away trip to Macedonia and the Welsh host Azerbaijan.

The block grant is already being squeezed year-on-year by Barnett formula convergence. Over time the expenditure per head across both Scotland and England will converge and eventually become identical. The bogey of the English subsidy to the Scots is much exaggerated, whipped up by English jingos. “ The faster the increase in public expenditure in England, the more the convergence effect of Barnett operates on Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.” The financial turndown slows down convergence but doesn’t halt it.

Ideas up Whitehall sleeves include plans for a Barnett formula replacement, whereby taxes raised in Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland would be supplemented by equalisation payments and conditional grants from London.  Unlike the Barnett formula which is totally opaque, these grants would be openly negotiated.  Labour would use them to guarantee UK national policy standards which the SNP mighn’t always like with but might have to tholl, while the Conservatives would put the squeeze on the devolved governments to keep their spending down.  Quite a good way for Westminster to keep a large measure of control. Even if Brown is out, this issue will not die!

Adds Almost forgot, Cassini’s still taking pictures of its tour of Saturn [which is still a planet - Ed] and its moons - ring arcs included.

And it’s having an effect on perceptions of her party too:

A week ago, just before he introduced his running mate, just 42% of Republicans had a Very Favorable opinion of their party’s nominee. That figure jumped to 54% by this Friday morning. Among unaffiliated voters, favorable opinions of McCain have increased by eleven percentage points in a week—from 54% before the Palin announcement to 65% today.

And the Rasmussen daily tracker poll is showing an almost immediate bounce effect for McCain. An effect that’s not expected to fully develop until next Tuesday or Wednesday.

Mr Obama has a fight on his hand, and one that few of his advisors were expecting at this stage of the game. He need to offer something more that nebulous promises of hope to sustain momentum and his lead in a contest that punters have long since assumed would be a one man race.

I pick out three examples. 1.  From E petitions in the Downing St website
From the Digital Dialogues report:

Coinciding with Tony Blair’s final weeks as prime minister, a series of public lectures were held in which he set out his view of contemporary issues affecting the UK. The final lecture on the media and public life became the focus of this engagement exercise. Journalists and commentators were invited (by Reuters and the Hansard Society, respectively) to take part in an argument mapping exercise about the lecture, which was testing new technology which aimed to facilitate deliberation (rather than polarised debate).

In the event, few people took part in the web deliberations. Invitees commented on the prohibitively complex interface that greeted them, but there were other reasons for their non-participation. Most were interested in commenting on the lecture in their own newspaper columns, and they set out their position on the topics raised by the former prime minister there rather than on the deliberative site.

2. David Miliband’s current blog has been developed as part of a suite of blogs by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

DD report “The suite of blogs incorporated another ministerial blog as well as those of a number of embassy staff and delegates to a range of countries (from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe). Despite the sensitivity of the contexts from which the FCO bloggers were posting, they were given camcorders and encouraged to post videos of the environments in which they work. Many made multimedia entries to the blog, combining text with video to show the complexity of their work.”

3. Food Standards Agency blog.

DD report “There is a requirement on the FSA to produce entries that have a broader appeal.” ( Well, this one on washing green salads made the MSM news, so they may have learned a lesson already)

From DD conclusions on the whole review . “People have different motivations for participating in online deliberations with government. Some want to have their say; others want to find out what other people think and to see how government responds. Online deliberations provide the government with opportunities to enhance public understandings of their work, but they are not a solution to disengagement of themselves. That relies on good practice.

Our research shows that online engagement exercises with clear objectives have fared better than those with undefined goals. Websites that combine careful planning and appropriate marketing with the development of reflexive engagement strategies have a greater chance of success”

The report is written in equally careful officialese but it’s pretty clear that better blogging skills with a touch of anarchy are generally needed. Can government supply them? And do people expect that from them? Two big steps towards enhancement add up to more independent input for effective interaction and real connectivity with the people:  one, strong minded, independent mediation in the public’s favour ; and two, frequent external hosting. The big question is: Is government prepared to cede control?  Still it was ambitious exercise and a fair effort. The public take-up is expanding and the quality can only get better. Browse in the Hansard Society site for more information and ideas. 

From the wikipedia entry

“An SEP is something we can’t see, or don’t see, or our brain doesn’t let us see, because we think that it’s somebody else’s problem.... The brain just edits it out, it’s like a blind spot. If you look at it directly you won’t see it unless you know precisely what it is. Your only hope is to catch it by surprise out of the corner of your eye.”

Btw that’s a Douglas Adams quote.  As is this on why Somebody Else’s Problem Fields require very little energy.

“This is because it relies on people’s natural predisposition not to see anything they don’t want to, weren’t expecting, or can’t explain.”

The funding was subsequently withdrawn by the CRC when it was revealed that the Mayor had lit the beacon with a poster of the local Sinn Fein MLA on top of it. Of course, the village residents who days earlier had been intimidated from their homes by local loyalists remain far from impressed. The loyalist figure involved in organising the beacon gathering, Mark Harbinson, had just weeks earlier been arrested and questioned about a series of attacks and threats on another catholic family, who also fled the village.
Since the rendezvous in the Mayor’s parlour, Harbinson’s Pride of the Village flute band have applied to march on five evenings in the month of September, including in their proposed route the two mixed housing developments in the village which have been the setting for the on-going sectarian attacks in recent years, which has led to eight families fleeing the village as a consequence, but no prosecutions to date. The Parades Commission have taken firm action against the proposed September parades, something which has deeply angered long-time Harbinson associate, TUV councillor Cecil Calvert (pictured with the loyalis figure, the Mayor and two other ‘revellers’ at the 11th Night gathering above.)
Ironically, the latest information has come to light as a DUP and Sinn Fein-supported Council investigation into the role played by council staff in securing the funds continues as the former party’s ties with Mr. Harbinson have well and truly been cut following the latter’s well-publicised failure to become a party member some years ago. At that time, the resentful loyalist went on Radio Ulster’s Talkback programme to complain about how, as a party election worker, he had felt betrayed by the DUP, though he did thank the local representatives who supported his application.
The animosity between Harbinson and the DUP was confirmed at last year’s beacon gathering, when then DUP Mayor, James Tinsley, claimed he had been intimidated at the event by loyalists. Days prior to this year’s beacon burning, loyalists erected a large banner mocking the DUP councillor at the site of the beacon.

Giving his account of the vital negotiations preceding the DUP/Sinn Fein deal that saw the Rev Ian Paisley installed as First Minister, Mr Ahern tells Frank Millar:

“Paisley could never have made the move he made unless there was an acceptance that policing was going to work. And the Shinners could never have made the decision unless there was an acceptance of the devolution of policing. That was the quid pro quo, which is hugely important.”

With that issue left for new First Minister Peter Robinson and Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness to resolve, Mr Ahern, in an interview recorded after he left office in May, emphasised his belief in a prior understanding between the two sides. “Just remember on that point, because I did that bit of the negotiations myself with Ian and with Gerry Adams,” he told the author, “and it was the quid pro quo”. 

When asked if he feared Sinn Fein might be tempted to “flex muscle” and set an early “test” for the new Robinson leadership over issues like the devolution of policing and justice powers, Mr Ahern said he thought not, while repeating that “Sinn Fein had a cast iron guarantee that 1st May (2008) was the deadline’ for achieving it. 

The chapter ‘Ireland at Peace’ continues: “(Millar) Cast iron? (Ahern) ‘It was absolutely crystal clear from the British Government and from everybody else.’ But from the DUP? ‘Everybody that would move… I mean there’s no doubt May was the date.’ Yet the DUP has consistently said it never signed up for May 2008? ‘Yeah, well, I mean listen,’ says Mr Ahern, clearly unimpressed with any protestations to the contrary now: ‘The devolution of policing from May was part of the deal in my view. OK, you can say that the governments didn’t extract that from everyone in writing but it was what the two governments agreed and everybody else agreed.”

For the record, that detail from the IMC report. [pdf file]

PIRA is not recruiting or training members and the membership continues to decline, and there is some issue as to what membership means in the absence of activity. In so far as gathering information or intelligence may continue in any limited way – not in itself improper if it does not involve illegal methods or intent - we believe that it is mainly for the purpose of ascertaining the nature of any threat from dissident republicans.

And, naturally, they’ll be passing on that “information or intelligence” to the appropriate authorities..

Model one is simple. “There’s the press, and the public. The press only prints “facts” that are checked and verified. That’s all the public ever finds out about. The press functions as “gatekeeper.” Okay, even in Ireland, we’re past that stage.

Model two should also be familiar. “It’s contingent on “the rise of blogs, which (along with tabloids and cable) often discuss rumors that are not “verified.” The public finds out about these rumors, as rumors. And it turns out that blogging obsessively about rumors is a pretty good way to smoke out the truth (see, e.g., Dan Rather).”

But he notes that “Blogs and tabloids are a sort of intermediate nethersphere between public and the elite MSM that serves as a proving ground where the truth or falseness of the “undernews” gets hashed out. Stories that are true then graduate to the MSM.”

Here’s the decisive shift:

We are now, I think, making the next logical leap, to a model in which unverified rumors about public figures are discussed and assessed not just in the blogosphere or the unrespectable tabs but in the MSM itself. I say welcome! With NYT reporters and bloggers all openly discussing unverified reports,, whatever is true will become un-unverified that muhch faster. And the public is proving, by and large, to be quite capable of distinguishing between stories that are true and rumors that are still being investigated.

He goes on to note:

Once reporters start peppering campaigns with questions, after all, I suspect it will be impossible to keep a lid on whatever rumors the MSM is peppering the campaigns about. That’s particularly true in a “synergistic” world where a reporter like Howard Fineman not only writes for Newsweek but also appears on cable shows that have an imperative to discuss whatever is hot now. It’s particularly true in a Drudgian world where the activities of MSM reporters-what they’re working on, what questions they’re asking--is itself news for the Web. In that world, the line between “checking out” tips and open discussion of at least the non-actionable rumors can’t really be maintained and shouldn’t be, given the truth-divining virtues of widespread publicity (which functions as an APB to the citizenry to come up with evidence).

Refering to McCain’s senior press man and alumnus of Karl Rove’s 2004 ‘Breakfast Club’ complaints about the behaviour of the mainstream press:

It’s tempting to assume Steve Schmidt’s cries are cynical, reflecting a desire to gin up a war between his candidate and the intrusive, condescending elite media--a war in which voters will side with his candidate. doesn’t he just do his job, under Model 2, and answer the MSM’s questions? But it’s also likely Schmidt’s anguish is at least in part authentic shock at the looming inability of even Model 2 to keep a lid on unrestrained speculation. When even MSM reporters start behaving like bloggers--when candidates’ can’t squelch discussion of their rumored sins, but have to wade into a non-stop public debate about them--the job of a campaign strategist will get a whole lot harder.

That’s the interpretation the pro-Tory Daily Mail is putting on it anyway. But the BBC’s Nick Robinson isn’t far off.  Two sentences pack a terrific punch “Labour’s current course will lead to utter destruction at the next general election.” “There is, however, a deep and widely shared concern – which does not derive from ideology – that Labour is destined to disaster if we go on as we are, combined with a determination that we will not permit that to happen.”

Turning the New Labour slogan of 1997 on its head: “Things can only get worse.”