It is not the job of “politicians” (not a monolithic gang of punters believe it or not) to make politics interesting, although they could have the decency to be a little less transparent about avoiding the nurturing of a culture of citizenship. Not even politicians like politics; they like the cut and thrust of interacting with and outmaneouvering other political actors and the pats on the back from their pimps in whatever is the industry or special interest of the moment.

Even if it were their job, they’re not going to do it, not even if you fold your arms and tap your foot impatiently while looking really quite cross indeed. So there’s no point in adopting that particular course of action.

If younger people want an affordable housing market, they should be a visible presence at the polls. If an affordable housing market hasn’t been established, it means young people haven’t voted in sufficient numbers to require politicians to address their demands ahead of the competing demands of those who have their ear. They’ve no one to blame for that but themselves ultimately.

Adds: Sharon’s advice - don’t rock the vote, spoil it!

From the Sunday Life article

NIO minister David Hanson is expected to announce employment legislation changes on Wednesday which will prevent employers from lawfully refusing to consider convicted paramilitaries for jobs on security grounds.

It is expected the changes will apply to the public and private sectors - but not be the security sector.

Hanson’s move is designed to assist loyalist paramilitaries in particular, part of a package of sweeteners from the Government to get terrorists to abandon criminality.

Hanson’s announcement will come just days before the UVF is expected to announce its intention to cease all paramilitary activities.

The principle Slugger is built on is that of the individual’s right to call the world as they see it - whether as bloggers or commenters. All too often thought that right is corrupted of obscured by gross incivility.  Civility, on the other hand, as Kennedy once noted, is not a sign of weakness. Indeed, it is an essential precondition to allow the rest of us examine the perspicacity (or otherwise) of an individual’s view. But too often contempt blocks the right, one for an individual blogger to speak, and two, to have his work critically examined.

I spoke on blogs and democracy recently in response to George Osbourne’s advocacy of a more open relationship between politicians and the people at the RSA in London. But the most impressive speaker wrapped up the importance of the individual voice thusly:

“Back to democracy - as Churchill pointed out, it is the least bad system of government we know, perhaps the internet holds a key to an organisation that establishes the balance between the individual, the society and its institutions. This is essential as for me the knowledge, creativity, innovation, morality and all things social start with the individual.”

More over at Comment is Free…

From the Irish Times

Peace has been bought in Northern Ireland by “perjury, fraud, corruption, cheating and lying”, according to socialist and community activist Bernadette McAliskey.

In what “sane, civilised community” would anyone be suggesting that the “three male groupings” involved in several decades of conflict would “now make up a police force,” Ms McAliskey told the Cúirt Forum in Galway.

Ms McAliskey, north Belfast playwright Gary Mitchell and Croatian writer Dubravka Ugresic were speaking in the Town Hall Theatre at the weekend on the theme of “outsider/insider”. The forum, presented by Cúirt International Festival of Literature in association with The Irish Times, was chaired by Lelia Doolan, currently chair of the Solas arthouse cinema project in Galway.

Ms McAliskey, who was the youngest person to be elected to the British parliament when she was 21 in 1969, described how she and her husband Michael had decided not to move house after they survived an assassination attempt at their home in Dungannon, Co Tyrone, in 1981.

“Now I’d walk away from the North in the morning and clean the dust off my feet,” she said.

Award-winning playwright Gary Mitchell - forced to leave north Belfast along with his extended family because of paramilitary anger over his portrayal of the loyalist community - said he would like to support a “true police force where people solved crimes”.

.....

Both Ms McAliskey and Mr Mitchell were highly critical of the “overwhelming” power of the media. In Mr Mitchell’s view, there was a “real truth” and an “agreed truth”, and when the “agreed truth becomes accepted, the real truth becomes a lie”.

The media was reporting the “agreed truth”, and the real truth “doesn’t get a look in”, he argued.

According to the poll, 8% of voters are still deciding between the two candidates, and another 7% are deciding whether or not to abstain. The poll also reaffirms the rapid shift of Bayrou supporters from Sarkozy to Royal. Before last weekend’s vote a majority of Bayrou voters were planning on voting Sarkozy in the runoff, but now 51% of the French believe that a Bayrou-Royal alliance would be natural, against only 33% for the same with Sarkozy. To reinforce this point, 52% of voters believe that Royal’s victory would most likely allow take into account Bayrou’s ideas; only 27% believe a Sarkozy victory would do the same.

But if this is bad news for Sarkozy at the center, he still has support in one of the most crucial arenas. 64% of the French believe Sarkozy will bring “many or quite some changes”, with Royal lagging at a dismal 38%. Will voters vote for change over the center? At this point, it appears so.

But perhaps the most fascinating aspect of this potential revolution in French political life is the way it is being consumed elsewhere. Not least in Blairite Britain, where, according to Martin Kettle, a significant chunk of the left of centre are privately backing right of centre Sarkozy and his promise of reforms:

From Downing Street Sarkozy is seen as everything that Jacques Chirac is not. A Sarkozy victory, they believe there, would mean an end to Chirac’s anti-Americanism, a short practical treaty in place of the EU constitution, and the prospect of greater flexibility on trade, regulation and the European budget. So dazzling are these prizes after the frustrations of the past that the major uncongenial aspects of a Sarkozy win - his hostility to Turkey, his protectionism and his support for the CAP - are simply ignored.

Sarkozy’s most prominent rise to fame was for remarks made during the riots in certain Parisian suburbs following the deaths of two young Muslim men of African descent. It did not endear him to many on the left. But Kettle, taking a straw poll in Westminster finds untrouble consensus on the right, but conflicted emotions on the left:

Only the Conservatives have no mixed feelings; they are all for Sarkozy. Among Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs the reaction is far more conflicted. In many cases they answered that the heart said Ségo but the head said Sarko. A Labour cabinet minister was one of the few unambiguous Royal backers. A Lib Dem pro-European was among the most trenchant supporters of Sarkozy.

Gordon Brown is ambiguous on this question too. He knows Sarkozy from their days as fellow finance ministers. The Browns and Sarkozys have dined à quatre. Most importantly of all, Brown is comfortable with Sarkozy’s deregulatory economic instincts and with his openness to America. And yet Brown hesitates. When Sarkozy launched his election campaign in London, Blair met him while Brown made his excuses. Brown has put out feelers towards the Royal camp too, which Blair has not. But which side is Brown really on?

In truth, Kettle believes, Brown is going to be stuck with a Foreign Policy hand he can do little with, without the help and cooperation of others:

Those who expect Brown to strike out on a markedly more progressive foreign policy are therefore likely to be disappointed on matters of substance. But that is not Brown’s fault. It is the hand that he is fated to play by history and politics. Brown can say he wants to bring peace to the Middle East, end suffering in Darfur or reduce the nuclear build-up. But he can only do that in alliance with others, and maybe not even then. He will deal with Sarkozy or Royal because he has to, not because he wants to.

BELFAST, Northern Ireland—The President of Northern Ireland, Mary McAleese dissolved parliament Sunday as Prime Minister Bertie Ahern announced an election next month. The move came after Ahern met with British Prime Minister Tony Blair in London, Sky News reported. However, in a joint statement issued in London, Ahern and Blair said the proposed May 24th vote could be called off if a powersharing agreement wasn’t reached by Ahern’s FF party and the right of center PDs in the 166-seat parliament known as the Dail. “If at any point it became clear that parties were unwilling to fulfill their commitments…and support for policing, it would be unreasonable to expect the people of NI to continue with an election to an assembly which would not exist,” the statement said. Ahern is seeking a third term in office, and a report said the race is expected to be close.

Ahem… Too much TV watching perhaps?

I suspect those who talk about the ‘normalisation’ of NI politics mean one of two things by it (i) politics like England – in particular, the ability to vote for the British Labour Party (ii) the end of sectarian, or should I say nationalist, politics. But let’s think about the use of the word ‘normal’ in this context. The only people who have no problem with the term are statisticians and religious fanatics. The rest of us realise that normality is a very elastic concept. On the one hand, normal politics in NI is what we’ve got at the moment: it’s normal for us, and it has evolved in the way it has in response to local conditions. On the other hand, if party political options do change in the next five years or so, there’s no particular reason to assume that the new pattern will be the same as anywhere else, because our society isn’t. As for the departure of sectarian/ nationalist politics, dream on. Both Irish and UK nationalism will continue to be part of NI’s political landscape for a long time to come. The questions are: how big a part and which other political ideologies will be competing.

From the Sunday Life

Kirkham said that for nine months he had been vilified and told that he and others in the area had no support.

He said attempts had been made using the media to stain the characters of many loyalists in South East Antrim by labelling them as gangsters, extortionists and drug dealers who controlled property portfolios and ran brothels.

“There is criminality within all communities, but in South East Antrim there is no place for loyalist criminals, only loyalists. The criminals must be dealt with by the PSNI.

“We said in the past to Sir Hugh Orde, if you pursue loyalists for being loyalists then we will protest at the very highest level, but if you pursue loyalists for criminality then you have our full support,” he said.

Kirkham said that Protestant areas across Northern Ireland had been neglected by the Government.

But senior UPRG representative, Frankie Gallagher, hit out at his former colleague’s claims.

Added Mr Gallagher: “If these people think they can sit in splendid isolation and ignore or fail to show leadership in dealing with criminality by merely passing the responsibility on to the police, they are out of touch with reality.

“An example of this is when the Shoukris had nowhere to go. It was Tommy Kirkham who gave them sanctuary and now the same gang around these people are robbing Larne. Our reports on Tommy Kirkham’s oration, which was supposed to be a memorial service for a fallen comrade, was that it was politicised and disgraceful.

“A call has gone out to the good members of south east Antrim from the UDA. Kirkham or anyone else will not threaten these men.

“The view of the organisation of which this man is no longer a member is that we cannot allow paramilitary structures to be left for the use of gangsters and criminals.”

The Shoukri case is interesting for many reasons.. not least that during his numerous bail hearings the court was told that he was under threat from the ‘good’ “mainstream UDA”

There’s an additional report at the Sunday Life link [scroll down], in which Tommy Kirkham claims that police have warned him that he is under threat from “a paramilitary organisation”.  And that the IMC will have an additional section in its report next time.

Kirkham was one of two men the Inner Council said it had “expelled” from the UDA last month, but the councillor says he was not a member of an illegal organisation.

Last week he led a delegation of representatives from eight areas in South East Antrim who told the IMC’s full panel that they wanted help to bring about an end to all paramilitary activities in their area.

The group, which supports the Beyond Conflict initiative to dismantle paramilitary structures, said it understood the UDA in South East Antrim was prepared to consider meeting General John de Chastelain to discuss the possible decommissioning of weapons.

It is believed the group’s approach to the IMC angered the UDA’s Inner Council, which is led by South Belfast Brigadier Jackie McDonald, and which wants to be the sole representative of the entire UDA structure. It successfully removed the previous leadership of the UDA’s North Belfast Brigade, once controlled by Andre Shoukri, and planned to remove the leadership of the organisation in South East Antrim and install a new figurehead.

But so far this has been resisted in the area and the UDA remains under the control of the leaders who approved the meeting with the IMC.

The move means that when the next IMC Report is written, there will be a separate chapter created to refer to the UDA in South East Antrim as a separate entity, a development likely to further enrage the Inner Council faction.

That would be this Jackie McDonald, btw..

And here are Tommy Kirkham and Frankie Gallagher together in happier times 2003.. when the BBC noted - “The UDA leadership is publicly known but the organisation says it intends to become “faceless”.”

As for the post title.. if only..

Sinn Féin is gaining votes because, like Sunderland under Keane, it works bloody hard for them. It establishes branches and creates political activists. It campaigns, it gets things done – quite simply, it is doing all the things a political party should do if it wants to attain power. For all intents and purposes, Gorey is a new town these days, with thousands of new voters. Labour doesn’t really canvass there, nor does it appear interested in doing so. Wexford County, it seems, is a one labour town. Sinn Féin, on the other hand, is out there every night getting people not only to vote for them, but to join up as well. And Sinn Fein has been doing that across the island for at least twenty years, building up its party organisation.