Mass action like the miners’ strikes of 1973 –4 and 1983 -4 died with the coal industry. Therefore the historic parallels are inexact. These days, strikes can be far more targeted and less wasteful of workers’ wages and yet make an equally powerful impact. The example of the French-style road hauliers’ action of 2000 at oil refineries is the best precedent we have of how the already beleaguered economy could be brought juddering to a halt. It gave the first Blair administration the fright of its life. And that was in the good times.These protests, labelled petit bourgeois in character rumbled on during the decade but without the same impact. Full blown workers’ strikes would be action of a different order. 

How much more serious could spiralling action become, based on the potency of the dangerously misleading slogan of “British jobs for British workers?”  Volatile prices, just-in-time fuel distribution and inadequate storage render the supply of all types of fuel at least as vulnerable to angry workers’ action today as was the national grid in the days before Thatcher ordered the stock-piling of coal at power stations to guard against another defeat at the hands of the miners.

Up to a few weeks ago, workers’ action had hardly been thought of as a factor any more in running the new service economy. Yet in some ways, government is even more exposed than it was in 1974. At least then, North Sea Oil was coming on stream . Today it’s running out and the UK is Europe’s most vulnerable energy economy. As between disgruntled workers and bosses, whether of industry or government, the power equation is changing back in workers’ favour for the first time in a generation.

The big task now is to ease the situation. The moderate left champion Jon Cruddas is no protectionist, but his call for a social wage on the precedent of the minimum wage may be worth developing, if the UK is to avert serious industrial unrest, as the jobless total climbs. 
We need to create new forms of economic citizenship, and bring the economy and work under greater democratic control. That should be the agenda, not “British jobs for British workers”.

over on you tube the use of this picture in a BBC report

has also brought up the issue of BBC bias
with comments like these

That picture of three italians giving fingers should not have been shown.This small news story is going to cause racial unrest and then God knows what will happen.And this should be on record that BBC were the ones who started this.This is the kind of inflammatory journalism should be avoided at all times.When the germans lost the great war they came up with a propaganda that they had been ‘stabbed in the back when they were not looking’ and blamed the jews.

I wonder if thats what the BBC and other media outlets like Sky,Daily Express are trying to do.Looking for a scapegoat.The british nation is being turned against the minorities by these ‘Inflammatory Journalism’ by these media outlets.This bring back memories of how the Nazis used propaganda machine to turn the whole nation into masness.I wonder if thats whats going to happen.THIS NEWS STORY IS GOING TO CAUSE RACIAL UNREST.

Continuing with the theme of bias David Vance sees the corporation in a tricky situation over its reporting of the current strikes and points out

It has to be a tricky one for the multiculti-EU loving BBC and true to form I see that the line currently being peddled is to place all responsibility with the management of those companies concerned but this obscures the central fact that the companies are lawfully employing EU citizens, it just so happens this is in preference to UK citizens.

Is there a case for BBC bias or is it simply a case of not pleasing all of the people all of the time?

That’s not to say that victims on all sides did not -and do not- have their own genuinely felt emotions about this proposal.
Mick has mentioned the ability of ‘the Irish’ to confer sainthood on individuals and in the process, to quote Niall Ferguson, ‘keep the bitterness alive.’ Of course, there can be no greater example of this than in the annual commemoration of the subjugation of the catholic Irish that is the Twelfth of July ‘celebrations,’ with all its associated baggage- not to mention commemorating the ‘relief’ of Derry from the indigenous Irish. Of course, examples of Irish nationalists commemorating their dead also illustrate a similar desire to remember past torch-holders, albeit with less intensity.
It was entirely appropriate that the DUP DCAL Minister, Gregory Campbell, would use the opportunity of the Eames-Bradley launch to finally attempt to bury the Maze/ Long Kesh stadium proposal. The party’s preference for an Ulster Rugby/ ‘Norn Iron’ only stadium (preferably in East Belfast, no less) has been public knowledge for some time, and the inferred exclusion of all things ‘Irish’ from the preferred stadia ties in neatly with the exclusive narrative preferred by DUP stalwarts.
But there are problems abound for the largest party within unionism. For one, the decision to cry foul over the ‘compensation’ proposal would appear to run contrary to the political consensus as picked up by the Eames-Bradley group during its meetings with political representatives- which Dennis Bradley was keen to point out in numerous media briefings immediately after the launch.
And, perhaps, more decisively, the DUP’s acceptance of a Victims Commission delicately balanced with a close relative of a victim of British State violence and a relative of a victim of republican violence speaks more convincingly about the party’s real position regarding the compromises that need to be made as we move ahead as a society than the gallery playing that has been in evidence in recent days.

Both men were determined to come out of that process with something real, rather than a bland or abstract measure that could reach an easy consensus but then be pushed into the long grass and be neglected.

Their recommendation that a blanket £12,000 payment to the families of all victims was intended to recognise and reinforce the fact that suffering throughout the Troubles was universal.

It’s a bold and truthful statement. But it’s a political and highly partial one too.

It is truthful in that the deaths of every victim of the Troubles caused their loved ones untold anguish. And that anguish hardship knows no political boundaries.

The IRA man who spent 15 or 20 years on the run or in prison whilst his families carried on without a father in house. The Loyalist paramilitary shot dead in front of his daughter and her classmates coming out of school.

For their families these were tragedies of the highest order.

But by taking a simple, comprehensive approach, the report puts the loss of these men’s lives on the precisely the same footing of those they may have tortured, maimed and killed; often in the most bestial of ways.

That’s the insult that gave rise to what Mairtin O’Muilleoir describes as Strum und Drang of the protests in the Europa. The injury perhaps comes in their recommendation that a legacy commission be set up.

Around the time of the establishment of this consultative group Brian Rowan, a veteran journalist of the Troubles, noted that Eames and Bradley had an opportunity to take a rather nasty ‘bull by the horns’. By which he meant:

...the Eames/Bradley group should invite the IRA army council, the UVF and Red Hand Commando brigade staff and the UDA inner council to send representatives to a specially-convened conference.

Those who can speak for the police, the Army and the security services should also be there, as well as representatives of the relevant governments and political parties. The conference should take as long as it needs to establish what the parties to the conflict are prepared to contribute in answering and explaining that past.

Needless to say, no such proposal, nor anything remotely like it, has been included.  The proposed Legacy Commission provides no such public means of determining who is and who isn’t willing to disclose their part in the dirty war of the past.

The fatal flaw as Pete noted at the time:

...the groups he’s pointing to as being necessary participants in that conference include those responsible for the amnesiacs deal - and those who would have a vested interest in continuing to tip-toe round the past.

So in terms of the central structure recommended by the report, the burden will almost entirely fall upon those were acting in the interest of the State. Yet as Prof Paul Bew has pointed out the State is only responsible for a small proportion of the deaths.

It is true that they draw out some individual issues that had been swept under the political carpet. In the launch of its preliminary report, Bradley noted:

In all our consultations it is unclear if Republicans truly appreciate the depth of hurt that exists in the Unionist community.

Republicans claimed they were targeting State forces in the guise of RUC/UDR members. Unionist communities, particularly in rural border areas, saw such tactics as deliberately killing fathers and eldest, or only, sons to drive Protestants from their homes and land. We have heard many stories from these communities who describe their experiences in this way - as at best raw sectarianism and at worst ethnic cleansing.

Eames-Bradley never possessed the remit nor the power to recommend full disclosure of past events. Even the focus on state violence entails a continuation of already weak provisions currently in place.

The Irish, as Niall Ferguson has noted, have a peculiar bent for:

...conferring patriotic sainthood on everyone from the famine-starved of the 1840s to the hunger strikers of the 1980s. The Serbs have a similar ability to keep the bitterness of the past alive.

Yet, as past experience shows, partial disclosure of the truth of the past is not only less than satisfactory, it is also highly amenable to political manipulation.

By those lights, Dennis Bradley and Robin Eames’ sincere effort to draw out the bitter poison of the past up front are doomed to fail when so much of it will remain partial or hidden. In the meantime, £12,000 can neither dispel the pain of the past; nor force the many victims groups to just shut up and go away.

Only the continuing triumph of politics over self perpetuating (and self destructive) violence can do that… In the meantime the battle to preserve the partial sanctity of the past will continue long into the future…

This is a group about the Democratic Unionist Party - you don’t have to support the DUP to join the group but it hasn’t been set up for people to post anything insulting &/or abusive about the DUP.

Any pictures posted must have some relevance to the DUP and the adminstrators reserve the right to remove any abusive or offensive comments without question.

Simon Doyle writes:

Such a move would be devastating for the education minister who still hopes to introduce a non-selective system. Ms Ruane wanted to introduce her own new temporary transfer test to give schools time to prepare for a complete ban on academic selection, but needed legislation.

She had hoped to discuss details of her proposals at a meeting of the executive yesterday, but the issue did not make the agenda. The minister is now expected to revert to offering guidance to schools, given the urgency with which clarity on a new transfer system is required.

It is understood this guidance will not include an entrance test option, instead focusing purely on non-academic criteria.

As Doyle also points out, in educational terms this is viewed amongst educationalists as a regressive move:

The 25 remaining members of the Catholic Heads Association were understood to have been waiting for the outcome of yesterday’s executive meeting before making a decision. It is now expected they will follow the lead of Lumen Christi and use a test devised by the National Foundation for Educational Research, which sets grammar school entrance tests in England.

It will consist of two “standardised reasoning” papers to be taken probably this autumn. Such testing was scrapped in the north about 15 years ago amid criticisms that children spent their time learning exam tricks. [emphasis added]

So that would be ‘Game, Set and Match’ for whom precisely?

From the CBC report

As passed by the House, Section 1110 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 says, “None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this act may be used for a project for the construction, alteration, maintenance, or repair of a public building or public work unless all of the iron and steel used in the project is produced in the United States.”

The exceptions to the rule are if “the head of the federal department or agency involved finds that” the rule “would be inconsistent with the public interest,” there is insufficient U.S. iron and steel of satisfactory quality, or including U.S. iron and steel will increase the cost of the project by more than 25 per cent.

This language won’t necessarily be in the bill when it gets to Obama’s desk for signing, but the final version could be even worse from the point of view of U.S. trading partners.

The Washington Post reported Thursday that a Senate version of the bill, yet to be acted upon, goes further, requiring, with few exceptions, that all stimulus-funded projects use only U.S.-made equipment and goods.

From BBC NI political editor Mark Devenport’s blog

Emerging from the Executive, Ms Ruane accused the DUP of blocking her proposals and vowed not to bring forward any new initiative. Instead she says she will have discussions with her officials and act decisively in the days ahead. That sounds like code for issuing guidelines which will not be as binding as any legal regulations approved by the Executive.

With the majority of grammar schools already making preparations for go it alone tests, this afternoon felt like the beginning of an “unregulated regime” for post primary transfer. Whichever side of the argument over academic selection you take, it’s a worrying prospect: potential educational anarchy and pupils and teachers being used as political pawns.

not another Lisburn caption

O wind your necks in..

It was left mainly to the English feminist champion Beatrix Campbell to direct fire at the UK government and its servants for responsibility for perpetuating the conflict.

Northern Ireland has ended the violence that – without our permission – Downing Street, MI5 and the security services sustained. If Britain is to warrant its claims to be a peacemaker, and if Northern Ireland is to fully know itself, that open secret must become the national narrative.

This line, once a republican staple, was notably absent from Mairtin O’Muilleoir’s Comment is Free contribution.

While the protesters represented no more than the recalcitrant rump of beleaguered unionism, their antics prompted the nervous nellies of the DUP into rejecting the 190-page report before most of them had got past the introduction.

Cue the ructions,  a gift to   reporters including the Independent’s David Young who managed to discern a shaft of sunlight in one well-covered confrontation.

Daniel Bradley, a Catholic already incensed by unionist protests which delayed the start of proceedings, could barely contain himself as Michelle Williamson, a Protestant, let fly.. Then suddenly Mr Bradley tentatively reached out his right hand. She took it cautiously and in a remarkable act of conciliation the pair wished each other well. “We need to move on,” he said as he clasped her palm. “We have to put this behind us.”

The Times picked up the narrative.

(Mr Bradley) said: “At the end of the day my brother’s killer has to meet his maker. I would love to meet the soldiers who did kill my brother, mostly to forgive them. Because they do need to be forgiven.

For Ms Williamson, as with many other victims of the Troubles, forgiveness of her killers may be more elusive. Her parents were among nine victims of a bomb detonated without warning which also killed the man planting it, inside a busy fishmonger’s on a Saturday in the Shankill Road, Belfast.
I don’t think that I’ll ever get over it. My mum and dad were carrying shopping bags, their killers were carrying a bomb — how can they be treated in the same way now? For my mother and father to be equated with their murderer by the giving of this £12,000 is simply disgusting and I will not be accepting one penny of it.” 

The Times’ Melanie Reid was among several who went so far as to slam the recognition payments – as a Scot who used to work on the Herald, she’s familiar with our compensation culture, so closely linked to her own.

You can only stand open-mouthed at the naivety of this particular suggestion… o the proposal for payments is deeply disingenuous; a game of pointless semantics in a society that seeks recompense if it does no more than trip over a crack in the pavement.

Never knowingly understated, the Sun called the payments “blood money” and devoted a full page spread to the news story and comment by Omagh’s Michael Gallagher  

On an expected change of tack in an editorial, the Irish Times, which often finds hope in situation where few others can, held out for a more balanced response later. Taking a more analytical line, the paper highlighted the puzzling issue of how the estimated total bill was arrived at for what we surely must now call the reconciliation process.

Dislocation between the compensation issue and far-reaching recommendations affecting new inquiry procedures, reconciliation, supports for victims and survivors and the building of a shared future was evident in the relative costs. The former would cost £40 million, the latter, 10 times as much.

£300 million surely. But even so, why so high - even though I understand that figure subsumes the present costs of the Historic Enquiries Team and the ongoing Cory inquiries, which are intended to be the last of their kind?

Deeper reactions are sure to come – more considered and less visceral than some of yesterday’s perhaps, but not necessarily any more favourable.