It is becoming increasingly clear that the DUP have been thrown into crisis mode by the result of the European Election. The last two weeks have brought the bizarre ministerial reshuffle by Peter Robinson, which led to the promotion of the hardline Nelson McCausland (he who opposed playing pitches for St. Malachy’s College on the grounds that they would eat into a protestant area) to DCAL and the unexpected arrival of Robin Newton to the Ministerial table, a consequence of the party’s reaction to the on-going Expenses/ Double jobbing scandal (Newton clearly is the First Minister’s ‘chosen one’ for East Belfast in the upcoming Westminster election.)
But events in the past several days have signalled a definite upping of the ante from the party. Firstly, the decision by the outgoing Environment Minister (Sammy Wilson) to seek a delisting of the Maze/ Long Kesh sites was clearly a calculated pitch to the recalcitrant unionists who would appear to have turned their heads to Jim Allister, as much as it was an attempt to goad republicans.
But the antics of the Paisleys today have signalled a loss of discipline within a party which had come to pride itself on its ability to keep its representatives on message. The North Antrim pairing were very clearly intent on delivering a message that the trial ‘behaviour’ of the inquiry lawyer representing the tribunal should have repercussions regarding his proposed elevation to the position of Attorney General: (12 minutes in) “More will come of that later.” (Paisley Jnr) “A lot of things could happen.” (Paisley Jnr.) “John will come to regret the day that he said those things.” (Paisley Jnr.) “All these things will all gather a force and at the end of the day I believe that righteousness will be exalted.” (Paisley Snr.)
Interestingly, Ian Paisley Snr deliberately made reference to the testimony provided by Peter Robinson during the trial. There are two interpretations of that: either the Paisleys are confident that the ‘sin’ committed by John Larkin in performing his professional job in a manner that annoyed them will be justly punished by the new leadership of their party, or they’re in a state of anxiety regarding whether or not the Paisley brand remains sufficiently strong within the party to dictate decision-making.
IT’S been agreed that all details of MLAs? expenses from April 2003 onwards will be available online by the end of November 2009. That goes well beyond the previous thinking on the matter, that only claims from April 2009 would be published.
It seems that the clamour for transparency has had some effect, although I’d expect any publication here to be even more heavily redacted than the official Westminster expenses (for ‘security reasons’, natch; stuff like bulletproof curtains and the like!) Of course, if any public-minded servant were to leak the detail in advance, I’m sure there are reliable journalists who would treat the revelations with the required care…
Arrangements should be avoided which may give rise to an accusation that an MLA ? or someone close to an MLA ? is obtaining an element of profit from public funds
Ms Williamson’s lawyers had argued that the failure of Messrs Paisley and McGuinness to keep a paper trail documenting their decision to switch from appointing just one Victims Commissioner to a team of four called in to question the candour of the evidence provided by the Executive.
However the judge rejected this arguing that “the process of joint decision making which will command public trust and confidence is a fragile flower which requires careful tending”. He said it would be “singularly unhelpful” for the courts to prescribe how the First and Deputy First should secure unity of decision making. The judgment appears to approve of private deals in what would have been described in days gone by (prior to the smoking ban) as “smoke filled rooms”.
In short, this judgment looks to have cut the legs off any future attempt to judicially review the OFMDFM and to provide a “carte blanche” for meetings without officials and note takers present.
But never fear, if you disagree in the future with an OFMDFM decision, you don’t need to turn to the courts, because our ministers, as Mr Justice Gillen notes “are accountable to the Assembly where they are likely to be questioned and scrutinised”. And we all know just how effective the Assembly has been at carrying out that job in the past.
THE website of local public affairs and NI’s first lobbying firm Strategem has had a makeover, with a useful constituency map and a Twitter feed recently added. Stratagem partnered Slugger for our awards, in case you’ve forgotten, and supported the recent PICamp initiative, which both went exceptionally well IMHO. So here’s your free plug!
Mr Paisley also heavily criticised the Billy Wright inquiry lawyer, John Larkin QC, who yesterday told the court the MLA would relish being imprisoned for defying the order because it would further his political career. The former Stormont junior minister described those remarks as “flippant, trite and trivial”.
Mr Larkin has been earmarked by the DUP/Sinn Féin-led Stormont administration as the North’s attorney-general when justice powers are finally devolved from Westminster. Significantly, when Mr Paisley was asked about Mr Larkin taking on the role, he cryptically said: “A lot of things could happen.” “John will come to regret the day he said those things because I think he knows they were not in keeping or in touch with the realities and the sensitivities of this case.”
The breach of Executive confidentiality yesterday by the Northern Ireland Minister for Employment and Learning, the UUP’s Reg Empey, and his description of the dysfunctional NI Executive being “run like a huckster’s shop”, wasn’t deemed sufficiently newsworthy to be mentioned on the main BBC NI news [Newsline]. And, as noted yesterday, although it got plenty of radio coverage, there was a considerable delay in it being reported online. Was that something to do with NI Finance Minister, the DUP’s Nigel Dodds, dismissing the comments as “just a bit of politics”? [see below the fold] Here’s Reg Empey talking to Martina Purdy - as broadcast on Stormont Today last night - apparently confirming that the semi-detached polit-bureau does continue to meet - even if other ministerial representatives are not invited. Now, about those alternatives..UpdateStatement from Reg Empey.
NI Finance Minister, the DUP’s Nigel Dodds, dismissing his Executive colleague Reg Empey’s criticism as “just a bit of politics”.
Adds And here’s the Hansard record of the comments which sparked the row off.
The Minister of Finance and Personnel (Mr Dodds): Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Let me say, for the sake of clarification, that I would have been absolutely delighted to make a statement on the June monitoring round in the Chamber this morning. It was not that the matter was not agreed; rather, it was deferred at the request of two Executive Ministers who wanted more time. Let us be in no doubt as to why no statement has been made in the Chamber today. It was not members of my party who made that request. Can I also say — [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker: Order.
The Minister of Finance and Personnel: I am making a point of order.
I am sure that other Executive Ministers and I will be happy to make a statement to the House whenever the House wishes one to be made. It is for the House to decide when it wishes to meet and in what form it wishes the statement to be made. I, and any successor of mine — indeed, any Minister — will comply with whatever the House wishes. At the end of the day, it is not for us to dictate to the House; we must work with the House. I can certainly undertake that, if the House makes a determination on how it wishes to proceed on the matter, it will be followed through on.
Mr Speaker: OK, Members, let us move on, please.
Mr McNarry: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker: Order. Is it the same point of order on which I have already deliberated for quite a while, or is it a totally different point of order?
Mr McNarry: It is a further point of order —
Mr Speaker: No. Order —
Mr McNarry: Excuse me; it is a further point of order that is different to the issue.
Mr Speaker: Well, let us hear it.
Mr McNarry: Thank you. Is it the case that the Minister can be permitted by you, Mr Speaker, to —
Mr Speaker: Order. I ask the Member to take his seat. He is coming very close to making the same point of order.
Mr McNarry: But if —
Mr Speaker: Order. I ask the Member to take his seat. I have spent quite some time trying to explain the position and how the Assembly might agree on this. Both the Finance Minister and I have spoken in an attempt to resolve the issue, and the convention for resolving the issue for the benefit of the entire House is absolutely clear.
The Minister for Employment and Learning (Sir Reg Empey): Can I make a point of order?
Mr Speaker: Yes, certainly.
12.15 pm
Sir Reg Empey: When I was sitting upstairs a few moments ago, I heard the Minister of Finance and Personnel refer to the absence of a statement today. I ask the Minister to reconsider what he said. I did not ask for the matter to be deferred. The papers were late and were delivered only an hour or so before the meeting. I said that I was not taking any view on them: I did not ask for them to be deferred. However, why should they be served up to me and the rest of the Executive at such stupid notice?
Mr Speaker: I want to make it clear that the House should not get involved in how the Executive do their business. Let us move on.
As Brian said, the reported meeting in Downing St is one to watch during the day. Whether or not, as Noel McAdam’s anonymous sources claim, it’s a “crisis” or, as his Downing St source says, it’s “routine, stock-taking”, there’s certainly confusion about the meeting. Below the fold Martina Purdy looks ahead at the big question for the autumn, what do we do about the transfer of policing and justice powers? And what will we do about the bill? Here’s what Martina Purdy knew, or didn’t know, about the meeting on Stormont Today last night. Update Apparently the NI First Minister will have a separate meeting in Downing St tomorrow. And From the latest report - “Difficulties surrounding the devolution of policing and justice powers may be resolved in the next few weeks, Martin McGuinness has said.” And, then again, they may not..
Mr Doherty: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. In view of the development work, particularly on the exemplar design of the five, and possibly six, schools in Lisanelly, will the Minister, when he next meets the British Prime Minister again raise this issue and press him on not only gifting the site but when it will be gifted?
The deputy First Minister: The First Minister and I are to meet Gordon Brown tomorrow afternoon, and that will certainly be one of the items that we will raise with him.
Next Monday PICamp has another run out. This time it will be a strand in a much larger event in London called Reboot Britain. As some of you will have noticed in the last few weeks much of my focus over the last week or two has been less about politics (well, this is summer with a local recess coming up rapidly, and just before the marching season gets properly underway), and more about the politics of the media and what it’s doing to our politics. Or, in the case of Irish politics, according to Gerard, not doing to our politics.
The world is changing, probably quicker than most of our institutions are capable of recognising. In the US this has put many big media institutions out of business and set others on an inevitable course for bankruptcy. In the meantime the demand for transparency and accountability that was at first facilitated by the Freedom of Information Act (2000), then latterly frustrated by the slowness and obfuscating mechanisms in delivering data and information that smart and insatiable public now believes is its automatic right to view.
In terms of politics, the changes have been as sudden as they have been dramatic. As Patrick Hannan notes in his excellent new book on British democracies recent adventures, one of the reasons the cash for peerages scandal took quick purchase was there was no shortage of evidence that “the political parties were prepared to use any wheeze just to stay on the right side of legality that would allow them to take handsome donations from the rich”. In the 2005 election campaign the Tories shipped £16 million in secret loans (which, unlike donations, didn’t have to be declared), whilst Labour came in just behind them on £14 million.
It’s far from clear where all this is leading. Nor of all of it necessarily going to be good for us in the future. There is some evidence from the states that much of the online infrastructure is being captured by the political parties themselves by captivating their own online audiences, leaving the mainstream media to play catch up on themes of the day.
Add to this the fact that there are no guarantees of anyone’s investment in this technology, and this ‘revolution’ is both unpredictable and scary. But as Matthew D’Ancona deftly puts it in this excellent 4IP debate the technology only defines a change in the means, not the ends. There is no ideological ‘telos’, or end of the Internet. That remains in the hands of the users:
PICamp will have a range of sessions, some like the charter for interactivity in government… We’ll look at the possibilities offered by crowd sourcing policies through unfenced communities; as D’Ancona says, the white heat is no longer in expensive and centralised think tanks, it’s where communities of intelligent others congregate… We’ll ask is there a way that the blogosphere can promote decency in political communications and honesty and fairness from big media?
As the backend falls off conventional commercial public service broadcasting and traditional local newspaper cultures is there a new way for local government to converse with the public at a grass-roots level? And related in many ways, can local government meet the essential pre-condition to any political decentralization that it demands from central government?
Noel McAdam in the Bel Tel heightens expectations of a breakthrough over devolving justice and policing in Gordon Brown’s summons of FM and DFM to Downing St this afternoon. Only problem is, there are doubts about Peter Robinson’s attendance. Is this a hard “No, no, no” or just a signal of reluctance? We should know by lunchtime. To the BBC, the DUP spokesman is distinctly sniffy about a mere invitation from the PM. What is a devolved First Minister think he’s doing, behaving oddly like a foreign potentate? Now that the obstacle of the Euro elections has disappeared, London is obviously increasing the pressure to get the thing over with. Surely worth doing if they could narrow the alleged £200m p.a funding gap in the £!.2 billion p.a. budget? However,the UK government are sending out mixed messages. They want to transfer the powers but they also want them to be exercised more cheaply than at present and have been stalling over the funding. This presents the DUP with a terrific excuse to match the government with their own stalling under the slogan ” don’t rush it”. Meanwhile, there hasn’t been a word of intelligent public debate about law and order economies. All we get is this sort of vague warning from the new chair of the Policing Board Barry Gilligan, who seems little better informed than the test of us. Still, it’s a poor lookout if Peter Robinson can’t even face a semi-public appearance in Downing St on the issue.
It was the New York Times through straightforward reporting, who first revealed the facts that “mission accomplished” in Iraq was the hollowest of claims. And it’s the NY Times again that casts serious doubt on the permanent effect of General Petraeus’s surge. Tomorrow (Tuesday) US troops hand over most combat duties to the Iraqis. And by the end of 2011, the Americans are due to have pulled out altogether. Rod Nordland gave a preview of his report on the Today programme. (07.30 slot). The report itself is remorselessly direct, unlike the reams of hopeful propaganda that has emerged from the Bush and Obama administrations alike. Nothing like a good reporter, guys, to cut through all the crap.
“Were General Fadhil’s counterterrorism soldiers, among the country’s most elite, ready to take over from the Americans after they withdraw from all Iraqi cities and towns?
We need at least 10 to 20 years with the American Special Forces to get to that level,” he replied in Arabic, or so a United States military interpreter said.
At that, Lt. Col. Marshal Bridges of the Special Forces stepped in, bristling. “That’s not what he meant,” said the colonel, who does not speak Arabic. “Sometimes things get lost in translation. I’ve worked with him for the last 10 months so I know exactly what he meant. What he meant was his forces are ready now but he would like us to stay another 10 to 20 years.”
Were General Fadhil’s counterterrorism soldiers, among the country’s most elite, ready to take over from the Americans after they withdraw from all Iraqi cities and towns?
“We need at least 10 to 20 years with the American Special Forces to get to that level,” he replied in Arabic, or so a United States military interpreter said. At that, Lt. Col. Marshal Bridges of the Special Forces stepped in, bristling. “That’s not what he meant,” said the colonel, who does not speak Arabic. “Sometimes things get lost in translation. I’ve worked with him for the last 10 months so I know exactly what he meant. What he meant was his forces are ready now but he would like us to stay another 10 to 20 years.”
Previously Sinn Féin had called on the Irish Farmers’ Association “to reconsider their partitionist and negative position”, after the IFA had criticised the Irish Government for awarding a €350,000 contract to a non Bord Bia Assured chicken processing company outside the Republic [Crossgar Poultry]. Today the Northern Ireland Agriculture Minister, Sinn Féin’s Michelle Gildernew, has accused the IFA of having a “discriminatory attitude” and has said that “[she] will be contacting Minister O’Dea to clarify his position on this matter and to ensure that all the appropriate EU regulations to this issue will be upheld.” What did the IFA say to deserve such treatment..
[IFA Deputy President] Derek Deane said “the Minister [Willie O’Dea] now has a clear understanding of the difficulties that the Government’s tendering policy is creating for Quality Assured poultry producers. He and his Cabinet colleagues must take immediate action to redress this situation and defend Irish jobs.”
IFA Poultry Chairman Ned Morrissey said “this recent decision not to support indigenous Irish business shows that the Irish Government and their officials are out of touch with the challenges of the poultry sector at this time. Surely when jobs are being lost all over the country, it is more important than ever that those in power lead by example and support indigenous production. Poultry meat in this country is produced to the highest standards and is responsible for over 2,500 jobs between production, processing and subsidiary industries.” “How can we expect retailers and food companies to give shelf space to Irish produce if our own Government does not lead by example and support Quality Assured Irish product?” he concluded.
That’s the Northern Ireland Minister for Employment and Learning the UUP’s Reg Empey’s verdict on the dysfunctional NI Executive.[So what’s the alternative? - Ed]. His comments came after the NI Finance Minister, the DUP’s Nigel Dodds, blamed the two UUP members of the Executive for his deferral of a scheduled statement in the Assembly on the June budget monitoring round - a written statement is expected later in the summer. According to Reg Empey that decision was made because he only received the complicated 30 page document on the monitoring round 90 minutes prior to the Executive meeting where it was to be discussed, along with another 100 page document. It is also reported that the meeting of ministers’ representatives, which used to take place a week prior to the Executive meeting, no longer occurs. No doubt the semi-detached polit-bureau still meets on a regular basis.. Adds Why haven’t BBC NI reported their own story online?Update Five hours later, the BBC online report.
The Minister for Employment and Learning (Sir Reg Empey): Can I make a point of order?
Mr Speaker: Yes, certainly.
12.15 pm
Sir Reg Empey: When I was sitting upstairs a few moments ago, I heard the Minister of Finance and Personnel refer to the absence of a statement today. I ask the Minister to reconsider what he said. I did not ask for the matter to be deferred. The papers were late and were delivered only an hour or so before the meeting. I said that I was not taking any view on them: I did not ask for them to be deferred. However, why should they be served up to me and the rest of the Executive at such stupid notice?
Mr Speaker: I want to make it clear that the House should not get involved in how the Executive do their business. Let us move on.
Sammy Wilson is about to go to the Economics portfolio. However, in his current role as Enviroment Minister he has asked his officials to look at the possibility of delisting the Maze prison site. This has long been called for by Jim Allister and such a move could be seen as a way to gain hard line support. However, any delisting especially if it then led to demolition of the buildings would be extremely unpopular with republicans.
Ballymena Alderman Sam Hanna took over as sole director of Sarcon 250 in August last year. He is also listed as the landlord firm’s sole shareholder in newly-published official returns. Asked yesterday about the 2007/08 accounts published last week and their reference to a £3,857 profit, Mr Hanna said: “I haven’t a clue. I know flip all about it, but it’s a very poor thing that it won’t make a profit if you’re in business lines at all.” Stating that he left matters to accountants, Mr Hanna also said: “I know nothing about it, I’m only the landlord.”
Some words of cheer and others of warning from Mike Smyth the plain-speaking University of Ulster economist whose presentation to the Intertrade Ireland conference, Ive dipped into, after being alerted by Liam Clarke in the Newsletter. Nothing too surprising in it, but the cumulative effect is salutary. (BTW, like me you can view the speech and download the powerpoint but it would have been great if video services at the event had loosened the camera shot on Smyth to include both the speaker and his illustrations. Elementary, Mr De Mille). Anyway…
Compared to the Republic, the effects of the recession in NI have been mild.
This recession is “ a walk in the park” compared to the “policy induced” recession of 1981-82 (the Thatcher squeeze), after which unemployment peaked in March 1985 at 125,000 or 24% with the collapse of the synthetic fibre industry. Today’s problem of 48,000 rising perhaps to 60,000 jobless is regrettable but the idea being put about that it will quadruple is “simply daft”
In retail, a complete meltdown was averted by the scale of cross border shopping, 350m to 550m euros in 2008, rising to 450m to 600m euros in 2009, a windfall which amounted to 2.5% to 3.5% of all consumer spending.
The Executive “ haven’t even togged out for the match”. The budget hasn’t changed at all although events have overtaken it. £200m p.a. has been lopped off in Treasury cuts and another £100m for unforeseen public sector back pay. It might be “good politics” to defer water charges for another three years but it is “economic madness.” If charges haven’t been levied by April 2010, the Treasury will impose 3.5% p.a. interest charges of the £6.5 billion assets of NI Water – another £200m p.a. Talks on the huge costs of financing the devolution of justice and policing ( and a £200m p.a. estimated shortfall) seem to have stalled. As has help to the construction industry and mixed housing development, due to problems with EU procurement rules.
Smyth points to the “variable geometry” of the Executive as a “ recipe for inaction.
On North south cooperation, Intertrade Ireland’s development criteria are sound. Intervention should happen if market failure is caused by the border and if the two sides working together is more effective than working separately. And there is scope for greater cooperation in the public services. After the Agreements there is now “ a non-threatening rationale “ for economic integration. “ If not now, when should we seek these efficiencies?” Amen to that . The comparative analysis in Ernst and Young’s Economic Eye forecasts a worse recession in the Republic but a slower bounce back in Northern Ireland.
I ask: what if a whole new round of Treasury cuts are imposed after 2011?
The Tragedy of Coriolanus is about the Roman general Caius Martius who despite being arrogant and relatively unpopular in Rome wins a series of military victories against the Volscians which leads to him being given the title Coriolanus and proposed as consul. Such is his arrogance, however, that the citizens turn against him and he is banished. In revenge he joins with the Volscians and marches on Rome; only being persuaded to spare the city by his own family. It is a bit too unfair but the Northern Irish political character I most associate with Coriolanus’ self produced tragedy is Jeffrey Donaldson.
Donaldson was on the Politics Show yesterday and repeated the mantra that they topped the poll (with the added word unionist) and got Diane Dodds elected along with the suggestion that they had spent the last two weeks listening to the electorate in the aftermath of the European election. The idea that this was a relative success for the DUP and that two weeks would allow the DUP to analyse the lessons from the campaign displays breathtaking hubris from the Director of Elections. Jeffrey’s position was not in fairness helped by Jim Fitzpatrick asking him if he felt he could proudly wear the title of Director of Elections nor by David McNarry pointing out that his Westminster seat could be in jeopardy.
One of the problems for Donaldson is that he seems to have been appointed to his role of Director of Elections at least in part to continue the annihilation of the UUP so ably engineered by the UUP itself (with help from the DUP). At the time of course the DUP’s main aim was to gobble up as much as possible (preferably all) of the UUP vote and Donaldson being ex UUP was an excellent choice for that task. He has in the past made a great play of his understanding of the grass roots and seemed very proud of the fact that he (to his mind) brought so much of his UUP support over with him when he jumped ship. All of that made him an excellent choice to gradually whittle away what was left of the UUP until the DUP would be left as the only unionist party.
In those days, especially after the last Westminster elections, of course the idea that there would be a party more hard line than the DUP seemed highly unlikely; Bob McCartney’s flop at the last Stormont elections merely seemed to prove the point. Hence when Jim Allister left and the TUV appeared there was probably no terribly organised plan to deal with this eventuality. In those changed times Donaldson far from being an asset in having an insight into moderate unionist thinking became a liability: however, no one seems to have seen that problem.
At Dromore the DUP miscalculated and Donaldson, as the MP for the area, as well as Director of elections must take some of the blame. Indeed I seem to remember that Donaldson was an enthusiastic supporter of the plan to strangle the TUV at birth. This plan elevated that election in public importance and hence, the defeat when it came was more severe: a potential danger I raised at the time. After Dromore the DUP collectively failed to learn the lessons and the proportions of the unionist electorate played out in a very similar fashion in the European election. The strategy at the European election was to grasp harder at the same messages as usual failing to understand that the tighter the DUP squeezed its hands the more sand (voters) ran through them. Just like Coriolanus, Donaldson (and all the DUP) failed to be sufficiently humble following the Dromore experience and as such helped create the much greater mess they now find themselves in.
The fault is, however, far from Donaldson’s alone; as mentioned above when he was appointed Director of Elections the idea of the TUV danger seemed laughable. Even had it been appreciated, it might have appeared that Donaldson being an orangeman, exUDR and from a conservative evangelical background would have been able to understand the motivations of TUV typed voters. However, Donaldson like Robinson, Paisley and all the others either completely failed to see the danger coming or had no coherent strategy to deal with it.
Of course Coriolanus ended up failing to destroy Rome after his family pleaded for it. Not only has Donaldson failed to stop the problem of the TUV but he has also thus far failed to destroy the UUP: though that is presumably not because he is listening to pleas for his former party. Indeed in the last three elections (Dromore, Enniskillen and Europe) the DUP’s Director of Elections has only managed to convincingly defeat the UUP at Enniskillen and bringing Arlene Foster in to ensure victory there was such overkill that it smacked of a decision borne of weakness and not strength (winning with HMS Warspite is not actually that convincing). In truth at Dromore the UUP actually lost percentage share of the votes and the rise at Europe was less than brilliant. However, Donaldson’s dismissal of the now relatively buoyant UUP, semi accurate as it may be, again smacks of over confidence: an over confidence highly inappropriate from the DUP, still less from their supposed Director of Elections.
Donaldson’s star has been on the wane for some time. Once he was the clear leader of the rejectionist wing (40%) of the UUP and was well placed to become their next leader; once Trimble had completed his carefully constructed suicide plan. Instead Donaldson became de facto leader of the UUP defectors, later junior minister and rising star in the DUP, though not as prominent as that other UUP defector Arlene Foster. Although Donaldson’s recent removal from the junior minister’s position may be simply be to do with phasing out double jobbing, it could also be very easily seen as a demotion. Furthermore unless the DUP are truly stupid, the aftermath of the European election will require a greater response than what has so far happened. In that context Peter Robinson may well feel that a scape goat is necessary. Coriolanus, arrogant to the end, is killed by the Volscians angry that he spared Rome: a similar political fate may await Donaldson. I wonder is anyone inclined to play Tullus Aufidius?
There’s an intriguing coalition of groups behind the proposed Green New Deal for Northern Ireland. Although I can’t tell if they’re connected to this group. The briefing documents at the Friends of the Earth website [pdf file] lists those involved as - Bryson Charitable Group, Chamber of Commerce, CBI, Energy Savings Trust, Friends of the Earth, Institute of Directors, ICTU, NICVA, NI Environment Link, NI Federation of Housing Associations, NI Manufacturing, Sustainable Development Commission, Translink, and the Ulster Farmers Union. Below the fold Yvette Shapiro talks to some of those involved, and others, about the proposals and what the NI Executive have, or have not, done to date. And they will have to get that dysfunctional polit-bureau to agree to the proposals first. [Good luck with that - Ed]. Here’s Joanne Stewart of the Institute of Directors talking to Jim Fitzpatrick on the Politics Show about the proposals.
And, from the Friends of the Earth briefing document [pdf file], the crucial funding possibilities
The total cost of a full green recovery package for Northern Ireland is likely to be in the region of £900 million per annum or 3% of GVA. This is clearly a very large amount of money that is not obviously available from within the Northern Ireland block. Nevertheless, given the economic, social and environmental benefits that will flow from such spending, a significant contribution from public funds is warranted, and will have the ability to leverage significant additional investment.
Funding from within currently planned public expenditure could include:
The Barnett consequential of the recent UK economic stimulus package;
Maximising the potential of the Investment Strategy for Northern Ireland for new energy investments and associated training;
Reallocating expenditure saved by tackling the inefficiencies arising from sectarian segregation and associated service duplication;
Focusing existing economic support programmes on the Green New Deal.
Much of the required investment is capable of showing an economic return at today‘s prices and will therefore be attractive to the private sector but a clear policy and financial framework is needed to enable those investments to be accelerated. It is likely that the most effective means of securing this investment will be innovative mechanisms that combine public and private sources of funding. Possibilities include:
Bond finance: capital is raised through the bond markets for investment in energy saving measures and a revenue stream is created through a ?pay as you save‘ scheme whereby the cost of the measures is recovered through energy bills. A surcharge on the regional rate serving as a revenue stream for a bond issue via a non-government body – such a cast iron revenue stream would secure the lowest interest rates. A more substantial restructuring of the rating system to incentivise investment in low carbon technologies and energy efficiency, while penalising those properties that continue to waste energy. Housing equity unlock: a charge on a property serves as security for the capital investment in energy saving measures and is paid for through a ?pay as you save‘ scheme. European Investment Bank loans made available through the local banks; a mutualised body; and/or other agencies. Salix Finance: the use of an enhanced Carbon Trust Salix fund to finance investment in the public sector. Local authority bonds: local councils could issue bonds securitised against the rates base to carry out energy efficiency measures on their own buildings Northern Ireland Green Energy Bond issued by government if Treasury rules were relaxed, or by local banks or a mutual institution to attract savings from individuals and pension funds.
I’m exploiting my privileges to rework my response to Pete’s interesting thread on Patrick Murphy’s article in the Irish News, “Irish history tends to be a rerun of same events .” Does Murphy’s honestly argued piece reveal wider disenchantment with the whole Assembly experience among thinking nationalists? I hope not. He makes a rod for his own back by overrestricting his definition of democracy and overplaying the role of history. He asks for instance:
Do nationalists benefit by having nationalist ministers? For example, would our roads policy be different if Arlene Foster replaced Conor Murphy as regional development minister?
With no disrespect to Miss Foster or Mr Murphy for that matter, most certainly it might, if you really believe history is fated to repeat itself. Protestant roads might go to Protestant places unless you have cross community responsibility for where they go. In the old days we used to call it “Government for Glengormley”
Murphy might look harder at what’s been achieved at the sharp end and instead encourage the fragile dynamic for progress: the long overdue disarmament of the loyalist paramilitaries, the successes in managing the marching season, the tacit agreement not to split fundamentally on dealing with the past. The next big test will be implementing the sensible agreement on the devolution of justice and policing if the DUP can nerve themselves up to do it. It is an illusion to think all this can be achieved in a back office deal between the FM and DFM. It needs maximum community support.
Murphy’s argument, if it goes anywhere, seems to point towards the dangerous zero-sum options of going all out for winner-take-all democracy like the old Stormont, or else abolishing the “ artificial ” state within which it operated. This is overplaying history with a vengeance. We surely passed those crossroads a long time ago. Perhaps Murphy is doing no more than letting out one long moan of frustration. For that I have some sympathy. Only now (perhaps) are the UDA and UVF disarming. But I would urge patience and more constructive thinking than dwelling obsessively on the past.
I don’t accept Pete’s assertion that the status quo necessarily or even actually retards the process of reaching enhanced democratic administration. This is jumping to conclusions. It’s a feature of NI life that we are better at criticism than prescription. Unfortunately perhaps, there is no system which can suddenly create your own nirvana. Instead, we are in for a long haul. One key question is: what’s the alternative?
1.Arend Lijphart, the theoretician of this form of powersharing would concede that it is not ideally democratic or technically effective.
2. One alternative is straightforward majority rule but with added protocols for cooperation and HR protection. Any takers?
3. Another is an AV (alternative vote) Assembly once mooted by our own Wilford and Wilson which compels a second choice vote, hopefully to strengthen the centre. But AV’s effects are not agreed by experts.
4. A variant of today’s system is the informal powersharing of 1973. With today’s inclusive participation, this might become the voluntary coalition of dreams, with a constitutional requirement for cross community government by inter-party agreement rather than by mechanism; an Assembly shorn of designations with a say, 70% weighted majority for key decisions, perhaps giving Alliance and other minorities leverage to break deadlocks. In practice, would it be so very different from what we’ve got? And what would make it happen, other than a transformation in voting and party behaviour? Do you really see the Tories renegotiating the Agreements to try to make it happen?
5. My further point I have argued before turns Murphy’s on its head. The system with all its checks and balances, watchdogs and supervisors, allows little room for sectarian victories except by blocking. That’s why blocking plus contests outside the Executive sphere still dominate what passes for politics. Inisde the Executive’s responsibility, there is great need for constructive politics to achieve win:win rather than zero sum victory or defeat.
6. There are signs - inconclusive I admit - of better cooperation ( post- Massareene, post- McDaid after a stumble and now with the UDA/UVF disarmament). The pressures of recession , so far partly deferred will require more effective government through painsharing, some unity in adversity and planning for a better tomorrow. Most political systems turn gratefully to thinking about better tomorrows, if they’re shown how to do it. This is a fruitful line to develop. It’s a big sub-theme, but I do not take any party’s visionary political rhetoric too literally. Does anybody?
7. The clincher is that if you look at the big picture, none of the main parties have any interest whatever in bringing the whole thing down. What they need is constructive pressure and specific advice to do better. In Churchill’s eloquent phrase, “we keep buggering on” and stop searching for idealised systems that will never happen.
8. Finally, after all this time and the waste of so much blood and treasure, we should resist the reflex appeal to particular versions of history and anecdote every time we discuss politics. It is self-defeating. Why so? Because it is a record of (in)glorious failure which is becoming about a relevant to our future as Bonnie Prince Charlie is to Scotland’s. (I exaggerate just a little). I’d just like to nail this two nations thing. I’m certain it overstates the differences. The obsession with founding myths and basic texts mirrors Paisleyite biblical fundamentalism and shies away from contemporary analysis - what about life NOW? There have always been numerous points of contact between the two sides and lots of shared experiences. Try two tests: whom does a Prod or a Mick more resemble: each other or a Cork person? Whom does a Brit looking on think they most resemble: himself or each other? Many commenters on Slugger who enjoy history (and I do too, believe me) over-exalt the politics of identity to the exclusion of almost everything else. At best, it might be a form of communication through swapping differences. But on its own, this search for stability through the prism of the past is doomed to failure. Without taking due account of changing lives and outside forces, it may breed pessimism, cynicism and helplessness and may have more to do with the characteristics of bloggers than anything else, who sometimes sound like a school of medieval alchemists arguing about how to squeeze blood out of a stone. Just a touch self-indulgent maybe.. no great harm done unless you take it too seriously? But why not set history in its own context and give the future a chance? There’s a universe of ideas and experience out there that isn’t contained in Bunreacht na hÉireann or the 1st Book of Kings. Sad to say, much of it in C20 passed Ireland by and must now be rediscovered.
The BBC and UTV place the number of people attending éirígí‘s banned protest against ‘Armed Forces Day’ in Belfast between 50 and 100. From the footage that seems about right. What seems strange is the police claiming they prevented the protest as it became an ‘illegal parade’ in Castle St when protestors stepped on the road - a technically correct interpretation of the law on parades and protests. However, what the PSNI failed to mention is roadworks on Castle Street at the point they intervened mean footpaths on both sides of the road are closed and pedestrians are directed to walk on the road. Seems the PSNI have played outside the spirit of legislation to get a result and made éirígí‘s points on the nature of the north for them.
Antrim’s 0-13 to 1-07 victory over Cavan at Clones tonight has set up an Ulster Senior Football Championship Final pairing that few- if any- would have predicted only a matter of weeks ago.
Antrim produced a superb attacking performance and solid defending to see off the Breffni men, though a number of jittery moments ensured that the Saffrons’ clear dominance was not fully reflected on the scoreboard and ensured the game went down to the wire. The victory secures Antrim their first visit to an Ulster decider since 1970, though their opponents, Tyrone, are somewhat more used to the occasion.
Antrim’s woeful Championship record in recent years has concealed real progress within the county which pointed to a steady improvement in Antrim football. The success of St. Galls at club level, the promising performance of a number of Antrim players at Sigerson level and the return of an Antrim school to Macrory Cup competition all point to Antrim football on the rise. Coupled with an impressive unbeaten run to gain promotion from Division 4 in the National League and the arrival of a clearly inspiring Manager in Liam Bradley, and it would appear that the pieces are finally beginning to come together for Championship football in the county.
In an article in the Irish News today [no subs req], Patrick Murphy makes some important points about the Northern Ireland Assembly’s compulsory power-sharing system. From the Irish News article.
In the old Stormont, the opposition was ignored. In the new Stormont, the opposition has been abolished. How democratic is a parliament without an opposition? Advocates of the new system argue that it brings political benefits. But does it? It gives constitutional authority to sectarianism and promotes political schizophrenia. Both the DUP and Sinn Féin claim the other is the enemy, within a supposedly partnership government. Do nationalists benefit by having nationalist ministers? For example, would our roads policy be different if Arlene Foster replaced Conor Murphy as regional development minister?
If Murphy’s ministry has benefitted nationalists, then the minister must be acting unfairly - and there is not the slightest evidence that he is. So if his position has not benefitted nationalists and Arlene Foster would do the job with the same degree of competence and fairness, what is the case for compulsory power-shairing? The argument that it offers fairer government is undermined by our mountain of equality legislation. If that legislation is as effective as we are led to believe, there cannot be an abuse of democracy within the law, no matter who holds power.
So would an end to compulsory power-sharing be democratic? As usual in this country, it comes down to whether you believe in Protestant democracy or Catholic democracy. Irish history tends to be a rerun of the same events.
Sometimes those events are repeated in reverse. In 1965 some Labour MPs formed the Campaign for Democracy in Ulster, a forerunner of the civil rights campaign. Jim Allister might give his campaign that same name.
Demands for democracy here have traditionally come from nationalists. But for the first time in the history of the state, most nationalists will presumably oppose a campaign for a more democratic Stormont. Their reasoning will make interesting reading.
Meanwhile, the International Representative for west Belfast, Sinn Féin’s Gerry Adams, MP, MLA, has set out his reasoning, such as it is, for why he believes that those who “toy with the idea that the system of governance can be changed” are “living in Fantasy Land.”
Because this is a sectarian state and because unionism could not be trusted to govern fairly the outcomes of the Good Friday Agreement and the Saint Andrews Agreement are all-Ireland in nature particularly in their institutions.
There are also many equality and other legal safe guards built into the new political dispensation. These include compulsory power sharing and partnership political arrangements.
Thinking unionism knows that this will be the case for as long as the new dispensation lasts and fair minded unionist MLAs have slowly but surely come to terms with this reality. They fulfil their political duties in a positive way. They also appreciate that these safeguards are to their advantage as the constitutional position changes in the future.
But Adams fails to address the core issue of whether compulsory or voluntary power-sharing is more preferrable and/or more democratic.
To quote again from Patrick Murphy
compulsory power-sharing emerged from secret political negotiations to secure the state’s existence rather than as part of a campaign for democracy. So how democratic is the new system? The short answer is - not very.
But if you don’t trust your compulsory partners in government, and you view the very state itself, which you are helping to govern, as being “sectarian at its core”...
I am probably one of the least qualified people to write about the death of Michael Jackson as I know little of his music, have never watched his videos and am quite undisturbed by his passing. However, I think that his death has been noteworthy in a couple of significant ways.
Firstly, I think it is fair to say that this time the internet definitively showed what it is capable of in terms of breaking news and keeping up with a story at breath-taking speed. And interestingly, the thing about following a story like this on the web is that you can pick and choose when, where and how often you access the content; unlike MSM where the repetitiveness is mind numbing. TMZ.com broke the story of Jackson’s cardiac arrest and has continued to lead the pack with stories and insider accounts. Indeed, once you start following TMZ, MSM seems like it’s playing hopeless catch up. One feature of the site that concerned me is how ‘citizen journalism’ looks pretty insidious at times like this with every mobile phone an indiscriminate device for recording scenes and sounds. However, despite the indelicate nature of some of the reporting, there is no going back from this point or this method of news collection and dissemination.
I have no doubt that we will hear so much more about the response to Jackson’s death over the next couple of days (weeks, months?) but it really was stunning to watch the crowd response to the news. And it wasn’t in one isolated area, we had pictures from all over the globe showing fans appearing to be inconsolable and publicly mourning someone they never knew and who never knew them. In the aftermath of Diana’s death, there was a significant increase in the number of people who consulted their GP for depression directly related to her death. As can be seen from the link, there was also a decrease in road traffic accidents and general trauma events for about 3 months following her death with the cautious hypothesis that people were a little more careful as a result of her accident. I don’t know what Jackson’s death wll do for demerol sales, we shall just have to wait and see. But I have no doubt that the public response to his death is only beginning and he will become larger in death than he could have been in life. His record sales have rocketed since his demise, and ironically dying may have solved his chronic financial problems.
And of course finally, the hypocrisy. As Al Sharpton said ’”Many ridiculed him, It’s amazing to see how many people are now praising him that wouldn’t go near him in the last several years, and condemned him. Yes indeed, death has that wonderfully redeeming function and we will undoubtedly hear less and less of the peculiarities of Michael Jackson and more of his music and talent. And perhaps that is fitting, only time will tell.
Nuala O’Loan praises the PSNI’s improving record and makes the orthodox and I believe, the correct case in saying that the Human Rights Act gives protection to the police as well as those who confront them. She quotes a senior police officer.
The [Human Rights] Act in an everyday policing context uniquely brings protection both for those state officials charged with upholding the rights of the state against deviant individuals, and for individuals who might be vulnerable to the misuse of state power.”
It’s only common sense for the police not to treat every demo as a premeditated threat to public order and a challenge to their machismo. But it’s also a hard lesson to learn if militants go all out to provoke a forceful police reaction and continue the confrontation with synthetic outrage. How do the police know which is which?
I may be counting my chickens, but I suppose at this time of year we ought to be grateful that the massed ranks of the righteous on both sides aren’t making too much of a demonstration out of Armed Forces Day. The Newsletter seems to be making its point on line. Whoops, I’ve just caught up with the Portadown demonstration of just wrath. We’re a long way off from the ideal, that national flags should be treated as just that, rather than party banners, for as long as national gestures of one sort or another spill over into sectarian flashpoints like Drumcree. But you don’t have to be an Irish republican to dismiss the whole event, like military commentator Max Hastings, in the Mail.
It seems to soldiers a mockery that when they are struggling to fight an unpopular and chronically under-resourced war, the British Government’s Big Gesture is to give them a day out with the kiddies in full-dress uniform on the streets of Chatham.You can bet your socks that some idiot minister will say in a speech today that ‘Britain’s Armed Forces are the finest in the world’.
The Roma who fled from Belfast face a worse fate back in Romania, journalists following up the story conclude. The Times’ David Sharrock finds them back in poverty-striken Batar and asks:
Just how terrified must the Roma families in Belfast have been to choose this over their imperfect lives in Northern Ireland? Florin Fekete returned on Monday with his wife and two sons. “There is no work here. Life in Belfast was good, we had really good times but I could not risk my family’s lives. I asked some of the ones who were attacking us, ‘What do you have against us?’.“The reply was, ‘We hate you because you are gypsies’. But even though I am afraid, I want to go back. Is it safe now, do you think?
Aida Edemariam of the Guardian can’t actually find any returning Roma, but Belfast’s reputation has arrived before them.
What’s going on in Ireland now?” asked a young man, intently, when we were at Vadul Crisului. “Can we go back to Ireland?” He has tickets to fly to Dublin next month. “Is it safe?” Are you going to Belfast? “No, no, no, not Belfast.” It’s a veritable chorus from the people surrounding him. What do they know about the attacks? Only what they saw on television. And what did they think of that? “We’re afraid to go to Ireland.” They’ve had problems in Italy and Spain, they say, but nothing as bad as Belfast. Why Belfast, do they think? Maybe it’s the spirit there. Maybe people are more violent. I don’t know I’m guessing.
Petru Clej reports for the BBC from western Romania on the reception they can expect.
But if Romanian journalists displayed sympathy, some of their readers voiced prejudices against the Roma minority - under the anonymity of the internet. Many objected to the Belfast migrants being called Romanians, and others congratulated those who intimidated the immigrants into leaving Belfast.
“The Irish have won a battle; the Romanians have lost. Congratulations, they did the cleaning,” reads one website posting.
Or did he mean “cleansing”?
.
A conclusion from Dimitrina Petrova, Executive director, Equal Rights Trust.
I was struck by two things. First, as anyone involved in equality law work would agree, Northern Ireland has been a success story: and yet, it is striking how superficial this success has been. The second is the very fact that a large group of Roma families are leaving a western city in which they had sought refuge. This is something new. In over 15 years of working with Roma communities across Europe, I have never witnessed a community willingly returning to eastern Europe, even in the face of sustained prejudice, violence and discrimination.
