The Senate bill isn’t a “starter home,” it’s a sink hole.  It needs to die so something else can take its place. It doesn’t matter whether people are on the right or the left — once they understand the con job that’s about to be foist upon them, they agree.

That might be the sensible thing to do. Except, that US politics seems to be even more locked down than our own little regional affair in Stormont.

If and when Congress clears healthcare out of its inbox, the mid term elections will dominate the minds of the mainstream press and the US’s vast army of voluble bloggers. Yep, just over a year after the Obama ‘audacity of change’ election, the Democrats in the House (along with a third of the Senate, and a collection of Mayoral and gubernatorial contests now face a ‘throw the bums out’ election (in a poll released by NBC last night, 50% of US voters said they would vote out their congressman) in November.

Back in 1993, when Bill (and Hillary) Clinton tried and failed to get medicare reform through Congress had a trust rating of 70%. Now, according to the NBC poll (PDF copy), it is down to 17%.

The vicious culture wars that has slowly asserted its grip on US politics (and which once Obama promised he would bring to an end) seems to have trashed the bipartisanship that once allowed the US federal government to actually pass some law. Although getting a majority in the House works, it is not good enough to pass a bill in the Senate. When the Democrats lost Ted Kennedy’s old Massachusetts seat to Scott Brown, they definitively lost their filibuster-proofing.

In Washington, it seems, it is the game that counts, not the policy. A few weeks back (before he declared himself a candidate in the Democratic primary in California, Mickey Kaus argued that:

For months, both GOP and Fox hosts have been talking about socialized medicine and death panels and vicious Medicare cuts and the government coming between you and your doctor, etc. If Democrats pass the bill and none of this happens, Republican opponents will be more than defeated. They’ll be discredited.

But as PoliticsDaily notes:

Where the quandary comes in for Democrats is that the [NBC] survey found 67 percent of Republican respondents said they were very interested in the November elections compared to 46 percent of Democrats.

Moral appears low amongst Democrats on Capitol Hill. Some suggest that’s a lot to do with the Obama White House’s aloofness from their team in Congress. They cite poor engagement both with Congress and their external support base. The conventional wisdom, from bloggers to mainstream media insiders, at this moment is that it is the Dems are going to get caned in November. The degree to which they lose seats will depend on whether they can bed in their change and begin selling it.

The buzz now is that despite huge pressure being applied by a very targeted ad campaign at wavering Democrat congressmen, the party is confident of passing the bill. Confident even though the word goes the bill may only pass by one vote. Why? Because although they can pass it with more than one vote, they won’t because voting yes to health care for these guys is almost instant death in November’s mid term elections. 

So one will get to take the poison chalice, whilst the other four (it’s rumoured) get to run with the opposition herd.

We should get a result by midnight Eastern Time on Saturday night.

And Will adds the Catholic Communications Office statement to “clarify media reporting on Cardinal Seán Brady”

1. The State’s first Child Abuse Guidelines came into effect in 1987 and the Church’s first guidelines Child Sexual Abuse: Framework for a Church Response, were published in 1996.

2. In late March 1975, Fr Seán Brady was asked by his bishop, Bishop Francis McKiernan, to conduct a canonical enquiry into an allegation of child sexual abuse which was made by a boy in Dundalk, concerning a Norbertine priest, Fr Brendan Smyth.

3. Fr Brady was then a full-time teacher at St Patrick’s College, Cavan. Because he held a doctorate in Canon Law, Fr Brady was asked to conduct this canonical enquiry; however he had no decision-making powers regarding the outcome of the enquiry. Bishop McKiernan held this responsibility.

4. On 29 March 1975, Fr Brady and two other priests interviewed a boy (14) in Dundalk. Fr Brady’s role was to take notes. On 4 April 1975, Fr Brady interviewed a second boy (15) in the Parochial House in Ballyjamesduff. On this occasion Fr Brady conducted the inquiry by himself and took notes.

5. At the end of both interviews, the boys were asked to confirm by oath the truthfulness of their statements and that they would preserve the confidentiality of the interview process. The intention of this oath was to avoid potential collusion in the gathering of the inquiry’s evidence and to ensure that the process was robust enough to withstand challenge by the perpetrator, Fr Brendan Smyth.

6. A week later Fr Brady passed his findings to Bishop McKiernan for his immediate action.

7. Eight days later, on 12 April 1975, Bishop McKiernan reported the findings to Fr Smyth’s Religious Superior, the Abbot of Kilnacrott. The specific responsibility for the supervision of Fr Smith’s activities was, at all times, with his Religious Superiors. Bishop McKiernan withdrew Brendan Smyth’s priestly faculties and advised psychiatric intervention.

To repeat myself,

If Peter Hain’s improper political motivation had been equally exempted from scrutiny would his Interim appointment have been ruled unlawful?

And as Mark Devenport said at the time

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.

And

But Mr Gormley questioned how the independent review team had come to its conclusion.

“No specific act or omission of mine has been brought to my attention which leads me to question my conduct,” he said.

He also asked why he had lost his job while others who were involved in the same “collective decision making process” had not.

“In performing my duties as a Non Executive Director of NIW I challenged certain aspects of the process undertaken by the Independent Review Team.

“I find it regrettable that of the 28 people interviewed by the Independent Review Team that I am the only individual who has not had an agreed record of his meeting with the IRT included by them in the records of their enquiries, or incorporated into their findings.

“It should be equally noted that over 70% of the issues identified in the internal audit and subsequently included in the IRT review occurred before I joined the organisation.”

He said that since he joined the board, he was not aware of any contract that was not compliant with the company’s procurement protocols.

“As somebody who was actually at Hatfield throughout, I can say that while one of the parties might have arrived with that agenda it was most definitely not the basis on which the Conservative Party brought the participants together.

“As we made clear at the time, the purpose was to help promote political stability and in particular explore means of overcoming the impasse on policing and justice and avoiding a collapse.

“There is only one electoral pact - between the Conservative Party and the Ulster Unionist Party.  That is what both parties are committed to making work.”

And DC’s Improbable blog lists the culprits

Here is the roll of shame, updated on 12 March (the last six signed in the last 24 hours)

Tredinnick, David Con
Simpson, Alan Lab
Russell, Bob LibDem
Pound, Stephen Lab
Dismore, Andrew Lab
Simpson, David Democratic unionist
McDonnell, John Lab
Campbell, Gregory Democratic unionist
Cohen, Harry Lab
Corbyn, Jeremy Lab
Drew, David Lab
Gray, James Con
Hancock, Mike LibDem
Hermon, Lady Ulster unionist
Key, Robert Con
Hemming, John LibDem
Bone, Peter Con
Davies, Dai Independent
Mates, Michael Con
Dodds, Nigel Democratic unionist
Wyatt, Derek Lab
Sarwar, Mohammad Lab
Hamilton, Fabian Lab
Winterton, Nicholas Con
Davies, Philip Con
Leigh, Edward Con
Barlow, Celia Lab
Ellwood, Tobias Con
Leech, John Lib Dem
Main, Anne Lab
Robinson, Peter Democratic unionist
McCrea, Dr William Democratic unionist
Paisley, Ian Democratic unionist
Brady, Graham Con
Cook, Frank Lab
Hall, Patrick Lab
Binley, Brian Con
Pugh, John Lib dem
Davey, Edward Lib dem
Weir, Mike Scottish Nationalist
Sharma, Virendra Kumar Lab
Abbott, Diane Lab
Williams, Mark Lib dem
Horam, John Con
Widdecombe, Ann Con
Browne, Jeremy Lib dem
Spicer, Michael Con
Maclean, David Con
McCafferty, Chris Lab
Buck, Karen Lab
George, Andrew Lib Dem
Vis, Rudi Lab
Walter, Robert Lab
Whittingdale, John Con
Farron, Timothy Lib Dem

Continued

The peace processors, on all sides, have long appealed to history. Tony Blair felt its hand on his shoulder. Sinn Fein often said that parties opposed to power-sharing were on the wrong side of it.

Bill Clinton often quoted Seamus Heaney’s line which said that it might rhyme with hope. And we have been inspired by the experience of South Africa as a country which could rise above old animosities.

Sir Reg Empey has effectively said hooey to all that. He wants to play politics by the old rules, in which it is a competition between parties, all seeking to maximise their influence and their votes. He is right. Or, at least, if he is wrong, he has little alternative.

For what he is being asked to do, in the interests of peace and love and shamrock dancing in the sunlight among the orange lillies, is to serve as a rubber stamp for every decision of the coalition of Sinn Fein and the DUP.

• Failure to agree candidates.

• Failure to co-ordinate policy.

• Failure to be accountable.

The Conservatives claim they are bankrolling everything but are in ” a one way marriage with nothing coming back.” Claiming they have no influence over decision -making in Ulster Unionism the Tory spokesperson said: “The Conservative party’s fear is that we will be dragged down into the gutter of tribalism instead of Northern Ireland politics being elevated onto the national stage.”

Conservatives argue they are going to end up with only one candidate out of eighteen-North Down.  “The policing and justice decision has put the relationship under strain. Conservatives do not believe Ulster Unionists were right in voting against the return of policing and justice” said a spokesperson.

Some further extracts of interest

What is ‘national security’?

3. ‘National security’ relates to the safety and security of the state and its people. ‘The protection of national security, and the carrying out of other related activities in the interests of national security, are in law the functions of the Security and Intelligence Agencies (“SIAs”), accountable to Ministers in the UK Government.

General Principles

4. Constitutionally, national security is an excepted matter under section 4 of and Schedule 2 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (“the 1998 Act”). It is not, therefore, among those matters devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly.

5. Issues will arise within the transferred policing and justice field which have a national security dimension or which touch on national security related issues. Therefore, there will be a need for consultation and the sharing of information between the Secretary of State and the Minister of Justice. It is the responsibility of the UK Government to determine what information pertaining to national security can be shared and on what terms it is provided. Information which, if made public, might hinder the ability of the SIAs to perform their functions, or which might reveal the operations, investigations, sources, techniques or methodologies of the SIAs or of other agencies that use the same techniques or methodologies will not be shared. [added emphasis]

And

NIO historic records

10. All records created by the NIO prior to devolution, whether they are held electronically or on paper files, remain Crown Public Records and continue to be subject to the Public Records Act 1958. The NIO therefore retains ownership of and control of access to all pre-devolution records.

11. To facilitate the smooth operation of the Department of Justice (DOJ), and to ensure good governance, the NIO will provide access for DOJ officials to those pre-devolution NIO records relating to matters that are now devolved that are necessary for them to carry out their post-devolution functions effectively. DOJ officials will have no access to pre-devolution NIO records that relate to matters that remain the responsibility of the UK Government, including records that relate to matters of national security.

12. For the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), any pre-devolution NIO records that are held by the DOJ will be deemed to be held by the DOJ “on behalf of” the NIO. Under the FOIA, information held by one public authority on behalf of another is considered, for the purposes of the Act, to be held by the originating body, and they are the decision making body. Therefore, when a person requests access to information held on pre-devolution NIO records that are on loan to the DOJ, it will be for the NIO to provide the response to the applicant and apply any exemptions or public interest test that might be necessary. [added emphasis]

There is an annex to the above Protocol - Arrangements for Managing Issues which are National Security Related or Which Have a National Security Dimension

1 Counter-Terrorism Policy and Legislation

1.1 UK-wide counter-terrorism legislation applies in Northern Ireland and remains the responsibility of the UK Government. In pursuance of that responsibility, the UK Government works with the PSNI and other agencies in the policing and justice field on issues relating to counter terrorism and other reserved or excepted functions.

And

2 Contingency planning and crisis management

2.1 These matters are devolved. Northern Ireland Executive Ministers lead in the planning and government response to any event that does not involve a national security dimension. Where a crisis or public order situation is national security related, it remains the responsibility of the devolved administration to manage the devolved government agencies’ response in close liaison with the NIO which leads on any issues relating to reserved or excepted matters including deployment of the armed forces, co-ordination across national government, UK wide media handling and international implications.

2.2 The police operational response, including any request for military assistance, is a matter for the Chief Constable who has operational responsibility and is independent consistent with the arrangements in place between the Home Secretary and other Chief Constables. [added emphasis]

3 Policing

3.1 The Independent Commission[2] on Policing in Northern Ireland recommended that responsibility for policing be devolved to the NI Executive, except for matters of national security. Post devolution of policing and justice, the Chief Constable, while remaining operationally responsible, will be accountable to the Minister of Justice on all aspects of PSNI work save that he or she will continue to be accountable to the Secretary of State (representing the UK Government) for those aspects of the PSNI’s work - past, present or future - that have a national security element or dimension. Where the practical consequences of this impact on the role and responsibilities of the Minister of Justice he/she will be given access to relevant information in accordance with the principles set out in para 5 above including through the arrangements which will be put in place for the Chief Constable to brief the Minister of Justice on the security situation in Northern Ireland. The powers and responsibilities of the Policing Board have not been altered as a result of devolution or of this document.

3.2 The Minister of Justice is responsible for the process of appointing the Police Ombudsman (“PONI”) and for sponsoring his/her office (although the appointment is made formally by HM The Queen on the recommendation of the First Minister and deputy First Minister). In relation to all devolved matters PONI reports to the Minister of Justice. In relation to reserved or national security matters, PONI reports to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State may issue guidance to PONI on matters relating to national security. [added emphasis]

And a final extract

15 Organised crime

15.1 Organised crime remains a PSNI operational lead and the established procedures for management of national security information govern the passage of information from the SIAs to the PSNI. As in other areas, devolved Ministers will have access to relevant information in accordance with the principles set out in paragraph 5 above [in the protocol] to assist them in the effective conduct of their responsibilities. [added emphasis]

Particularly important in a situation where “a good friend” may be involved…

And he repeated his rejection of the pursuit of “post-conflict justice”

Dr Ramos Horta was equally scathing about the issue of post-conflict justice in the Timor-Leste context. “When it comes to , everybody wants to do some experiment on democracy or justice. I simply say no,” he said. “The midget intellectuals who regurgitate academic jargon about justice can go on and on dispensing academic judgments on poor little us, but my people, whom I know well, they applaud the wisdom of my policies – that is: heal the wounds, reconcile, and move on . . . I am not going to play Don Quixote de la Mancha of justice to pursue every seen or unseen culprit of the past.”

As the Irish Times report also points out

Timor-Leste was designated a priority country by Irish Aid, the Government’s overseas development division, in 2003.

From 2003 to 2009, Irish Aid provided more than €30 million towards poverty reduction programmes and projects aimed at strengthening governance, human rights and public service capacity. The Department of Foreign Affairs also engages with Timor-Leste through its conflict resolution unit.

One hopes, for the sake of the people of Timor-Leste…

Adds I think it’s worth adding a comment I made below

I’ve noted the US involvement here previously.

And it has been positive at times.

Particularly when they had leverage over certain parties.

But my feeling is that, this time, they’re being mis-briefed by other players.

Mark also points out something to keep in mind if you’re going to take seriously what Shaun Woodward had to say about “those who had indicated support for the UUP” - he hadn’t anything to say about any other parties.

There have long been doubts about the reliability of NI polls when it comes to voting intentions and this is maybe born out by an equally surprising set of low figures for Sinn Fein in comparison to the SDLP. I don’t know how many people in the NIO commissioned survey declined to answer, but I gather that in the OFMDFM poll 26% of those who were interviewed over the phone refused to say which party they backed, whilst 13% gave no affiliation. [added emphasis]

So, as ever, a note of caution. But these are the figures given me unofficially.

NIO commissioned poll

DUP 26%
SDLP 21%
TUV 1%
PUP 1%
SF17%
UUP 14%
Alliance 8%
Green 4%
Conservative 2%
Workers Party 2%
RSF 1%
UKUP 1%

OFMDFM Commissioned Poll

DUP 30%
UUP 19%
SDLP 19%
SF 16%
Alliance 11%
TUV 2%
PUP 1%
Others 3%

Also from the report

Between them the DUP and Sinn Féin have enough votes in the assembly to elect Ford to the post. The other two parties in the Stormont power-sharing coalition, the SDLP and the Ulster Unionists, confirmed over the weekend that they would not be backing Ford for the job.

Regardless however of the outcome of Tuesday’s vote in the assembly it is clear that in the small pockets of support that the Real IRA and CIRA enjoy there seems little chance that the final act of devolution will deter the dissidents from “armed struggle”.