There are many histories of how and why the First World War began. Not necessarily the best but one of the most readable is Dreadnought: Britain, Germany and the coming of the Great War by Robert J. Massie. One of the most interesting things about his book is the way that, having created the circumstances which led to war the politicians and rulers then scrabbled around in the last few days trying to stop it and were then personally horrified at what they had created.
I am beginning to wonder if the DUP and SF are somnambulating or possibly even consciously marching towards an election. Political parties tend to want elections when they think they will do well in them and when they think their opponents will do badly. I think at this moment rightly or wrongly both the DUP and SF think they would do quite well in an election and that their opponents both within their community and in the other community would do badly.
Conventional wisdom has held that the DUP might fear an electoral backlash following their entry into government with SF. In addition with the TUV in the fray the DUP could lose seats; better maybe to wait until after the European election, by which time hopefully Allister will have been defeated and people are more used to DUP power sharing. This calculation has, I believe been made by SF and as such they are happy to push and threaten an election, suspecting that the DUP will cave in to them rather than face both the UUP and TUV at Stormont elections. I suspect they also presume that the DUP are very fearful of SF becoming the largest party and as such having an SF first minister. That problem is something they may fear and is a piece of political short term-ism of which the DUP should be utterly ashamed.
However, I think the DUP calculate that holding the line firmly against SF demands, coupled with the wailing from SF that the DUP are trying to get back to the Stormont of the sainted (or demonic depending on one’s position) Basil Brooke, will allow them to sweep all before them at any Stormont election. I suspect that they calculate that they could paint themselves as having moved “Not an Inch” and squeezed SF so hard that they had to run away. In such circumstances they would argue why unionists should go back to voting for the UUP who’s “Not an Inch” repeatedly ended up with them several feet away from where they started.
They would also ask why anyone should vote TUV: why would they need to when the DUP were being so successful against SF. The DUP also seem to genuinely think that Dromore represented the TUV’s high water mark and that getting rid of Paisley represented the necessary catharsis. Finally of course the shameful deviousness by which the DUP allowed the First minister to be from the largest party would allow the DUP to try to blackmail the unionist community into making the DUP the biggest party to stop SF. In such a case the DUP could become the beneficiary of their own sell out: scruples and political parties do not of course necessarily mix. One could almost write the election literature and sound bites now: “Why change a winning team”, “Keep the pressure on republicans”, “Still winning for Ulster”, “SF have called an election because they are losing”, “Help us keep chasing SF after the election.” It would take PR incompetence on the scale of Steven King’s to mess it up.
I think, however, the DUP might not do quite as well as they think. Memories of their volte face may last longer than they hope and impressed as people might be by the DUP now standing up to SF, that is what they always wanted them to do. In addition there is the nagging doubt that political parties in Northern Ireland tend to become ever more hard line before elections and “Do the Lundy” afterwards. One need not look too far past the DUP to see an example of that. As such the unionist electorate would be wise to (and might well) think that after the bluff and bluster of an election campaign, the DUP, if they do well, might suddenly discover that the political life time until P&J is devolved is a similar life span to that of the adult Mayfly.
The DUP, in my opinion, would be incorrect in thinking that they would do very well in any forth coming election. However, I think that they (the DUP) think that they would do well. As such SF trying to scare them by threatening an election might be a very dangerously flawed strategy.
Turning then to SF (All the usual caveats apply in my attempts to analyse an SF position.)
Again the conventional wisdom has been that SF might have something to fear in any election. It is suggested that they have been holding up ordinary politics and that that is hurting their own constituents as well as everyone else. As such there is the possibility that they could be punished in an election.
SF have had some problems in the assembly. They have less experience in parliamentary politics and as such some of their representatives tend to under perform in the assembly chamber. In an election, however, this would not pertain; in contrast SF have always been an extremely formidable electoral machine. Some have suggested that they have lost activists. However, if the election could be presented as SF being the victims and as a straight fight for nationalists’ rights many workers might rally back to them.
SF could go into an election saying that they had tried to work power sharing but that they had been stalled at every turn by the DUP and their bigotry. They can very easily play the victim here and point out that the things they are demanding (devolution of Policing and Justice, an ILA and the shrine) have already been accepted by the British and Irish governments but are being stalled by the dreadful reactionary bigots of the DUP. They could very easily draw amusing parallels between the DUP and their being out of step with the governments and the position of the old Stormont régime holding onto the property franchise for council elections in Londonderry. Indeed the rhetoric from SF in the recent 40th anniversary of the civil rights marches in Londonderry could almost be seen as preparing the ground work for such an election campaign.
Again in such an election SF might feel that they had little to fear from anti agreement republicans and certainly Karen McHugh’s very poor showing in Fermanagh may hearten SF. I have suggested previously she was the wrong person, running the wrong campaign in the wrong part of Fermanagh for any useful conclusions to be drawn from that election. However, SF may well gain confidence that even in Fermanagh the rejectionist republicans cannot mount a serious challenge and rejectionist republicanism has certainly failed to gain any momentum. In addition SF, being the richest party in Northern Ireland have no fear of the financial cost of an election.
In an election SF could point to the SDLP’s willingness to continue with government despite the DUP stopping the sacred triad (Irish, shrine and policing). In such a scenario it is very likely that SF calculate they could hold or even improve their electoral position. Provided they held their position they could argue that nationalists really do care about the ILA, the shrine and P&J and that they (SF) have a mandate to demand these things.
Once again the election slogans would be easy to write: No return to unionist misrule. Civil rights: then and now.
As I said at the start of this piece most commentators have suggested that neither SF nor especially the DUP want an election and as such most of what has been going on is bluff. That may be the case and I am not necessarily predicting an election. However, both sides have backed themselves into a corner and unless one of them climbs down an election is becoming a very distinct possibility. In light of that both parties may calculate that an election is the lesser of two evils and could even assist them in their battles with one another and with their opponents within their own respective communities. As with the start and even more so the end of the First World War, I have suspicions that the parties’ calculations of what they might gain and what their opponents might lose in the event of an election may be overly optimistic. However, unless someone does something about it an election may well come and some at least will end up looking back and wishing that they had not made the choices they did.
I know some do not like my historical analogies but since I have not done one for a while, I hope I will be indulged. The British battleship HMS Rodney along with HMS King George V are largely credited as having sunk the mightiest warship then afloat, the German battleship Bismarck which itself had sunk the pride of the British fleet, the battlecruiser HMS Hood and damaged HMS Prince of Wales. Most credit Rodney with major part of the victory; that was, however, the high point of Rodney’s career and thereafter she was rather unsung, regarded as a bit slow, uncharismatic and maybe old fashioned.
As a follow up to Mick’s blog (itself from Ignited) of a couple of weeks ago about Nigel Dodds being the DUP’s candidate for MEP I have heard rumours that there is a short list headed by himself, then Jeffrey Donaldson, then Edwin Poots. The disadvantages to going off to Europe are obvious. However: “Tis an ill wind that blows no good.”
Apparently Dodds is not especially keen on the idea and one can see why: he is currently finance minister, deputy leader of the DUP and quite clearly the current heir apparent. As such to go off to Europe would significantly reduce his profile and with it most likely his chances of getting the leadership after Robinson. There might, however, be some advantages to being temporarily semi detached from the rest of the DUP. If (big-ish if, but if) the DUP are forced to, or decide to, agree to some form of compromise over policing and justice, the shrine or the ILA, then there may be a significant backlash from the unionist electorate. In such a scenario Dodds might be able to come back and rally the party; he might even be seen as having gone to Europe because he did not support such sell outs. Sometimes being away from the fray can be an advantage, it lends a plausible air of not supporting a policy yet being too loyal a party member to participate in an open revolt.
Of course exactly similar advantages and disadvantages are present for Donaldson, though their balance is a little different. His position is less prominent and less important than Dodds’s. As such he has less to loose from fading for a while to Europe. In addition moving off to Europe would allow him to stop having to be seen with Gerry Kelly at joint junior minister events. These meetings have already caused Donaldson embarrassment and he might well be safer in Europe. In addition Donaldson cannot hope to be in pole position for the leadership at the moment. Again, however, if Robinson (and in this scenario Dodds) had been involved in a sell out it would allow Donaldson to return and offer a straight forward traditional appeal (back to basics?). Remember that unionist leaders always seem to fall to complaints from, or be deposed by, people to their right.
In the case of Edwin Poots, however, the advantages of going to Europe are clearer. Despite what Robinson may have said, I would be surprised if Poots was rapidly returned to the executive top table. Like de Brún he has had his chance at ministerial office and a speedy return whilst not impossible, seems unlikely. Whilst he is unlikely ever to be challenging for leader, moving off to Europe would allow him a position of at least some importance and prestige.
There are of course other possible candidates: I have heard Diane Dodds’s name mentioned; others might conceivably include Simon Hamilton, Arlene Foster or of course the old warhorse William McCrea, so foolishly overlooked by Robinson last time: surely Peter Robinson’s most serious political mistake (though he has made at least one other).
To be considering such high profile candidates as Dodds and Donaldson for Europe might seem a little odd. People like Dodds who are doing a job as important as finance minister are rarely considered for Europe. Of course the unmentionable enemy in all this is Jim Allister. The DUP clearly need to defeat Allister and ideally annihilate him with one fell swoop. Although any defeat at the European elections would very significantly weaken the TUV, depriving as it would their leader of his public platform; a very heavy defeat would be preferable for the DUP. It would deal a blow to the TUV from which they would find it difficult to recover. To deprive a political party of success often sets in train a series of centrifugal forces which can rip it apart. Victory on the other hand often has a centripetal effect. Hence, to destroy Allister’s representative position prior to the next Westminster and Stormont elections would be an excellent plan and might help rid the DUP of the TUV, allowing them to concentrate on the UUP.
Taking on Allister is likely to be something which any DUP representative would view with mixed emotions. To be the slayer of the DUP’s nemesis would gain great kudos for the Beowulf like hero who achieved the feat. Equally, however, the risk of defeat would stalk the candidate, as would the fear of irrelevance after the victory had been won. The contradiction here is that the mightier the warrior which the DUP send into battle, the greater the probability of, yet the less sweet, the victory; and most likely, the less keen on the fight the warrior, knowing as they would that victory would also bring European semi irrelevance. As with HMS Rodney, victory might be the prelude to irrelevance. Unless of course as I suggested at the start, hiding in Europe would allow the hero to then return and rescue the party from Lundies.
As I said at the start these are of course all rumours but they are interesting none the less. In addition as I will mention above I am beginning to wonder whether or not there will be a major election before the next European. If that is the case then the monster which is the TUV might, hydra like, have grown additional heads before the European elections. Or (for the only time so far that I have ever alluded to Lord of the Rings) the Morgoth like dark lord Allister might have Balrog helpers. Yes before you all tell me Turgon’s city of Gondolin was destroyed by Balrogs.
Managing director of Weber Shandwick in Northern Ireland, former SDLP advisor, and blogger, Conall McDevitt was also on the Politics Show today arguing that the local media coverage of the DUP and Sinn Féin has changed as the Executive deadlock continues through the current credit crunch.. Although, my own take is that the more critical coverage of MLAs has been general rather than party-specific.. Adds Conall clarifies his point in the comments zone below.
The Sunday Telegraph has broken a long suspected story which could alter the shape of politics in the medium term as much anything else. For such a workaholic to cope with failing eyesight must be a terrible strain.
I disagree with this for a number of reasons, not least that I’m not sure that endless horsetrading and mistrust will run a government in the long run (though the TBGBs seemed to manage it for a while…..) but the one that strikes me most is that it is an attitude that comes purely from the sectarian silo. Why exactly should the Irish Language, for example, be abandoned as one for “t’other”? Even if an ILA is blocked for now, it’s likely that eventually there will be an issue that gives the necessary leverage, and something will be done.
The Irish language has a number of very fervent supporters, but I guess that most Nationalists fall into a similar camp as me: a rudimentary grasp at best and no small affection for the language and a vague desire to see it promoted. With Unionism set dead against it, and the fervent supporters pushing SF, policy in the area is largely dictated by the more extreme end.
Now, suppose the DUP introduced an Irish Language Act into the Assembly. It would blindside both SF and the SDLP for a start. It would also mean that the DUP could set the agenda, shape the initial parameters for discussion and the scope of the debate. If it’s clever, it could maybe come up with proposals that would split more moderate Nationalism from the fervent supporters, and create something more to its taste. It might also have spent more time considering how Nationalism thinks, and maybe that would be helpful too.
Obviously I don’t give a stuff about Unionism does. But the principle still applies for Nationalism. Too many issues are abandoned as simply alien and dealt with by the other side. We need to break those boxes, and start pursuing policy outside of our sectional comfort zone. Pretty soon, cultural issues around Polish-Irish, African-Irish, Chinese-Irish will begin to loom larger as Ireland becomes more multicultural. If we can’t deal with Unionism, can we deal with that? Traditional nationalism is an important and strong component of the Irish identity, but it is not the only one. Only by trying to deal with all these issues do we come close to true Republicanism.
Adds. I add this personal assessment of the BBC’s coverage of the financial crisis by its Economics Editor Hugh Pym, who’s doing the job while Evan Davis’s successor Stephanie Flanders is on maternity leave ( job details in response to query below).
The BBC’s superb Business Editor Robert Peston was always bound to attract the snipers. Someone so consistently on top of the story was never going to get away with it. Any professional controversialist like Peter Hitchens in the Mail is sometimes bound to be stuck for a line on a big story but this is a particularly feeble one – as if the pension funds are going to be wiped out by Peston having a “bead” that is, a few minutes ahead of the pack – on any particular episode. The fact is that a senior reporter for a huge outlet like the BBC attracts information as much as he seeks it. Yes, it’s possible to detect the hand of the Treasury in some of his reports – rightly and inevitably. The Chancellor has been slammed for speaking too much or too late and has been criticised for both. Information has to be obtained somehow and Peston’s sources stretch well beyond the official. So how “responsible” ought anyone in Peston’s’ position to be ?
Peter Jay, a former economics (not business) editor for the Times and the BBC, says Peston bears a huge responsibility. “Any journalist has to consider what the consequences of his actions will be, and if they will have an anti-social result.” Jay, the extremely clever son of a cabinet minister, former Treasury mandarin, later ambassador to Washington and speech writer for his then father-in-law James Callaghan was for most of his career more of a player than a reporter. For the BBC he was virtually invisible for years. The story is told of Jay (possibly apocryphally but very plausibly) that he put down a colleague, telling him that one of his articles on monetarism was intended to be understood by just two people and “you are not one of them.” In part, it was Jay’s extremely rarefied handling of the brief that revealed the glaring need to appoint a Business editor to tap into a private sector that was extremely coy about explaining itself. The banks were the most secretive, disastrously so as we’re now experiencing, and still are, even at this very moment of deep crisis. The idea that in the digital age Peston uniquely possesses a killer fact for any more than a few minutes is absurd. If anything it’s a shame he was unable to break more scoops much earlier. We might then have been heading for a softer landing. What he does in text and in his own unique form of speech is to make it now, make it fast and make it intelligible. Like our own John Cole, former BBC Political Editor now over 80, whom I last saw in fine form a couple of months ago, Peston breaks all the normal rules of broadcasting but has become a national - and quite possibly an international - treasure.
“Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110 (a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act.”
The BBC report has more, and the Belfast Telegraph report seems somewhat premature.. Given that the full report has yet to be voted on, never mind endorsed, by the Legislative Council.. But I’d suggest the real ‘money quote’ is, as noted elsewhere
“I find that, although Walt Monegan’s refusal to fire Trooper Michael Wooten was not the sole reason he was fired by Governor Sarah Palin, it was likely a contributing factor to his termination as Commissioner of Public Safety. In spite of that, Governor Palin’s firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads.”
The first quote refers to Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) which provides
“The legislature reaffirms that each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust.”
Interestingly, leaving aside that it was, at most, a constructive dismissal of Moneghan, the first finding relates to an alleged breach of public trust in attempting to pressurise Moneghan to fire Trooper Michael Wooten, although Wooten was not fired, and corresponds with the ethics disclosure [pdf file] by Sarah Palin herself on 1 September this year. The detailed Wiki page on Troopergate provides the background, from Sarah Palin’s character reference for Wooten in 2000 to her overhearing a death threat against her father, Chuck Heath, in 2005 - a year before she became State Governor. In the aftermath of his divorce from Palin’s sister, Wooten was subsequently suspended for 10 days [pdf file], reduced to 5 days after a union appeal, and transferred to a different department. But the suspension letter made no reference to the death threat, despite an internal investigation concluding that - “Wooten violated internal policy, but not the law, in making a death threat against Heath. Wooten denied having made the threat, but the investigation decided that he had in fact done so. The investigation concluded that the death threat was not a crime because Wooten did not threaten the father directly; therefore, the investigator deemed the threat to be a violation of trooper policy rather than a violation of criminal law.”
In this case, there has been much said about the level of frustration that existed on the part of Sarah Palin’s father Chuck Heath who filed the original complaint against Trooper Michael Wooten, and on the part of Sarah and Todd Palin, who attempted to learn the status of the investigation only to be told be Colonel Grimes that the matter was confidential by reason of AS 39.25.080. I believe their frustration was real as was their skepticism about whether their complaints were being zealously investigated. The irony is that the complaints were taken very seriously, and a thorough investigation was underway. However, the law prevented the Troopers from giving them any feedback whatsoever.
The ill wind of the financial crisis blows kindly for the political fortunes of Gordon Brown at the moment. The news this week that he is to break convention and campaign in the Glenrothes by election is a straw in the self-same wind. Only two weeks ago, it was in Glenrothes that he was supposed to meet his nemesis, but now Labour may have a chance, as Andy MacSmith once press handler to the late John Smith opines in the Independent. The same wind blows ill on Alex Salmond whose narrative of Scottish independence will have to be revised, according to observers including BBC Scotland’s political editor Brian Taylor.
“We’re unlikely to hear over-much from Alex Salmond in future about the “arc of prosperity.... You know, Norway, Ireland.......and Iceland. These were to be the lodestones for Scotland’s future financial direction. Sundry parties of a Unionist persuasion will, severally and collectively, suggest that Mr Salmond’s fundamental economic case has been undermined.
The Nationalists have an answer. They will say that what matters is not, intrinsically, the size of the state but the state of the economic and fiscal policies pursued by the government, together, of course, with global conditions.”
Mike Small in Our Kingdom “ Remember Remember the 6th of November” spots division between the London and Scottish commentariat and asks a good question: in the campaign, how does Brown explain away English jealousy over SNP freebies?
Another clip from Thursday’s better than averageHearts and Minds. This time it’s Julia Paul’s report on the future for Northern Ireland Local Councils [and local councillors]. Of interest, along with the historical clips and the contribution from Slugger’s inaugural Local Councillor of the Year, is Paul Evans’ comparison of here with Local Councils elsewhere.. And, with the potential loss of the most experienced local councillors ahead, it’s worth considering whether here risks becoming more like elsewhere in future..
Saturday’s a day for catching the mood, so how are you bearing up? Apart from the petrol queues at Tescos, thanks to their ”price war,” not too badly in my case, assuming the pension funds holds up. A backlash against all the solemn stuff nobody can do anything about is inevitable. Naturally somebody has to blame the media and it’s Cranmer’s turn. The financial crisis in the new bird flu.
“Christmas itself may be cancelled because Santa banked in Iceland. And he had shares in Hamleys. And Hamleys banked with Northern Rock, but has just moved its billions to Ireland, or Germany – anywhere which guarantees every deposited euro without limit – for these countries now have the safest banks in the world. So Santa is moving to Dublin, or Berlin, and exchanging reindeer for leprechauns, or Volkswagens, for the only hope he has of meeting all of his service and supply commitments over the next eight weeks is with state aid. Santa has been nationalised.”
While we’re on Iceland, the Daily Mash explained how those councils got it wrong.
COUNCILS INVESTED £1BN IN TINY VOLCANO SURROUNDED BY FISH
Julian Cook, director of finance at the Local Government Association, said: “I meant Luxembourg - shit!
“I suppose the haddock-shaped piece of lava with every new account was probably a clue.”
AN Wilson in the Mail goes retro with memories of austerity forties he hopes will return.
“My reason for being hopeful as we look ahead towards the lean years is that austerity binds us all together - as communities and as families.”
Even more alarming is a surprisingly sensible Sun leader – have they lost their bottle altogether?
“The lesson of history is that good times DO return.
But the wait is going to be long and painful.”
The left are in a bit of bind at the moment. They’re itching to condemn capitalism of course but they’re not sure of their audience and David Cameron had already nabbed the “punish the master of the universe” line. Michael Meacher of the traditional left of the Labour party comes right out and says it.
“The tax havens hiding billions offshore should be opened up by law and the vast wealth illegally accumulated there over decades should be repatriated to replenish Treasury coffers. And in an unprecedented crisis like this, a significant tax surcharge needs to be levied on the broadest shoulders – the hedge funds and private equity operators, the higher rate taxpayers (particularly the 1% richest) and the biggest businesses. It will hurt, but not doing so will hurt much more.”
Quote of the week goes to Ian Paisley, in the Commons on Monday.
“I am sure that the whole House will realise the very terrible times that we are in. I remember being a lad in Ulster and the soup kitchens, the poverty and the terrible happenings that took place. We must all, in our own way, do what we can to help one another to get some way through this very dark hour for our nation. I know that there are many beliefs in this House; my belief in God is well known and my religious convictions are known. I trust that our whole nation will turn in repentance and cry to God for an intervention so that the calamity will not come on our children and on the babes in their cots.”
Mr Robinson rejected claims of bigotry in his party and said the Sinn Féin leader’s comments should be treated with “pity rather than scorn”.
“What a sad spectacle Gerry Adams has become,” said Mr Robinson. “He has resorted to making outlandish and absurd claims in order to grab some media attention and seek support for his party’s present absurd position. “The central accusation made by Mr Adams is wrong. The DUP is committed to working the Assembly for the maximum benefit of all of the people of Northern Ireland.”
Tonight a Sinn Féin source hit back at Mr Robinson’s comments: “Many people in the wider community are questioning Peter Robinson’s tenure as First Minister. “There has been one Executive meeting during his four months in office. What Peter Robinson needs to do is focus on delivering on the obligations his party entered into in the St Andrews Agreement.”
In an attack on Mr Adams’s role as MP for West Belfast, Mr Robinson added: “West Belfast has some of the most deprived communities in Northern Ireland - both Protestant and Roman Catholic – and what is their MP doing about it? Banging on about his party-political objectives.”
Mr Robinson said: “People will rightly judge this as yet another sad outburst from a man who is frustrated that he is no longer able to control events in the way he once did.”
Sinn Fein was putting the “ideological approach” before the “logical one”, the First Minister claimed.
“Gerry Adams comments are to be treated more in pity than in scorn,” he added.
“They betray a fundamentally sectarian mindset – not only does he fail to comprehend that unionism is not a religion but that it is also possible to be a Roman Catholic and a unionist at the same time.
“If Gerry Adams thinks that by resorting to such behaviour he will rally his grassroot supporters who are disillusioned at the distance Sinn Fein has had to travel it is a sad commentary on republicanism.”
Many claim it - from Sinn Féin to Fianna Fail to the SDLP and a wealth of smaller groups including RSF, IRSP, Workers Party, éirígí and the 32CSM (sorry if I left you out). To address the question requires a definition of what Republicanism is and that isn’t something easily agreed on.
It used to be reasonably easy to define - primarily those demanding complete independence from Britain and the establishment of a Republican government. After that various elements had differing significance for various parties:
· Socialism - pretty much a perquisite
· Secularism
· The 1916 Proclamation
· The 1919 Democratic Programme
· Articles 2 & 3
After the GFA the definitions altered for many with FF overseeing the removal of Articles 2 & 3 from the 26 county constitution, previously the foundations of state Republicanism; SF accepting and enthusiastically promoting an ‘Agreement’ based on partition and enshrining the ‘consent principle’ (Unionist veto) as the way forward, now for them the only way to unity despite often declaring it ‘not a Republican document’.
Did the nature of Republicanism suddenly change when the ‘Agreement’ came about? Has Republicanism changed from outright rejection of British influence in Ireland to working within,or supporting from outside, partitioned structures in the north of Ireland and no guarantee of future unity never mind the Socialist Republic? Has constitutional Nationalism become Republicanism? Or has traditional Republicanism ceased to exist for many and been sidelined?
These are not unique Irish questions in modern politics as the meanings of ‘Left’ and ‘Socialism’ are facing attempted redefinition in popular consciousness. Topics on Splintered Sunrise raised this as an
attempt by those in certain movements, who had always been opposed to Socialism, attempting to set acceptable limits on where political discourse lies by defining themselves as the ideology and more traditional views as beyond the pale.
Is similar occurring within Republicanism? Is the claim to ownership from FF, SF and the SDLP from positions closer to those normally viewed as constitutional nationalism trying to limit where acceptable discourse on Irish politics can be held? Is there a move to the centre and a fire walling of the approved limits for debate? Is the traditional view on Republicanism being treated as abnormal?
As Socialism, also claimed by FF, SF and the SDLP, takes a backseat in the policies and actions of government in Ireland and those declaring it involve themselves in privatisation, strike-breaking, non-unionised labour promotion and other policies more often associated with the right have the twin and interlinked foundations of Republicanism/Socialism been distorted into something else?
Of course there are other smaller groups still proclaiming to be truly Republican, like those proclaiming true Socialism elsewhere but is their form of Republicanism and Socialism a thing of the past? Can ideologies really alter through time? Can definitions change? Or are some not facing the fact they have changed while the ideology remains unaltered?
So where is Republicanism in modern Ireland? Certainly not where it was before.
Niall Stanage on BBC NI Hearts and Minds with some useful background information on the recent kerfuffle over one US presidential candidate’s reported opinions on Northern Ireland and the exaggarated importance of the Irish-American vote, and that of the influence of the Irish-American lobby. [Bill] Clinton gets a mention too [The “thinking man’s shit”? - Ed] It “has never been just about those “dreary steeples".”
Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point gives a compelling account of how New York tackled its crime epidemic during the 90’s (the original New Yorker article that led to the book can be found here, and follows a similar theme). The book offers Broken Window Theory as the method for achieving a tipping point in crime. Broken window theory states that small crime acts as enabler for big crime; having a “broken window” in a street suggests it may be easier to get away with a crime. By tackling the small problems, we tackle the bigger ones.
It’s an interesting theory, but as you can see if you follow the Wikipedia link above, like all theories it has it’s critics. However, I’m not so sure it matters if the overall theory works; despite the recent spate of murders in West Belfast, low level antisocial crime is much more likely to be encountered on an everyday basis and much more likely to cause a climate of fear. So it’s worth looking at the policy prescriptions.
They announced a policy of zero tolerance. I think this is significant in itself: I think it is important that the expectation for crime is set at: you will get caught, and you will get punished.
Low level offences, however trivial, were rigorously enforced. If you peed on the street, you were going to jail.
Steps were taken to facilitate that. The biggest barrier in arresting someone for small crimes was the trip to the station involved and the level of paperwork that needs processed. Buses were turned into mobile police stations, and the paperwork reduced to increase turnaround time. I suggest in our society, human rights issues may also be a problem, and some protocol would need developed to deal with that.
Random “safety checks” were implemented to try and proactively look for and deal with low level crime, stolen cars, or drink driving. This tied in with a pattern of a more general increase in activity – more arrests, more cars stop, more moves against drug dealers.
Resources were targeted at problem areas.Computer models were used to map patterns of crime, and resources targeted at specific areas. It’s unlikely that sophisticated models would be needed here, but the principle is the same; put people where needed. There are again sensitivities here (on both sides) that would need some thought, but I don’t believe that it should be used as a blocking issue.
There was a steady increase in the number of police on the street.
Most of that is sensible, I feel, and none of it is rocket science. Some might see it as a lurch to the right, but I think the biggest mistake made on the right in terms of crime is ever tougher sentencing (particularly if it involves mandatory sentencing) regardless of how much sense it makes, what reoffending rates are like or how overcrowded the prisons get. This doesn’t deal with that: the target here is simply to ensure that the current law is better and more consistently enforced, and proper expectations are set.
I have another idea too: totally ditch current drugs policy, but that’s for another day. What do you think needs done?
Last month, the Times reported how 16 per cent of the new recruits to the British Army in Northern Ireland since April were from south of the border, more than double the figure for 2006. Slugger dealt with it here. However, today the Irish Independent reported that an “expensive” recruitment drive by the British Army in the Republic had resulted in just 24 applicants signing up in the last 18 months. Why the discrepancy in opinions/reporting of the recruitment figures? Suggestions welcome.
It seems DUP leader Peter Robinson is now fully aware of the chill economic winds blowing through Northern Ireland and like any decent politician worth his salt, has embarked on a policy of blaming someone else for the upcoming woes. While others blame, for example, the banks, Robinson preferred instead to focus on Sinn Féin when addressing a business dinner in East Belfast.
These are critical months for Northern Ireland not just in relation to building for our long term economic wellbeing but also in dealing with the present economic difficulties. The refusal of Sinn Fein to agree to an Executive meeting since last June has not only damaged the credibility of devolution in the eyes of the public but it is also damaging to the credibility of Northern Ireland in the wider world.
At a time when Governments around the world are acting to deal with the financial crisis our Executive is not even meeting. The role of the Executive in dealing with global problems is limited but the very least that people expect is that their politicians seek to deal with their problems. Again let me make it plain. I want the Executive to meet. I want it to meet immediately and I am placing no conditions on it meeting. Sinn Fein alone is blocking the process.
He continues:
International investors will not wait around forever and in an ever increasingly competitive market we can simply not afford the present Sinn Fein obstruction of the Executive. Nor can we delay getting to grips with the necessary reforms that Northern Ireland needs in order to move ahead.
In contrast, last March Secretary for State for Northern Ireland Shaun Woodward also expressed his concerns about international investors being scared off by the continuing logjam in Northern Ireland but he seemed to be blaming the lack of a completion of devolution, namely policing and justice powers, as the main cause:
But no-one should be under any illusion that the completion of devolution is crucial for the long term stability and prosperity of Northern Ireland. When it happens, it will send out a clear signal around the world that Northern Ireland is a sound investment for the future.
But rather than do the simple thing and hold a line similar to Woodward in the ongoing impasse with the DUP, Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams has returned to familiar ground, preferring instead to accuse unionists of simply not wanting to share power with Catholics:
It is obvious that there are elements with the DUP who do not agree with power sharing and partnership as a political model or a practical politics. In addition, there are clearly elements of the DUP who really don’t want to have a Catholic about the place. They are opposed to power sharing in any form. And some of them clearly believe that by stalling and delaying they can hollow out the Good Friday and St Andrews Agreements. As a result of this opposition the DUP has been retreating from its obligations under the St Andrews Agreement.
Meanwhile, the Dow Jones dropped 700 points in the first few minutes of trade before recovering as the rollercoaster ride continues on the stock markets, while the ISEQ is probably languishing at a level lower than it was when the Good Friday Agreement was signed over a decade ago.
I hesitate just a moment before applauding the award of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize to the international negotiator Martti Ahtisaari. He flitted across our screens for trying to jump start decommissioning before going on to greater things. Nothing personal or ideological, just that as the headline says: “ Got conflict? Mr. Ahtisaari is your man.” He’s a professional negotiator and as such, he’s above the fray. If you’re not involved in the conflict, it’s pretty easy to transcend it. David Trimble’s comment on being awoken at 6 a.m. with the news of joint award with John Hume was a typical grump: “I hope this honour doesn’t prove to be premature.” But the risk of being premature is part of the point of the award, to encourage the recipients to keep going and to heighten the profile of the peace process concerned. That’s a risk the Nobel committee itself shares with the laureates; but it was one which in 1998 they managed to avoid:
“Mr. Adams was almost certainly on the list of 139 nominees, the most ever, because the chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee today implied strongly that it had considered him for the prize but decided to limit it to Mr. Hume and Mr. Trimble.”
The Nobel committee is often accused of naivety and too much establishment thinking. Most winners fall into two main categories – big international groups doing good works, like the International Atomic Energy Authority and politicians on either side of conflict, Mandela and de Klerk, Arafat, and Rabin and Peres; Kissinger and the North Vietnamese negotiator Le Duc Tho. Not all of the prizes stand the test of time like Arafat and Kissinger. Among the most heartfelt were our other Nobel winners, the Peace People Betty Williams and Mairead Corrigan. I followed them from that very moment of the movement’s genesis in 1976 when I inadvertently broke the news to Mairead that her little nephew had died. Here is a visionary account which captures some of the atmosphere of the time. The Community of the Peace People began in tragedy and launched in a great emotional surge. Huge public demonstrations were the biggest between the civil rights movement and the hunger strike. For a moment they had a real cross community character about them. But the movement petered out in sad anti-climax, because the it never did and never could acquire a convincing political ideology to surmount sectarianism and continuing conflict. A purely “peace” ideology was and remains too bland. The “ordinary people” concerned were buried under the weight of the Prize itself. It became more of a curse than a blessing. The politicians picked on the bones; some of them were still doing it a few years ago. “Sinn Fein’s Alex Maskey, reflecting on republican attitudes to the Peace People, said their good intentions were hijacked by the British government intent on an anti-republican peace.” Sinn Fein were no exception, they all did it.
Perhaps on reflection, the Nobel Prize is best left to professionals – even though without grass roots nominees, it’s much less well founded in public affection and esteem.
Arggh! Nevermind Executive stalemate, Presidential elections, or the financial apocalypse, my Saturday nights have just been ruined. The legendary Skibunny club in Auntie Annies is to end after 11 years on 1 November. Easily the best playlist in Belfast and an excellent vibe is to be no more. I must have discovered more new music off the back of it in the last 6 months than from anywhere else. One offs are promised, but it won’t be the same. Gutted.
But, really, it’s a good news story; international success and a new band have squeezed out the club:
In the last 12 months SKIBUNNY have DJ’d and played everywhere from Siberia to Glastonbury, from New York to Osaka - so we just don’t have the time to be able to run the club ourselves alongside everything else. Now that we have a UK booking agent as well we just feel that we cant give 100% of our time to the club, and if we haven’t the time to DJ at the nights then there’s no point in calling those events ‘Skibunny’ nights.’
Good luck to Mark and Tanya, and hopefully they’ll continue to promote some bands around Belfast as they’ve done in the past. For the curious, check out the MySpace page, and the mixtape on the website.
Sinn Féin’s strategy on Policing and Justice has largely been to focus on the St Andrew’s Agreement, and policing as totemic issue to republicans. The details of that have been debated somewhat endlessly on this site already, but the key point is that this effectively reduces the argument to a semantic one split along sectarian lines.
Returning to fundamentals, Republicanism must ultimately be about better government. Nationalism must be about the idea that Irish people are better equipped to govern themselves than anyone else. In order for this to be the case, new powers devolved are not enough: they must be a vehicle for new policy. The discussion paper on which powers would be devolved lists a wide range of powers that could be transferred, including the ability to specific new offences; devolution in itself would give control of both the purse strings and appointments. Together that would form a powerful platform to get new ideas implemented.
Unfortunately, Sinn Fein does not seem to have many. The policy section of the website produces only three papers on “Justice & the Community”, one of which dates form the 90’s. Similarly, the Sinn Féin Manifesto for the 2007 Dáil Election can be vague on the issues: Ensure robust enforcement of the law and prosecution of offenders involved in criminal behaviour hardly counts as an actionable policy. Where they are strong or specific tends to be when dealing with the accountability of the system – create an Ombudsman, organise policing partnerships, implement a system for victims liaisons. On initiatives to actually tackle crime however, they are largely silent.
But the accountability mechanisms in the North have largely been built. Recent events in West Belfast have sharply illustrated the need for new ideas to tackle anti-social and violent crime. Dissident Republicans can no longer be dealt with by the threat of swift reprisals by the Provisionals. There is a pressing need within their own communities for new ideas on crime. There is a second level to this failure. Regardless of the spin, the figures for supporting the transfer of powers are fairly healthy, even among Unionists. Accountability has never been a particularly hot button issue among Unionists, but law and order issues gain reliable support. Presenting devolution of Policing and Justice in this context allows SF to attempt to attempt to build support for the move outside their own community, set the direction of policy and expose the paucity of Unionist thinking.
This after all, was the promise of devolution for Republicans: the ability to shape the government and win new converts through superior argument. That is true outreach. It is perhaps naive to think that an argument on the merits would be successful in the face of a DUP apparently hell bent on causing Nationalism as much pain as possible. But it is an important plank that needs built if we are to move beyond current sectarian silos. Republicans need to get on it.
So, I have been elevated from a complete blackout to a top level commentator on site so I thought I better announce myself first. Mwahahahaha. Expect some technical hiccups while I work the blogging software out, and some terrible posts I will not be able to blame on anything else.
On that note, perhaps Mick should consider this for the new blogging software.
Edit: In response the question in the comments - I am a Belfast based Republican with no ties to any party. I am conviction republican with a small ‘r’ and consider myself an Irish patriot. It’s not perfect, but I generally like and am proud of Ireland. In terms of left-right..... a bit left of New Labour but a good bit right of Old Labour, maybe, with a certain amount of pragmatism thrown in. For example, I don’t have any inherent problem with public ownership, if a strong case is made, but generally like markets and take a dim view of people peddling what amounts to Communism. Generally, what I’d like to do here is throw out a few ideas on things within those spheres so smarter people than me can discuss them and come up with better ideas. Hopefully that will come through. I’d generally like to avoid “Look at this bad stuff” type threads, but no doubt some stupid stuff here will break my rage threshold. Oh and I may or may not have lots of time to do this, so don’t expect Walker levels of posts, here.
The abortion reform campaign doesn’t look like a dead duck by any means. I can’t find any press coverage yet, so important exchanges are below the fold.
Yesterday pro-choice supporters flocked into the Commons to launch their
campaigning ahead of expected votes at the Report stage of the Human
Fertilisation and Embryology Bill now likely to be on the 22 October.
Diane Abbott Labour MP who has tabled New Clause 30 to extend access to
safe, legal abortion to women in Northern Ireland said:
“Now we have been able to do something historic, to [table an amendment
to] extend the rights that all women of the Britain already have into
Northern Ireland. The issue here is, should there be a group of women in
the United Kingdom who are essentially second-class citizens?”
Speaking of the anti abortion lobby Ms Abbott said “These are a set of
people who are the greatest hypocrites, their real problem is with women’s
enfranchisement. Given their way, they would take back the economic
progress and social progress that women have been able to make in the last
40 years.”
From Hansard. Questions to the Leader of the House (and minister for women).
Mr. Nigel Dodds (Belfast, North) (DUP): The remaining stages of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill are due to be taken on 22 October. Will the Leader of the House accept that that Bill is a highly inappropriate vehicle to impose a fundamental change in relation to the law on abortion in Northern Ireland? Given that the communities and all parties in Northern Ireland are united on the issue, if devolution is to mean anything, the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland should be respected in that regard.
Ms Harman: Obviously it is very important that the question of the view of the parties in Northern Ireland is taken into account, irrespective of the issue that is being raised. It is also important that the views of men and women are taken into account in all parts of the United Kingdom when services are being considered. As the hon. Gentleman said, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill will come before the House next week, and no doubt he will be able to make his points in the debate.
Update.Here is an impressive account by Jonathan McCambridge in the Bel Tel of the reasons for failure in the case and others, minus the conspiracy theory. “In the end, the problem was the same as in the Omagh bombing and Robert McCartney murder trials – how do you solve a crime without evidence?”
Our old friends the dogs in the streets will have a complete theory about the Northern Bank robbery and I doubt if Chris Ward is central to it. I have to say I’m totally ignorant of the gossip but let’s see if I’ve got it right what the Times and the Guardian are trying to tell me.
In the weeks after the Northern Bank robbery, security sources in Northern Ireland and the republic hinted that at least one branch of the security services had prior knowledge the IRA was preparing just such a heist….. At the time, this was dismissed as a conspiracy theory. But in light of the Omagh revelations, would it be a complete surprise if it emerged the authorities knew in advance about the biggest bank robbery in UK history but failed to act?
Henry said earlier in the piece: “Following the heist on December 20 2004, the PSNI chief constable, Sir Hugh Orde, claimed it was “the biggest theft of waste paper in history”. Orde was referring to the bank’s decision to immediately recall all its notes and reprint an entire set of new ones that were radically different in colour and design.
But he goes on to give weight to this contradiction:
“The IRA southern commander turned police spy Sean O’Callaghan was adamant the Provisionals had the ability to absorb and “wash” the cash through their various assets relatively quickly. Most of the stolen money, O’Callaghan said, was digested through the IRA’s financial system even before the Northern Bank’s reprinted notes hit the streets.”
If this is true, Orde is bound to have known it so why did he play down the scale of the financial loss?
David Sharrock in the Times points out that Sir Hugh Orde has scored three of the UK’s most controversial cases – the 1998 Omagh bombing, the Northern Bank robbery and the murder of Robert McCartney – at the end of which he has scored a legal 0-3 with not a single conviction achieved.
“A harder question to answer is how much blame should be shouldered by Sir Hugh and how much is the result of the peculiarities created by the peace process and the blurred point at which justice and politics meet in Northern Ireland.”
David concludes: “Almost three weeks after the raid he told a news conference in Belfast: “In my opinion the Provisional IRA were responsible for this crime.” His delay in publicly attributing blame – in a province where the police were usually more swift to do so – may have been because of the febrile political atmosphere of the time.” (What’s the precise suggestion here?)
These reports seem to imply first, that Orde had to have the IRA attribution dragged out of him at the time and second, that he played down the significance of the real money loss of £20 million – contrary to O’Callaghan’s view that the loss was real and substantial - a view which Orde is bound to have shared from his knowledge of the IRA racketeering. Did Orde take this line ( if he did), in order to minimise the threat to the peace process, or did he do the opposite - defy pressure to get him not to give the IRA attribution at all? There’s a suspicion of cover-up of prior knowledge held by either by MI5 or the CID. There’s no conclusive knowledge of this that’s fit to print - it’s hard to imagine anybody fessing up - but I think I’ve got the message. The further impression I’m left with is that Ward was put up for a show trial that was bound to fail, so that yet again the book can be closed on a politically inconvenient case. What I’m confused about is whether the suggestion is that it’s the prior knowledge is being covered up as such or a cover up for political reasons or both. I somehow doubt if that’s all we’ll hear of the Northern Bank saga…
Sinn Fein’s discomfort and anger about the DUP allegedly breaking promises made at St. Andrews has been detailed repeatedly. No one has been more careful in documenting this than Slugger’s own Pete Baker. It has been suggested that SF took their eye off the ball during St. Andrews and that the DUP out negotiated and indeed out manoeuvred them. That may be correct but I would suggest that the critical error which SF made was to forget that Blair was leaving or at least to think that Gordon Brown would have as much interest in, and a similar position on, the political process in Northern Ireland.
I remember many years ago when I was a young, foolish member of the UUP (I am now merely foolish) suggesting that a Labour victory would not be the disaster for unionism which many feared; I suggested that Blair represented a very significant shift from the policies expounded by the likes of Kevin McNamara. I also used to point out that it was Roy Mason who brought the SAS to Northern Ireland and as our deputy first minister is supposed to have said “Beat the s**t out of us.” The us there seeming to be the organisation he was only very briefly a member of.
Blair’s approach was of course very different to both McNamara and Mason’s. However, although he probably wanted to be seen as even handed, he ended up being lauded by SF and viewed with at best suspicion by unionists. One can discuss at length whether or not SF were accurate in their assessment of him (certainly some rejectionist republicans probably think that Blair tricked SF into compromise); such analyses are not the purpose of this blog other than to observe that SF regarded Blair as useful to them and their “Naïve Idiot.”
As such they probably (incorrectly as it may be turning out) assumed that Brown would behave similarly and push Robinson to compromise the same way as Blair did Trimble and indeed Paisley. It is not only disgruntled former members of the UUP who will remember Trimble’s “No guns no government” and his “Mr Adams, it is over to you. We have jumped, you follow” followed by the humiliating compromises usually forced upon him by Blair. Since Brown had never expressed any significant contrary opinions on Northern Ireland and since the established order seemed to be that unionists drew lines in the sand only to have the British government push them over them; SF must have assumed that whatever else had changed with the Brown accession, normal service in Northern Ireland would continue.
I would submit that SF assumed that Brown would, after a suitable hiatus, help force Robinson and the DUP into agreeing that there was public support for devolution of policing and justice and that “a political life time” would be even shorter than a life sentence is here provided one has only murdered people in a bar or a fish shop.
Of course DUP supporters will probably submit that in Robinson and the DUP, SF and Brown are dealing with a very different man and party to Trimble and the UUP. There is no doubt some truth in that but one only need study this document and their comments prior to entering government to see that the DUP can also perform political volte faces.
No: the central difference is that for whatever reason, possibly including the parliamentary arithmetic but mainly I suggest due to a different outlook and priorities, Brown is not inclined to drag the DUP into accepting the devolution of P&J, the building of the shrine or the provision of an ILA; at least not yet. Brown’s refusal thus far to do any of this has allowed the DUP to proclaim a series of victories and has resulted in SF’s current rather impotent anger and complaining that the DUP are going back on agreements. SF’s discomfiture is only shown in starker relief by their inability to produce any sanctions against the DUP apart from stalling the whole system of government here which itself damages themselves as much as anyone else. However, I would suggest that should he feel the need to forc
