Friday, January 25, 2008
Four Commissioners instead of one…
Slugger has just heard that the logjam over the appointment of a Victims Commissioners has finally been cleared by a deal within OFMDFM that will allow for, not one, not two, not three, but FOUR, yes, FOUR Victim Commissioners… No wonder they were keen to drop the Shared Future objectives… with that many pasts, how many futures can a tiny place like Northern Ireland have… And with the sell off of public lands in train, money, for now, would appear to be no object… More details later…
Mick Fealty @ 12:03 PM
Here’s the beeb’s first draft
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7208952.stm
Posted by on Jan 25, 2008 @ 12:19 PMis it one for prods, one for caths, one for security types and one for “the rest” or something similarly over the top?
Posted by on Jan 25, 2008 @ 12:25 PMhow much pay would the four horseman, commissioners get?
Posted by on Jan 25, 2008 @ 12:26 PMI f**kin hope they’re sharing that £65k a year salary between them. £260k a year on victims commissioners added to the already overflowing trough that is the quango salary pot? That’s depressing.
Posted by on Jan 25, 2008 @ 12:28 PMIf I do not like what one says can I go to the other?
Posted by on Jan 25, 2008 @ 12:36 PMAnyone any idea about other names?
Posted by on Jan 25, 2008 @ 12:38 PMNo bias in that post now is there Mick.
Exactly how much would you cap victims spending at then? Is one salary ok for victims but four isn’t?
Frankly if the experience brought in by Bertha McDougall (BBC saying she is one of them) is there then I believe its a good start at least.
BTW Mick - when exactly where the shared future objectives dropped? And what were those objectives in the first place? Or have you taken over from Gonzo as the official blogger of the unofficial opposition/Alliance Party?
Posted by on Jan 25, 2008 @ 12:41 PMinterested if you’re looking for media to unquestioningly accept Executive press releases as “news” try the BBC.
Of course the first questions that should be asked when you decide to get 4 people to do one job are “Why?” and “How much will that cost!?” It would take a twisted thought-process not to.
Posted by on Jan 25, 2008 @ 12:45 PMI think a commission rather than a single commissioner is the best way to proceed. An individual can be more easily accused of bias than a collective can. This is a good idea.
Posted by on Jan 25, 2008 @ 12:47 PMThe other two are Patricia McBride, who is from a republican background, and Brendan
McAllister, of the Mediation NetworkPosted by on Jan 25, 2008 @ 12:47 PMI fail to see the problem with this decision. A sensible recognition of the complexities of the issue. Unless of course one of the naysayers can come up with a single suggestion that would be acceptable to all victims and victims groups? No. Then maybe the 4 are better than 1.
Posted by on Jan 25, 2008 @ 12:50 PMI can understand two as a neat fix; but four seems excessive - why not six or eight?
Posted by on Jan 25, 2008 @ 01:01 PMBeano
I wouldn’t unquestioningly accept anything - let alone something from the Executive.However, I very much doubt this is an announcement by the Executive. Firstly, an announcement would, I’d assume, have actually told us all the details like the names. This seems like speculation/leak/rumour to me - not to say it isn’t true of course.
The other issue is that of course the Executive would be obliged to announce it to the Assembly before making any comment.
We’re therefore dealing with whatever the media are telling us at the minute - it seems that an unquestioning acceptance of the BBC is fine and dandy....
No doubt much of the detail may not be too far off the mark but we’re still making comment without all of the details which we will presumably get once/if its announced properly. As for whether you feel that £200k is too much to spend on victims, well that’s a matter for you. Just what would you limit victims spending to then?
If people believe that the biggest waste of public money in Northern Ireland would be on a couple of Victims Commissioners then they need to get their bumps felt.
If we want a real ‘shared future’ then lets start with the single biggest waste of money in Northern Ireland - the fact that we have about two dozen different education sectors - lets have one state funded education sector in NI and if anyone wants to opt out of that then they can pay for it themselves. Lets see the do-gooding Alliance Party come out and support something which would actually save tens of millions of pounds rather than quibble over a few grand to a Victims Commissioner.
As usual here we cant actually see the wood for the trees.
Posted by on Jan 25, 2008 @ 01:11 PMbureaucracy?
Posted by on Jan 25, 2008 @ 01:16 PM“As for whether you feel that £200k is too much to spend on victims, well that’s a matter for you. Just what would you limit victims spending to then?”
Because of course more money and more commissioners neccesarily translates into a better job being done for victims. Seems like a pretty unquestioning attitude to me.
Posted by on Jan 25, 2008 @ 01:23 PMCheckov
I’m far from unquestioning - but there does seem to be a very quick line of people forming up who’d have criticised whatever decision had come forward.If one Commissioner had been announced you’d have been damn sure then it’d have been the wrong one.. More than one and its a waste of money.
Danny Kennedy was quick out of the traps to condemn it. Mind you, what did his party give victims - oh yes, they put Daphne Trimble into the Victims Unit. Didn’t see much dancing in the streets over that one.
I don’t know whether the Commission/Commissioners will do a good, bad or completely invisible job, but I’m prepared to wait and see. Others it would seem really have a bigger problem with those who were involved with making the decision than the decision itself I’d say.
Posted by on Jan 25, 2008 @ 01:28 PMSurely this blows the Bradley Eames commission out of the water.
Posted by on Jan 25, 2008 @ 01:30 PMLurker
Didn’t think of that one - another possible benefit.Posted by on Jan 25, 2008 @ 01:31 PMinterested:
Shared future was in all the parties election manifestos, even if as Pam Tilson pointed out at the time (http://tinyurl.com/2m3xh7) none were signing the same notes never mind from the same sheets.
As for costs, I would want to see what they are planning to do first. But the first and most obvious implication of quadrupling the number of Commissioners is cost. The next question to be asked (and the answer civilly listened to) is why?
All the names mentioned on this thread are no doubt fine people any one of whom could do the job. But do we need why four of them? And why did it take OFMDFM so long to agree?
Posted by on Jan 25, 2008 @ 01:46 PMInterested - the point is that when public money is being expended people have a right to question that expenditure. Shouting “oh but it’s for the victims” does not invalidate their doubts. Those doubts will naturally arise to a greater extent when one job suddenly becomes four.
Posted by on Jan 25, 2008 @ 01:46 PMI’m not sure on what basis the new VCs ‘blow Eames Bradley out of the water.’ Given that Eames Bradley have completed their field work and the VCs aren’t even in post yet.
Furthermore as the VCs role is defined I don’t see that they have much more power than Eames Bradley.
Posted by on Jan 25, 2008 @ 02:02 PMMyself, I fail to see how they have the power to appoint any more than one commissioner.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2006/draft/20060050.htm
Posted by on Jan 25, 2008 @ 02:02 PMSorry, the proper link
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2006/20062953.htmPosted by on Jan 25, 2008 @ 02:04 PMPeaceandJustice
Leave aside your rant about Patricia McBride for a second,
“Brendan McAllister from a Roman Catholic background who has been involved in mediation. Mike Nesbitt who doesn’t come across as Unionist friendly.”Brendan McAllister - oh my oh my, he’s Catholic so therefore the spawn of the devil. Really that says it all about you. And Mike Nesbitt who might have done his job as an interviewer the odd time and put a unionist under pressure. Is that the best you can come up with?
Mick
Surely the main guide to shared future issues in Government has to be the “Shared Future” document. The questions which need to be asked around that one is why were SF reluctant for it to be released and why do people like the Alliance Party not want it implemented - after all, from what I know of it there is a clear statement that the biggest saving would be in Education yet all those who cry loudest about it refuse to cut down on the massive waste and duplication of services which funding several different education sectors costs.Why do we need 4 Commissioners? I don’t know - but I did hear Talkback where it was mentioned that during the process of appointment there was lobbying from victims groups that more than one commissioner should be appointed. If its been seen to be a better way to do things then is that not better? Or should we have Government which doesn’t react to the demands of the public?
Why did it take so long to agree? Hardly that long in the grander scheme of things. I thought the previous statement was that there would be an announcement in January - its still January so hardly a delay.
It may not have been made to the preferred timescale of some people, who mostly have their own party political axe to grind.
Chekov
People have an absolute right to question spending of public money. Mind you, I’d prefer to wait until we actually know what’s being spent before scrutinising.We’ve moved to quite a place here where we now hold people to account before they’ve actually done anything.
Posted by on Jan 25, 2008 @ 02:05 PMJone,
Eames & Bradley haven’t completed their work yet.They’ve finished their public consultation (or will have by 5pm this afternoon) but they’ve still to produce a report. Given the amount of info they’ll no doubt receive I’d be surprised if they’ll turn that one around in a couple of weeks.
Posted by on Jan 25, 2008 @ 02:06 PM
