Advertise
-
Books
-
A poem for the day – Launching the Whaler Juan Peron
A Belfast epic, and one of my oldest poems, the opener of my first collection, Grub. The gist of the story was found in Moss & Hume’s Shipbuilders to the World: 125 Years of Harland and Wolff, Belfast, 1861-1986, which tells how Eva Peron was due to launch a huge whaling vessel in Belfast, built [...] read our review » -
Do Words Matter?: Book Review of Political Discourse and Conflict Resolution – Debating Peace in Northern Ireland
I share many of the concerns of Andy Pollak, whose recent post ‘My Response to the Slugger Begrudgers’ zeroed in on the ‘relentless flow of negativity’ of some Slugger commentators. Pollak’s post was largely concerned with the medium of the blog. Indeed, I think the anonymity of the online world encourages extreme discourse and allows [...] read our review »
-
“You can see Newton’s mind at work…”
To add to the open access treasure trove at the Royal Society, Cambridge University Library is putting online some of its collection of books, maps, manuscripts and journals. We have called the first phase of our work on the Cambridge Digital Library the Foundations Project, which runs from mid-2010 to mid-2013 and has been made possible [...] read our review »
-
Comment on You’ve heard of a pub with no beer, but a Church with no God?…
on 6 August 2011 at 12:33 pm
Amsterdam is just the dateline location, not part of his job title.
Go to comment
Comment on What a southern default would mean
on 2 December 2010 at 9:39 pm
ulsterfan,
Iceland. This year.
Paul,
“How far would a purposeful conversation about this at the time of the negotiations have resulted in a better offer to Ireland?”
I don’t know. I have a feeling would have made no difference, due to the nature of Irish “governance”. But that’s no reason to not have it.
Go to comment
Comment on What a southern default would mean
on 2 December 2010 at 9:39 pm
sammy,
“What is puzzling is the disconnect between the political parties and ‘anyone with an actual political outlook’.”
But FF and FG are unpolitical political machines. No ideology, no ideas.
Go to comment
Comment on What a southern default would mean
on 2 December 2010 at 7:46 pm
Glencoppagagh, while I accept there is a cod-nationalist argument floating around out there, surely the main point is this: this is not national debt, it’s private debt. If the banks lent recklessly, let them deal with the consequences. Such free-wheeling capitalists surely wont want state aid, anyway…
“If Ireland remains in the Eurozone, any default on government bonds would surely be reflected in a higher cost of borrowing in the future when Ireland regained access to capital markets.”
Every analyst I’ve spoken to has said future costs will be higher, no matter what happens.
What strikes me about all this, as I wrote the other day, is that anyone with an actual political outlook is against the bailout and for defaulting. I’ve spoken to self-identified social democrats, (right-) libertarians, conservatives, socialists, Marxists and a libertarian Marxist. None of them support the bailout.
Go to comment
Comment on What a southern default would mean
on 2 December 2010 at 7:22 pm
Itwas SammyMcNally whatdoneit, SF is against. Labour was against the guarantee in the first place. However, as it’s likely to go into gov’t with Fine Gael it may have to change its tune. Fine Gael is against it insofar as it says Fianna Fáil has wrecked the country etc., but rather more quiet on the specifics of what it will do. I expect more information will emerge from FG soon (and all parties) as the budget is due next week.
If one was inclined to be cynical then one might say it’s easy to let it pass into policy and then say “we had no choice, it was that last shower that did it and the EU won’t let us change policy.”
andnowwhat, I sincerely hope Ireland doesn’t return to the old days. Picturesque it may have been, but it was lacking basic communications infrastructure. At least we now have motorways, though we could do with more and some high-speed rail, too.
Go to comment
Comment on What does economic collapse look like?
on 9 October 2010 at 8:49 pm
So, if the answer is: “it’s going to crash”, then: when and what does it mean in practice?
Also, surely house prices, both rents and mortgages, must come down by at least another 50 per cent in order to be in line with reality?
Go to comment
Comment on Taxing times in Ireland
on 1 October 2010 at 5:39 pm
“Refusal to contemplate any rise in corporation tax in current circumstances does not inspire confidence that Ireland has much else to offer direct investors.”
I do agree, by the way.
Go to comment
Comment on Taxing times in Ireland
on 1 October 2010 at 5:35 pm
Glencoppagagh, I have no opinion on whether or not taxes should be raised or how. What I am saying is that there are a lot of dubious (and flat) charges.
Fitzgerald is bending the truth. Yes, taxes are lower for the rich bu they’re higher for ordinary people. I’m not saying this is defensible or desireable, just that claiming Ireland has universally low income taxation is not accurate.
Go to comment
Comment on Platform for Change launch- what next?
on 1 March 2010 at 2:08 am
Brian,
Only just seen this now.
Short answer: cart, horse etc.
Civil society can’t be expected to pick up the slack when it barely exists in any meaningful sense.
I don’t like the ‘right-thinking-people’ tone the PfC give off. People voted for the DUP and Sinn Féin so that’s what we have to deal with.
I’m rather baffled by the response to my post. Why would anyone expect a person who’s never been soft on the liberal-left to suddenly endorse it?
Also, I’ve said before the GFA was defective by design (and the SAA made it worse) so why would anyone expect me to want to find solutions within a framework that I think is fundamentally incapable of working?
Finally, leave off on the personal remarks, would you? The last thing I am is cynical and I didn’t make any argument from personal experience in the first place. What does it matter what I have or haven’t seen?
Go to comment
Comment on Cross posting: No platform for liberals
on 1 March 2010 at 2:01 am
“And I think that brings us to the nub, you think it’s enough to criticise – “I promise you I will still be making critical arguments in a year’s time” – and I think if you try to move beyond that you find answers to some of your own criticism.”
It’s a process. The onus is not on me to have solutions – for a start, I’m just a journalist, not a policy wonk; secondly, I have no mandate and only speak for myself. Through criticism we may yet find an answer.
Go to comment
Comment on Cross posting: No platform for liberals
on 1 March 2010 at 1:58 am
“Eh, no. Sensitivity guage set to low
”
Extremely. Evidently on that day anyway.
Go to comment
Comment on Cross posting: No platform for liberals
on 27 February 2010 at 2:28 am
Damian,
I have no idea what you think I am arguing for but I promise you I will still be making critical arguments in a year’s time. And that the assembly will still be a failure in a year’s time, too.
“You want everyone to forget everything else and fight over the border. Do you think this is credible?”
Straw man. I said no such thing. I said pretending the border isn’t an issue is a nonsense. There is no reason why other issues can’t be hammered out while still admitting there is a major political division.
“I’m not quite sure what you meant at the end of your post 7, could you spell it out?”
What, the ‘pip, pip” joke? Responding to the patronising tone of your sneering posts and seeming inability to comprehend that I might be making an argument, albeit one I admit is not fully-formed, in good faith?
Mack,
Why assume I’m arguing for a Yugoslav-style solution? Because of “my preferences”? What preferences? Is that some sort of attempt at a red smear? If so, think again. If not, then I’ve no idea what you mean.
And, for the record, at a recent event in Belfast I argued specifically against the Belgian model.
Go to comment
Comment on Cross posting: No platform for liberals
on 26 February 2010 at 2:59 pm
Damian:
“And founded on petty sectaranism too.”
Er, actually it’s your “consociationalism” that is not only founded upon, but actually *intensifies*, petty sectarianism. My suggestion is the widening of horizons outside of the local specifically in order to get away from petty sectarianism.
I never said it would be a panacea, just a recognition of the actual reality of the situation.
“So what’s your argument exactly Jason? Scrap Stormont and have joint rule? You haven’t even argued for that. You haven’t argued for anything, only against.”
Why should I argue for anything? I’m not in the business of peddling fantasises. The point is that a defective agreement can’t be fixed by having nice intentions.
1967:
“And finally, here is a group at least trying to offer something different and you just dismiss them with a lot of sniffy and half-baked bourgeoisie-bashing.”
Something different? What, precisely? Circumvent the ballot box? Everyone wants ‘bread and butter politics’… and then they vote otherwise.
Driftwood:
Surely I am not the first person you have ever encountered that says “the North”? Go and do a Lexis-Nexis search on the papers here. North of Ireland is the preferred nomenclature. It’s no different to certain papers in the North using “Ulster”.
Go to comment
Comment on Cross posting: No platform for liberals
on 26 February 2010 at 4:43 am
“Jason, surely by now you’ve reckoned with the fact that one community’s security depends on that of the other’s.”
I don’t presume to take it upon myself to argue on behalf of unionists. They are perfectly capable of dong that for themselves.
All you have to offer is an endless, frozen conflict with two equal and opposite sides locked in a permanent mortal conflict. Balls to consociationalism, let’s have democracy.
It’s high time the political class stopped treating the people like children.
Go to comment
Comment on Cross posting: No platform for liberals
on 26 February 2010 at 4:34 am
Damian, my alternative is called politics. I’m sure you’ve heard of it. It’s centred on the robust exchange of views based in coherent ideology.
I think London’s statement of disinterest is a joke. London clearly has a part to play. For a start, it was a player in the conflict – I know it’s popular to pretend the British army was in Ireland as a peacekeeping force, but it’s not true. Secondly, it is the place where the government to which unionists pledge allegiance is based.
And, yes, I would welcome Dublin making a statement of interest.
I grant you that London and Dublin’s governments are displaying uninterest – but that’s not the same as disinterest. As soon as they could ‘Ulsterise’ the dispute they could, simply to get the problem off their backs, no matter what the cost to the people in the North.
A good, honest argument doesn’t have to result in bloodshed and is a lot more honest than the fantasy that says Dublin and London aren’t involved.
“Which will be resolved by referendum only, not at Stormont. So why waste time?”
Why indeed? The assembly is a pointless pretend parliament anyway.
“Are you honestly suggesting, this week, that the risk of a return to violence should be discounted?”
More or less, yes. Aside from mosquito operations like the recent Newry carbomb and odd murder, which the governments don’t really care about anyway. Widespread conflict requires popular support and an immediate grievance. Neither is present despite the dull-as-fuck shadowboxing in the assembly.
“disqualifes you from being taken seriously.”
Whatever you say, old bean.
Pip pip,
Col. Walsh. (Retired).
Go to comment
Comment on Cross posting: No platform for liberals
on 26 February 2010 at 3:27 am
Driftwood, what are you on about? I don’t mention the Tories specifically but you will notice I wrote “but so long as Irish and, to a lesser extent, British parties refuse to take a direct interest in the administration of the North”. “To a lesser extent” indicates the fact that one British party, specifically the Tories, are involved. Labour and the Lib Dems aren’t.
And I don’t know what you mean by “Jason, is it impossible for you to write (or speak)of Northern Ireland, or is that beyond your mindset.” Please clarify. Are you talking about semantics? If so, who cares? You call it Northern Ireland, I don’t. So what?
Mark, I ‘ignore’ the unionists because the future of unionism is not my problem. I want to see greater engagement with the North on the part of Irish parties. I’ll leave the argument for closer integration with Britain for unionists to make.
Go to comment
Comment on On (some) newspapers
on 21 February 2010 at 1:43 am
Although I think printed newspapers still have value that’s not really what I mean here. What I’m saying is, religious organisations have long funded news-gathering and distributing agencies of varying quality.
There is a value to professional journalism, there is a value in people covering particular beats and being paid to do so. Not only do they build up a body of knowledge, paying people to do a job stops it being the preserve of the rich. If advertising isn’t going to pay for it anymore then we’re going to have to pay for it ourselves. Years ago I used to donate to the CSM and to the short-lived NewStandard.
The remark about humanists was just an aside.
Go to comment
Comment on Exchanging ideology for identity
on 20 February 2010 at 6:29 am
Robert,
It’s always been thus. Iskra surely had fewer readers than the Tsar’s press.
Go to comment
Comment on Exchanging ideology for identity
on 20 February 2010 at 3:45 am
Hi Slug,
Not that I’m saying it’s a good thing but there appears to be little appetite for the left. Surely the left should be in its element with a global crisis of finance capitalism?
Anyway, check out the other exchange mechanism events. There are lots of interesting things on between now and April.
http://forth.ie/index.php/content/article/exchange_mechanism
Go to comment
Comment on Exchange mechanism
on 18 February 2010 at 3:50 am
I didn’t say Dawn Purvis represented the entirety of working class loyalism, I said her party came from it. The PUP may be small but it’s not an irrelevance. (Some) Republicans have dismissed loyalists as fascists for too long. It’s not useful and certainly not helpful. For sure, the connections between the UDA and NF etc are worth knowing about but there is more to loyalism than that. And I say that as someone who’s about as far from loyalism as you can get.
I admit I don’t fully understand the contradictions of the PUP and UVF but I still say Dawn Purvis is acting in good faith.
Anyway, there’s a full report on the event on the front page of forth [subs required]. If it gets republished on a free site I’ll link to it here.
Go to comment