Another Groundhog Day which will inevitably lead us back to, Stormont…

HNIW18 from The Detail on Vimeo.

Nothing to add, other than this footnote for those fearful that we might not actually be changing through all of this…

Screen Shot 2015-09-12 at 10.24.26

Mick is founding editor of Slugger. He has written papers on the impacts of the Internet on politics and the wider media and is a regular guest and speaking events across Ireland, the UK and Europe. Twitter: @MickFealty

  • SeaanUiNeill

    I’m getting other déjà vu’s myself here, from Labour ministers under Blair saying there are no other ways, no plan “B”, to virtually anything they were seriously challenged on in every field of politics during the Labour administrations. We’re getting the same tram lines thinking over the possibility that Corbyn might just reintroduce something of the old “public utilities as a public interest” consensus thinking of the 1950/60s, painted currently as red hot Bolshivism by a media sunk in the politics of an entropic reduction of all policy to the fine grained sand of a very, very middle ground, which just incidentally favours de-regulated international free-for-all economics.

    Stormont was crafted to avoid the dangers of the bullying of minorities by compelling both interest groups to co-operate while blind-eyeing the inherent conflictual form of both of the major political blocks in the wee six. This total failure to even acknowledge the essential nature of this conflictual inheritance in the hope that some actual constitutional co-operation would mature them both into beginning to think in the manner of how “real” people think has pushed us all into a blind ally where the core hatreds now politically seem resistant to any amount of negotiation, so as Mick says above, “we might not actually be changing through all of this…”

    As long as voters support the proponents of the conflict model, shifting their activities into a chamber at Stormont simply cages the problem, it does not in any way begin to produce any real answers to the problem of real whole community interests. Arguably, as was suggested on the “Today” programme this morning, the polarisation and apartheid that evolved during the troubles is now even more extreme after almost two decades of a “peace” that “real people” such as Blair and the Clintons have worn as badges of their own political credibility internationally for too long for it to be as seriously questioned as it should be, and our real needs as a community addressed with a dispassionate objectivity. Until this is done, it’ll be “déjà vu all over again” indefinitely.

  • chrisjones2

    I always thought it was so SF could pretend it had won a sort of UI lite when in fact it lost

  • SeaanUiNeill

    While no great fan of the old guard of SF and their trademarked version of UI, chris, I cannot but recall that one about the finale of the opera and the obese soprano……..

  • barnshee

    “public utilities as a public interest” consensus thinking of the 1950/60s, painted currently as red hot Bolshivism”

    The problem is the cost of buying them back with ownership vested in part at least in pension funds who will pay?

  • SeaanUiNeill

    Yes, Thatcher inc. created quite a mess. But we are already paying through the nose in increasing subsidies to the railways for a start.

    Try and begin to imagine just how much our infrastructure will run down, with the consequent loss of general national efficiency if we do not. It may be cheaper to avoid this today, but the future holds either loss of infrastructure or seriously rising subsidy, increasingly to be paid out to other countries smart enough to take over ownership of our utilities first. This is exactly why there is some serious Conservative interest in re-nationalisation out there just beyond the Tabloid horizon.

    Hey, perhaps if they sold off that tiny part that is left of the wee six to our current virtual proprietor Cerberus that would produce a float…….