Over at Irish Election, in a comment from some dude called ‘Future Taoiseach’:

A once democraric union of cooperating nation states has crossed the line into coercion and dictatorship. As in Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, your vote is not respected unless you vote ‘the right way’.

Indeed. Why, only this evening, I saw a marauding gang of veterans of the Maastricht and Nice campaigns burn a family of “No” voters out of their home in Bracklone Street here in Portarlington.

Tags: lisbon treaty

The result of the referendum was not unexpected, but it is still depressing all the same.

The usual clichés were being trotted out on the airwaves all day:

“The people have spoken and we must respect their decision…”
“Now is not the time for recriminations or assigning blame…”
“We must now reflect on what the people have said…”

Blah, blah, blah.

Two things swung this referendum result - ineptitude on the Yes side and lies on the No side.

The No campaign was well under way before the political establishment got its act together. By the time they shook off their ennui, the best the Yes crowd could do was to try to fight an EU referendum campaign assuming that Ireland’s enthusiasm for the EU from times past was still intact. How wrong they were. Their posters were crap, ranging from bland platitudes to “get to know you” opportunities for the candidates in next year’s local and Euro elections. In debates they were forced onto the back foot by a No campaign that had no compunction about lying repeatedly. Then there was the infighting, with public squabbles between the various pro-Lisbon parties.

What they should have done from the outset was pool their resources and establish one strong Yes campaign, with the focus on the issues and not the personalities. The treaty was always going to be a difficult sell, as the issues involved didn’t resonate with people’s everyday lives. The Yes campaign failed to make the treaty relevant enough to the electorate to motivate them to vote for it.

In contrast, all the No campaign had to do was to raise as many spectres as it could to sow seeds of doubt in the minds of the electorate. It didn’t matter how they did this, as the end justified the means. So they presented a campaign that ranged from what could be called “creative interpretation” of the treaty to outright lies. Tax, neutrality, abortion, worker’s rights, etc., it didn’t matter - just keep spreading the shit and some of it would eventually stick.

What’s disappointing is that no-one on the Yes side had the balls to nail these lies at source. Rather than getting bogged down in technical arguments with sloganeering opponents, it might have been more productive to just call the lies as they emerged. Rather than trying to explain the ins and outs of QMV, or the Maastricht protocol or whatever, it might have been more productive to just say to the naysayer: “We have explained time and time again that the concerns you raise have been addressed. Why do you persist in repeating these unfounded misrepresentations/lies?” Forcing them on to the defensive and making them justify their point of view would have stopped their lies in their tracks.

But that’s all the realm of “what if” now. The referendum has been lost and we must move on to salvage something from the wreckage. Ireland’s political capital in the EU has plummetted in value, and it is now up to Brian Cowen and the rest of the government to restore our reputation as an enthusiastic member of the EU club. It won’t be easy. Neither will it be easy to explain to our EU partners why Ireland rejected the treaty. A lot of the critical detail of the treaty was actually won by the doggedness of the Irish negotiators on behalf of the smaller states, such as the rotating commission arrangement. Originally, the bigger states would have a permanent place on the commission, with the smaller states rotating. Irish intervention changed that to all states regardless of size having to share and concede time on the commission. (Not that it really matters anyway, as commissioners represent their portfolios within the EU, not the states from which they come.)

Still, we can always look on the bright side. At least the threat of the New World Order as outlined by Jim Corr has been averted. (YouTube audio link.)

Tags: lisbon treaty

Last night, I posted my reasons for voting Yes to the Lisbon Treaty this Thursday.

Since then the issue of renegotiating the Treaty has come up again, so I’m going to hammer a few more nails into this one.

As I said last night, if Ireland rejects the Treaty and is forced to go back to renegotiate it, this will have to be done by the very people who negotiated it in the first place. Some naysayers seem to think that we will be in a position of strength in this situation, given our requirement for a referendum in order to pass the Treaty into Irish law.

This is utter horseshit. If we do that, we will be sending our representatives back into the negotiating chamber on their knees. As far as our EU partners are concerned, our negotiators were satisfied with what they got last time round, especially given the fact that the bulk of the negotiations were done on our patch, during our presidency of the EU in 2004. Those opt-outs, protocols and clauses that we gained in the original round of negotiations were the result of hard bargaining, and not everyone was happy that we got them. So if we go back looking for more, we would more than likely end up with less than we had originally.

What is this “better deal” that Libertas, Sinn Féin, Kathy SInnott MEP, et al seem to think we can extract from our EU partners? The simple fact is that it doesn’t exist. The lake of goodwill in today’s EU is not particulaly deep and if we think we can send our horses to drink from it having first let them trample over everyoines else’s flowerbeds, we’ll soon find out that it has dried up.

Even in the best case scenario, whereby we actually come through a renegotiating process with a treaty that is no worse than the one we have now (we will not get a better one, remember), there is every likelihood that the very same hurlers in the ditch will come out and oppose that one too.

In simple terms - this is the best deal we’re going to get. Let’s take it and move on.

Tags: lisbon treaty

On Thursday, I will get up at some ungodly hour and make my way to Dublin Airport to catch a 6.30am flight to the UK for a meeting. I should be back in Dublin about 12 hours later, so there will still be plenty of time before the polling stations close to go and cast my vote.

And if you hadn’t worked it out by now, that vote will be a Yes. I’m voting Yes for several reasons:

• I believe that this treaty is a positive step forward for the EU.
• It brings reform to where it is needed.
• Ireland’s specific concerns have been addressed (even though I’m not bothered about one or two of them.)
• I am satisfied that Ireland’s sovereignty will not be compromised by this treaty.

Furthermore, I simply don’t believe the arguments put about by the various No campaigners. The tax issue is one. We retain a veto on the issue of Corporation Tax. It won’t change unless we agree to it.

The commissioner issue is nonsense. You would swear listening to the arguments that Ireland was the only state that was due to lose a commissioner in the rotation. It will affect every member state. Furthermore, commissioners do not represent their own states’ interests at the commission table. They are there to manage a portfolio without fear or favour to any member state, their own included. To say that each member state has to have a representative commissioner at all times is like saying that every constituency in Ireland has to have a representative minister in the Cabinet. Ireland’s interests will be represented by the Council of Ministers, The European Council (Heads of Government), and the European Parliament. All of these bodies are made up of people who have either been elected to their national parliaments, or directly to the European Parliament itself. Unlike commissioners, who are appointed.

Finally, there is the notion going around that if we reject the Lisbon Treaty, we can somehow negotiate a better deal for Ireland. This gibberish is being peddled by Sinn Féin and also by Kathy Sinnott MEP. So let’s say we do reject it. Who is going to have to go back to our EU partners to renegotiate it? One thing’s for sure, it won’t be the Shinners, or Kathy Sinnott, or any of the other naysayers. It will be the government, the very people who negotiated this deal in the first place, and who are trying to convince the electorate that this deal is the best Ireland can get.

If you can’t make up your mind, or if you feel you don’t understand what it’s all about, I would recommend that you read the Referendum Commission booklet that was delivered to every household in the State. If you can’t get hold of that, they have a website lisbontreaty2008.ie

Tags: lisbon treaty

This is class - The Treaty Of Lisbon, A Spoofer’s Guide To How Not To Vote No.

via Conor.

Tags: lisbon treaty

This sort of stuff is a piece of piss to do.

Tags: lisbon treaty

…is Bertie deliberately spinning completely bullshit stories to demonstrate his contempt for the Mahon Tribunal? I mean, come on - winning eight grand on some bag of bones in the 2.30 at Chepstow?

Double you tea eff, like?

Over the last week or so, I got the distinct impression that the tide has been turning in favour of the anti-Lisbon point of view. This evening that hunch has been confirmed, as a poll in tomorrow’s Irish Times shows that the No vote is five points ahead of the Yes vote.

If this follows through to polling day, it will be a disaster for both the government and the main opposition parties. So far they have allowed the No campaign to gain the upper hand and instil the necessary FUD into the minds of the electorate (well, those voters who are going to bother their arses to vote, at least.)

So where has it all gone wrong? They say that a lie gets half way around the world before the truth gets its boots on, and this is true in this case. The Yes campaign have not had a chance to fight this campaign on their own terms, as they have been forced to spend their time and resources denying the claims of the No side. Whatever the issue, be it taxation, neutrality, workers’ rights, the democratic deficit or abortion, the Yes campaign were forced to firefight. But it didn’t matter, because the seed of doubt has already been sown.

The treaty is a difficult sell for the Yes campaign, as it falls foul of the old maxim that all politics are local. The beneficiary of this treaty is the EU as a whole, and is is difficult to point to any aspect within it that is of direct benefit to Ireland specifically. But it is easy to spin a negative interpretation of it, and point to aspects of it that could possibly be to Ireland’s detriment.

To add to the Yes side’s woes is the general sense of apathy among the electorate. A common reaction is to claim not to understand the treaty (a seam well-mined by the No side), and thus not to bother voting at all. Given that the No side probably have a more motivated constituency, this will work in their favour.

Even taking into account the the difficulty in selling the positives of the treaty, the Yes campaign has been very wishy-washy. “Good for Ireland, Good for Europe” claim Fianna Fáil. Bland, bland, bland. Fine Gael and Labour used the campaign as an opportunity to introduce their candidates for the 2009 local and European elections. Labour’s campaign especially was a disgrace, as you really had to look closely for their message regarding this campaign. Where a lamp post had one poster with a photo of Eamon Gilmore making a profound political point, and another one claiming that we are going to pay more tax because of the Lisbon Treaty, there was only ever going to be one winner.

The Yes campaign have six days to turn this around. They need to promote this as a way of showing that Ireland is a team player in Europe. They need to definitively nail the lies from Libertas, Coir and the rest of the FUD-merchants.

I’m voting Yes and I hope that it passes, but my hopes are below my expectations.

See also Bock and Irish Election

Tags: lisbon treaty

The current Lisbon Treaty referendum campaign is turning out to be one of the dirtiest in years. On the one side we have all of the mainstream political parties, IBEC, Alliance for Europe, etc. On the other side we have all the perennial anti-EU treaty stalwarts like Sinn Féin, the Socialist Party, various trade unions; alongside newer and slicker organisations such as Libertas.

Whichever side of the argument you are on, it's going to be a hard sell. Few people are going to go to the trouble of actually reading the treaty itself, and those that attempt to do so will probably give up after page 2 or 3. It's not a page turner, it's a complex legal text, that is also an amending treaty to other already established treaties.

Now that the campaign proper has gotten underway, it would appear that both sides are trying to use FUD as a tactic to get their message across. The Yes campaign is trying to frighten us into believing that a No vote will isolate us from the EU beltway. their themes include threats to jobs and investment. All utter crap. If we reject it, the worst we will face is having to vote on it again, à la Nice.

The No side are tripping over themselves to paint the Doomsday scenario of an Ireland at the heel of a Euro superstate. There are posters and leaflets out there that are frankly disgraceful. Here's a selection, collated by blogging solicitor Simon McGarr. (The one used to illustrate this page is from that stream, published under a Cretive Commons licence.) Why bother trying to argue against what's in the treaty, when it's so much easier to spread the FUD with what's not in the treaty?

It's going to be a long few weeks, I think.

Tags: lisbon treaty

It had to happen. A local protest group has hitched their trailer to the anti-Lisbon Treaty wagon. Activists in Roscommon campaigning for the retention of hospital services in the county town have urged their supporters to reject the Lisbon Treaty as a way of getting the government's attention.

Now I am glad that Ireland has a written constitution, even when it means holding a referendum on something or other almost every year. However, it does leave us vulnerable to political gobshitery such as this. We are the only electorate in the 27-member EU who will have the privilege of voting on whether or not we approve of the Lisbon Treaty. Therefore we should cast our vote based on our opinion of the treaty, and that alone. Using it as a proxy to highlight a completely separate issue is immature and an abuse of the democratic right we are privileged to possess.

Tags: lisbon treaty

I got the news of Bertie's falling on his sword as I queued up for the Ryanair flight to Verona from Stansted. As a result I missed all the fall-out, as I had no internet connectivity except for my Nokia E65, and I wasn't planning on paying outrageous data roaming rates.

It was the right thing for Ahern to do, of course. But he should have done it ages ago and sorted out his dealings with the Tribunal away from the pressures of the office of Taoiseach. But it seems that he thought he could brazen it out, and if he kept stonewalling or running to the High Court to try to stymie the Tribunal's work, then it might leave him alone. But it was the evidence of Grainne Carruth that brought him down in the end.

So now, assuming I'm still living in Laois in 2012, and that the county will still be spliced to Offaly for electoral purposes, I'll once again have the opportunity to cast my vote for an outgoing Taoiseach in a general election, as I had in 2002. And didn't take up.

The longer Bertie Ahern allows his difficulties with the Mahon Tribunal to continue, the worse it becomes for everyone involved.

The by now familiar dance goes like this:

- Tribunal uncovers new evidence that appears to contradict previous evidence given by Ahern.
- Opposition parties, media commentators, etc. call for clarification of previous evidence.
- Cabinet colleague sent out to bat for Taoiseach, attacking Tribunal.
- Useful fools like Jackie Healey-Rae (Audio link to Morning Ireland interview) and Eoghan Harris offer their tuppenceworth in support.
- Ahern says he will clarify evidence the next time he attends to give evidence.
- A legal challenge to the Tribunal may feature at some point in the process.

This time it's more serious for Bertie, as now we are hearing the calls for clarification coming from his coalition partners as well as the opposition. We're also hearing more trenchant calls for his resignation, or at least for him to set a date, as the Irish Times did last Saturday.

Given that he won't be before the Tribunal again until May, waiting until his next appearance for clarification simply isn't good enough. What will show up next?

Des O'Neill: So, Mr Ahern, can you explain this substantial lodgement to your account on 14 June 1993?
Bertie Ahern: Well, you see, I won de-de-de-de-de Lotto around dat, eh, time…
O'Neill: And this one here a week later?
Bertie: …twice.

By allowing this charade to drag on, Ahern is undermining the office of Taoiseach, his government, his own party, the credibility of his ministers, and his own legacy. The referendum of the Lisbon Treaty is also in danger of being undermined, as it could easily end up as a referendum on Bertie. (We had an opportunity to vote in that particular referendum last year. It was called the General Election, and we fluffed it.)

He should go, so that this matter no longer distracts from the business of being Taoiseach. He's been in the job for almost eleven years. If he thinks he can present entirely innocent explanations for his varied transactions, then he should do it and get all of this sorted out. If he can manage to wriggle his way out of all of this, then he can be sure that a plum job in the European Commission or elsewhere will await him. If he can't, well that's his own doing. He should stop taking us for fools and move to sort his difficulties with the Tribunal as a matter of urgency.

By the way, if you didn't see the Late Late Show last Friday night, there was a wonderful moment when Eamon Dunphy nailed Eoghan Harris to the wall. I'm not a fan of Eamo by any means, but this was great.

Today, the third report in to the breast cancer misdiagnosis scandal at the Midlands Hospital in Portlaoise was published. The best Mary Harney (Health Minister) and Brendan Drumm (head honcho of the Health Service Executive) could do was say "Sorry". (When I heard that it reminded me of an episode of Father Ted, when Father Jack is ordered to apologise to Bishop Brennan for exclaiming "arse biscuits!" in his episcopal presence.)



The big problem with or health service is that it is a power struggle between competing vested interests, but the sector that relies upon it - the patients - are the ones with no power at all. The medical and administrative staff can withdraw their labour if they can't get what they want. The government and HSE can withdraw funding or close down services if they don't get their way. But what can the patients do? Sod all, in truth. They can't withdraw their illnesses and injuries. About the only thing they can do is try to shame the system and its people into doing what is right. But only so many people can talk to Joe. So for every misdiagnosed cancer patient that manages to scramble onto the radar of the national consciousness, there are dozens more whose voices remain unheard and whose health, or even lives, are at risk.

So sorry, Mary, I don't buy your act of contrition. You and your buddies in FF have had eleven years to sort this mess out. The only thing of significance that you have done is to create the HSE, whose only function seems to be as a convenient target of blame for shortcomings within the service.

In recent weeks, Tánaiste Brian Cowen (of this parish, sorta) has been sent out several times to bat in defence of Don Bertione. When answering opposition criticism of the Taoiseach, especially from Enda Kenny, he describes Fine Gael as a party that was "rejected by the electorate."

Let's examine this claim. In 2007, Fine Gael won 51 seats, up 20 from 31. Fianna Fáil won 78 seats, down three from 81.

What are Biffo's criteria for defining "rejected"? On the face of it, it looks like being simply unable to cobble together the numbers to form a government. So does that mean that the government parties have been decisively endorsed by the electorate? The PDs still have a cabinet minister, even though they only have two TDs now, having lost six of the eight that were elected to the 29th Dáil. Even the Greens didn't manage to increase their representation in the 30th Dáil, flatlining with six TDs.

The reality is that no one party was either decisively endorsed or rejected. Due to the fractured nature of our party political system, parties that have seemingly been endorsed by the electorate can end up in opposition; while those that have been rejected can end up in government.

The Irish Times motoring section led with a piece last week about the failure of the the Government and the Road Safety Authority to implement their much-vaunted speed camera project. Under the original plan, 600 speed cameras would have been installed on the country's roads. The installation and maintenance of the camera network was to have been contracted out to the private sector. However, it is believed now that the initial costs envisaged were radically underestimated, and so the prospect is much less tempting for any putative operator.

Needless to say, there has been great wringing of hands by the great and the good as a result. But to me, this is a victory for common sense. As evidence from other jurisdictions has shown, speed cameras are far more limited in their effectiveness at reducing road fatalities than we are led to believe.

"Speeding" can take one of two forms. It can mean (a) driving at a speed that is too fast for the road or the prevailing conditions (fog, ice, etc.), or (b) exceeding an arbitrary speed limit on a stretch of road. In some cases, an instance of speeding might be both of these combined, but usually it is one or the other. Situation (a) above is obviously dangerous, whereas situation (b) may not necessarily be. Yet speeding detection and prosecution is carried out pretty much exclusively on the basis of the latter scenario.

To implement a credible speed control regime on the national roads, the authorities must first sort out the speed limits themselves. They had the opportunity to do this in 2005, when we changed from miles-per-hour to kilometres-per-hour speed limits, but this was botched. Uniform speed limits are applied to non-uniform roads. If you drive from Cahir to Portlaoise on the N8, you will see what I mean. From Cahir to just north of Cashel, you have a dual carriageway, built to motorway standards. From then on, it is mostly a wide single carriageway, with hard shoulders. But once you get past Abbeyleix it is a narrow, twisting road, the sort you might expect to be designated as an "R" road. Yet for the entire length of that journey (stretches through towns, villages and roadworks excepted), the speed limit is a standard 100 km/h. Now, for some of that road, the speed limit is too low, and for other parts of it, it is too high. On the dual carriageway part, it is arguably safe to drive at 120 km/h (the arbitrary speed limit for a motorway in Ireland.) On the narrow, twisty part, driving at 100km/h is arguably too fast. However, you risk prosecution for the former, even though the latter is more dangerous.

Consider also, regional roads and their speed limits. Once again, we have a one-size-fits-all policy. There are a number of "R" roads that are former national routes, and are good wide roads and would be safe for 100 km/h. One that springs to mind is the dual carriageway between Naas and Newbridge, or long stretches of the old N1. Then we have roads that are little better than goat-tracks, some of which cannot accommodate two cars passing one another without one having to pull in. Whereas it is safe to drive on the former in excess of the prescribed 80km/h, it would be an act of unbridled lunacy to attempt the same speed on the latter. (The original version of the image above can be seen at IrishSpeedTraps.com)

Speed limits on all roads are fixed, irrespective of the prevailing driving conditions. 120km/h on a motorway with clear visibility may be safe, but in fog or torrential rain it is not. Last March, there was a multiple vehicle pile-up on the M7 in Kildare in which a young woman lost her life. Eyewitness reports told of drivers tearing along the motorway at speeds well in excess of what was safe, yet most of them would probably have been under the speed limit.

The other question that needs to be asked is how much exactly does excessive speed contribute exclusively to accidents. I would guess that it is a lot less than we are led to believe. Yes it is a factor, but it is often in addition to another factor, like intoxication or inexperience or fatigue. Several fatal accidents involve a single vehicle, late at night, with a young driver. Yes, he may have been going too fast, but he could have been drunk or on drugs, or have fallen asleep at the wheel, or just not have the experience to handle the speed he was doing.

Speed detection is done on the basis of whatever the prescribed limit is for the road in question. Whether the driver is driving safely or not is not considered. So you could happily drive at 120km/h on the Fermoy bypass (a motorway) without fear of prosecution, yet if you drive at that speed on the stretch of the N8 between Watergrasshill and the Dunkettle interchange you risk prosecution, even though the standard of the road is exactly the same as the M8.

The other major problem I have with the speed camera initiative is that it was to be installed and run by a private company. Private companies have two motives - to make a profit, and to have that profit grow each year. I'm not criticising that, as that is what private companies do. But the purpose of speed cameras is to reduce the number of people "speeding". So if fewer people are speeding, that means that revenues should be decreasing each year. To counteract this the company operating the cameras would have to install cameras at "softer" locations (like the aforementioned stretch of the N8 in north Cork, or on the N6 between Kinnegad and Kilbeggan, or on the N11 between the Glen of the Downs and Wicklow, or on the Gorey bypass, etc., etc.) in order to keep revenues up. Instead of prosecuting unsafe driving, they would be persecuting drivers who happened to be exceeding an artificially low limit, but were still driving safely. It would lose credibility very quickly.

The issue of speed and road safety is a lot more complex than is often presented. It requires a fine balance between credible speed limits and effective enforcement. Speed cameras, particularly privatised ones, are a blunt instrument, and we are better off without them.

Leinster House is to undergo some renovation work shortly, and to facilitate this, Seanad Éireann is to temporarily relocate to the Natural History Museum. The Dáil is to stay put, but if it happens that it is required to move, then I reckon its temporary home should be the Gaiety Theatre.

The Gaiety is a very traditional style of theatre, and I always think that it bears a striking resemblance to the theatre of The Muppet Show.

Which begs the question - which politician best matches the various characters in the show?

Kermit - Bertie (or possibly John Gormley, being Green and all that.)
Miss Piggy - Mary Harney
Sam the Eagle - Enda Kenny
Animal - Conor Lenihan
Gonzo - Willie O'Dea
Scooter - Pat Rabbitte
Beaker - John O'Donoghue
Thog - Brian Cowen

Any more suggestions?

In the meantime:

This was a headline in the news digest of Saturday's Irish Times:



What a brilliant idea! Build a new network of roads especially for non-nationals. Then they can drive on the right hand side to their hearts' content and it won't affect Irish drivers one little bit.

Oh. Hang on. Maybe not…

The Portlaoise cancer scandal just seems to be going from bad to worse.

The HSE announced today that a further 97 patients are to be recalled to have their cases reviewed. Mary Harney reiterated her apology to the Dáil. Her opposite number in Fine Gael called for her resignation.

That's another 97 women who will now have to go through a harrowing ordeal as their cases are reviewed. Ninety-seven mothers, wives, partners, sisters, daughters, friends…

We can call for resignations, but would it make any difference? If Mary Harney was to resign, someone else would have to take over as Minister for Health. No-one in their right mind would want to do the job, and even if anyone did, it's unlikely they would have the ability to sort out the mess that is the health service. Also, resignation would require the notions of principle and responsibility, both of which are completely lacking in this arrogant, self-interested bunch of wastrels we call our government.

Michael O'Leary of Ryanair was on The Last Word this evening and he pointed out that in effect, no-one is running the health service. And he's right. Mary Harney set up the HSE to replace the old health boards, but what she is doing now is to deflect any criticism of her handling of her portfolio onto the Executive itself. But the unions and the other vested interests go over the heads of the HSE to the Department, and when the shit hits the fan, Harney makes sure the fan is pointed in the direction of Professor Brendan Drumm & Co.

Does anyone remember the months that followed the 2002 election? The sneaky tax hikes? The rise in prescription charges and in the cost of visiting a doctor? The school building projects that were cancelled due to lack of funds? The way everyone was talking the economy down?

Of course we don't because it was aeons ago. Well, it's all happening again, so I suggest that this time, the Irish electorate takes note of all that has happened in the six months since the election. Things like the shafting of Shannon; the recruitment freeze in the HSE; the cavalier attitude of Bertie Ahern to the Portlaoise cancer affair; the provisional licence debacle; etc.

Once again the government is talking down the economy. Lessening people's expectations means not having to do anything about tax reform for a couple of years, at least not till the next election looms over the horizon.

The chutzpah of Ahern and his cronies is absolutely unreal. Today, addressing the social partners at Farmleigh, he and Brian Cowen advised that wage demands should be kept to a minimum as tough times were ahead. Just after they helped themselves to a 14% pay hike, paid for by you and me, Citizen Taxpayer.

Last week, the Irish Times published a poll which showed a sharp drop in support for the coalition. I'd imagine that this news was greeted at Fianna Fáil HQ in the way that a teenager would react to being chastised by his parents. A roll of the eyes and a "Yeah, whateeeever!" They couldn't care less if support for the government was at zero right now, because the next election is four and a half years away. By which time, the economy will have miraculously recovered, and everything will be just fine and dandy.

And this is why we should take note of all that is happening now. So that when these trolls come out from under their bridges looking for our votes in 2012, we can remind them of the cuts, the hikes, the lies, the excuses and the hypocrisy.

Many years ago in London, I worked with a right-wing looper called Seth. Well, Seth wasn't his real name, but he was reputed to resemble a character in some soap opera or other, and so that's what he was called. Anyways, Seth was your typical Sun-reading reactionary. His response to anything he found objectionable could be summed up in two words - "Ban it!"

The Notting Hill Carnival? Ban it!
Trade unions? Ban them!
Football 'ooligans? Ban them!

Etc., Etc.

I was reminded of Seth last week when I was reading A Tangled Web. (I made a vow last year never to visit that site again, but it's just one of those things. It's like watching an excruciating scene from The Office, through your fingers, from behind the sofa.) Under a headline "Ban the Koran?" a writer called "The Fulham Reactionary" discusses the idea of treating the Koran as a hate text, and banning it the same way as other hate texts like Mein Kampf. The first comment came from the blog's publisher, David Vance:


"I say don't ban the Koran.

Ban Islam."

Now, maybe David was being a little tongue-in-cheek with his comment, but you don't have to delve to far into his own writings to conclude that he may well be serious.

So just for one moment, let's imagine that this was to happen, and Britain did indeed "ban Islam." (A Tangled Web is a hardline unionist blog, so the context here would refer to the UK.) What would happen?

For a start Britain would be isolated by all the international institutions to which it belongs. The EU, the UN, the Commonwealth and Nato would all kick the UK out. Now some 'wingers would be delighted at the prospect of annoying Brussels or the UN, but the UK would soon find itself in a lonely place. The Arab League would boycott trade with Britain, which would have a detrimental effect on the supply of oil. Inflation would spiral out of control and the pound would go through the floor in an instant.

Domestically, the situation would be out of control within days. Hundreds of thousands of previously innocent, blameless people would be criminalised overnight. Bradford, Luton, Birmingham and any other town or city with a significant Muslim population would be in flames. The police would be stretched to the limit as they struggle to cope with the unrest as well as clamping down on all of Britain's now illegal mosques. Islam would be driven underground, and those Muslims that were previously abhorred by the actions of those who committed atrocities in the name of Islam would be driven to the margins of society. When something is banned unjustly, the reaction of those affected is not to acquiesce to the new law, but to fight against it. Moderates would become hardliners overnight.

Then of course, Britain would become a major target for an attack by international Islamist terrorists. Every ululating nutjob from anywhere on earth would start making his way to Britain in order to attain martyrdom and the attendant 72 virgins upon completion of his mission. The population would live in a constant state of fear, wary of congregating in crowds in case it attracted the attention of a jihadist.

Basically, Britain would collapse as a society within a couple of weeks. And that would be a good thing, eh, David et al?

This Modern World examines how the news works:

(click for full cartoon):

So there we have it. The Greens have endorsed the Programme for Government and Bertie will duly be re-elected Taoiseach tomorrow. If anything this coalition is even more "Rainbow" than the last "Rainbow Coalition" of 1994-1997, including in its ranks the representatives of free-for-all developers alongside environmentalists, not to mention the free market libertarians of the PDs.

Hopefully it will work, because political instability is not a desirable state of affairs.

Many on the (funda)mentalist wing of the Greens (and their buddies in the People Before Profit Alliance) are seething. Several of them were airing their views on the radio this evening. The issues that seem to exercise them most were the US military's use of Shannon and the co-location of private hospitals on public land.

The Shannon thing first. OK, so we all know that the US/UK invasion of Iraq wasn't a good idea, but they are in there now and are operating under a UN mandate. We can't turn back the clock, nor can the US just leave without clearing up the mess. Just deal with it.

Co-location: Now I'm not a fan of the PDs or anything, but I believe that Mary Harney has actually been doing a good job at Health. The problems in our health service will not be solved just by throwing money at it, but instead by using the resources we invest in the service more effectively. This means taking on the vested interests, tackling the inefficiencies, facing up to the unions, and enlisting the private sector in areas where they can do a better job than the public sector. Co-location is one of these areas. But the attitude from some quarters is that the private sector is intrinsically evil and must be kept away as a matter of principle. But if the way is made clear for the private sector to get beds onstream quickly, they will do it because demand for private beds is huge. And if private patients are in private beds, that means that public beds are freed up for public patients, leading to shorter waiting times. Locating private and public hospitals alongside one another also makes sense in that facilities can be shared, lowering the investment needed for the public service and also the cost to the private patients.

Tags: politics, fianna fail, greens, government, mentalists

I was chided by a commenter the other day for referring to Jackie Healy-Rae as a 'gobshite'. In truth, it was probably a bit unfair to single out JH-R, because I tend to consider all Independent TDs as gobshites.

Independents are a symptom of our clientilist political process. It is true that they are probably the hardest working politicians in the country, as they have to do as many favours as possible to as many constituents as possible in order to keep their snouts in the trough stay elected.

But we elect our TDs to Dáil Eireann to legislate for the whole state, not just for the constituency for which they are elected. And this is where Independents are at fault. During the 28th Dáil (1997-2002) the government sought to have Kerry included as an Objective 1 area for EU subsidy funding. They did this under pressure from Jackie Healy-Rae, who was supporting the minority government at the time. We lost a lot of respect in EU circles for that little stunt.

The Greens are insisting on a new form of chauffeur-driven transport if they are to coalesce with Fianna Fáil

Now that the election is over, the Mahon Tribunal goes back to work. Every day this week on Today FM's The Last Word, whenever Matt Cooper has covered the proceedings of the Tribunal, text messages flood in (no pun intended) saying "Leave Bertie alone! The people have spoken."

Does the fact that Bertie Ahern has more or less won another term as Taoiseach mean that no-one can question the source of his finances? That no-one has the right to query the inconsistencies in his account of how he bought his house? "Sure it was only small sums of money", seems to be a favourite theme.

What if more serious allegations had been made?

Let's say it was alleged he had mugged a pensioner. "Sure pension day is only next Tuesday, she'll manage till then. The people have spoken!"

Or if it was alleged that he went on a cocaine'n'whores bender in Brussels during an EU Heads of Government Summit. "He's a single man. Surely he's allowed to let off a bit of steam when he's away from home? Leave him alone!"

Tags: politics, Bertie, cocaine'n'whores

Well, it looks like we will have to endure another five years of Fianna Fáil in government. I hoped that we might get a change, but the electorate thought otherwise. The vote for both Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, and the seats won by both parties are well up on 2002.

Enda Kenny can hold his head high after this election. Fine Gael look like they will regain all the ground they lost in 2002 and more. There is a tendency in political parties when they are not elected to government for the leader to resign. I hope that Enda Kenny resists this path. He should remain as leader and build on the gains made in this election. Pat Rabbitte is the leader who should walk the plank in this election. Labour have stagnated under his leadership.

So that's the cloud, where is the silver lining?

Sinn Féin. They were going to win ten seats. They were going to call the shots on who would form the next government. Their poster girl, Mary Lou McDonald was going to take a seat in Bertie's own constituency. They got their holes kicked, big time.

Independents. Pretty much wiped out. Sadly, that gobshite Jackie Healy-Rae will be around for another five years, but most of the "hospital" candidates look set to lose out.

Still waiting on the first count from Laois-Offaly…

Tags: elections, politics

Adds Thursday 7.25AM: I have tidied this post up a bit, to add in the bits I forgot last night.

And so, tomorrow is "Make Your Mind Up" day.

After three weeks of claims, counter-claims, accusations, rebuttals, photo-ops, debates, soundbites, stunts, acres of newsprint and hours of broadcasts, we get to the point where we mark our preferences next to the candidates offering themselves for election.

I have given a lot of thought to where my top preferences will go. There is no doubt that FF and the PDs have managed the economy well, but at what social cost? House prices have risen exponentially in the last ten years, to the point that first time buyers are taking on huge amounts of debt over very long periods. Yet rising house prices are seen as a good thing. Many are forced to the outer limits of the commuter belt in order to find suitable housing that they can afford. Thousands of people doing daily 150km round trip commutes is not good for the economy, the environment, the communities within which these people live, nor indeed for the commuters themselves or their families. But as Bertie himself said in a Morning Ireland interview last Monday we should at least be "tankful" that these people are in Athy, Arklow and Portlaoise, and not in Baltimore (I presume he means Baltimore, Maryland, as opposed to Baltimore, Co Cork), Sydney or London. A superb "Let them eat cake" moment.

The health service is a mess, but to be fair, Mary Harney is at least making an attempt to straighten it out. Unlike her two predecessors, who were reluctant incumbents of the role. Micheal Martin presided over what was probably this government's most forward-thinking policy initiative - the ban on smoking ion the workplace - yet he did nothing about the nursing home crisis.

There is a potential time bomb down the road for the Education system. Provincial villages have become commuter towns overnight and their schools are reaching bursting point. There have been 2000 new houses built in Sallins, Co Kildare in the last ten years, but they still don't have a secondary school. They have to go the already overcrowded schools in Naas. We had the dreadful situation in Laytown, Co Meath, where there were no places for 90 school starters last September. Expect to see this happen more often within a semi-circle with an axis that stretches from Drogheda to Arklow.

Back in 1999, when the first National Development Plan was launched, we were promised motorway links between Dublin and all the major cities in the state by 2006. That has been revised back to 2010. The Dublin Port Tunnel was two years late, several million Euros over budget and one metre short in height. Two new LUAS lines were built in Dublin, but they did not intersect. Bordeaux built their "LUAS" at the same time as Dublin, and all three lines intersect.

Ten years into this government and still we rely on imports of oil for our energy. There has been sod all effort made at creating a policy on long-term energy security. We're lucky at the moment that the dollar is so weak. Can you imagine the price of oil if $1 was worth more than €1? This is a pressing issue and there has been virtual silence from all parties on it. We need to look at increasing dramatically our renewables, and at least talk in a rational way about the prospect of nuclear energy.

I'm going to vote for change. Ten years is long enough to be in government and get your policies implemented. After that, arrogance sets in. It's like that shit that comes out whenever a party has been in power for a long time - the opposition front bench don't have enough ministerial experience and therefore can't be trusted. Tony Blair had no experience before he became prime minister of the UK and he did alright (his role as Bush's bitch notwithstanding.)

There is also a local reason behind my decision. The party standing in Laois/Offaly after the 2002 election was FF 3, FG 1, PD 1. Four to one in favour of the current government. I don't believe that this accurately reflects the wishes of the Laois/Offaly electorate, and a 3:2 split would be more appropriate.

The policies of the various parties are broadly similar, so the decision is who is the most competent and trustworthy. FF and the PDs have produced some excellent ministers like Brian Cowen and Mary Harney. But they have also had some chumps like Noel Dempsey, Dick Roche and Martin Cullen. Hopefully FG/Lab/Greens will be a lot better at managing the country than FF/PDs. They can't be much worse.

Some might say that they can't be bothered voting, and that their vote won't make any difference. Seats have been won and lost on a handful of votes in the past, so every vote does count. I remember my father telling me about the count in Mayo last time round. I can't remember the exact details, but if a small number of votes had gone in another direction, Enda Kenny would have lost his seat and Jim Higgins would be challenging Bertie Ahern for the top job now. Instead, it was Higgins who lost his seat.

The time has come. Let's see what the other lot can do.

Tags: elections, politics

Thankfully.

No excuse, pols. We can't keep going to the courts every time a situation like this comes up. We have had several referenda on the subject of abortion.

Legislate, and be done with it.