It's early days in the campaign, but Gay Mitchell is not polling well. As the field solidified, the FG vote deserted Mitchell. It did so for a number of reasons: a botched negative attack on Martin McGuinness, perceived initially as the main threat, particularly in winning old Fianna Fail votes; the absence of Fianna Fáil; the strength and diversity of the other candidates; and also the sheer number of other candidates, and the unlikelihood of a government candidate attracting significant transfers.
The negative campaign was a disaster. Mitchell's intemperate appearance with Eamon Dunphy and McGuinness, coupled with the Late Late Show (and an appalling attempt to do a Lloyd Bentsen on McGuinness, who is certainly no Dan Quayle!) did not serve him well. Countless studies show that negative campaigns work. One study makes the point that "[b]ecause negative political advertising that identifies the sponsor and the target hurts both candidates, when a candidate uses such advertising, it would be better not to identify the sponsor." Having the sponsor actually execute the campaign, and deliver the messages personally is completely counter productive. The attacks didn't help McGuinness, but they certainly hurt Mitchell.
Another problem for Mitchell has been the absence of Fianna Fáil. Whatever one says about Seán Gallagher's Fianna Fail credentials, there is simply no imperative to "get those b£$%ards out!" as there was back in January. The persistence of high FG polling since the general election dilutes this notion somewhat, but that FG was a significant, feasible alternative to Fianna Fáil in the election in February is simply not an issue in this campaign.
The opposing candidate quality is also very high. Gallagher, presenting an independent, non-negative, blue sky kind of view is very slick and effective. His response to Fianna Fáil associations that "I never hid that, I encourage political participation, I am an independent" is effective also. McGuinness has great recognition, a grandfatherly way about him, and a seriousness that is difficult to match - you get the sense that people would listen to him when he says something (no jokes please!). No-one can truly say they don't like Michael D, and even Dana has a niche that, in her absence, Mitchell could have expected support from. David Norris one feels is damaged now, and Joycean foppishness is beginning to look like a playful gimmick, in the midst of very serious discussions by the other candidates. Mary Davis is gathering a significant woman's vote. All of that conspires against McGuinness, and the absence of a Labour candidate to be eliminated before him means that transfers will be all over the place.
If Mitchell loses, Fine Gael will find themselves under pressure. If they lose to McGuinness or Gallagher, it will be a boost for Sinn Fein who are already flying high, or perhaps the beginning of a resurgence for Fianna Fáil. If they lose to Higgins, Gilmore may become more active within the coalition, agitating for more Labour orientation to policy given their now enhanced mandate. Kenny will come under pressure for his dithering over Cox, and with county council elections the next hurdle, grassroots whispering about the Taoiseach may begin anew.
Fine Gael now need to find their new vision. For good or ill, it was defined by Fianna Fáil in the election in February. They need to be seen to make significant speeches on social policy, foreign policy, and other non-economic subjects. They need to broaden their definition of themselves as more than merely a party of business, an economic hope. They need to become more representative of Irish aspiration, not merely administration. Otherwise, they will fade into the dross and cynicism that has so characterised the Irish political class for a number of decades now, illuminated only too briefly by the Green Party.
It is a tremendous opportunity for Fine Gael to tighten their grip on power in this country for a generation. I doubt they'll take it.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Saturday, October 08, 2011
Why Sean Gallagher's Fianna Fáil Past Matters
The relationship between Sean Gallagher and the Fianna Fáil party is becoming more of an issue as he becomes a serious contender. Whether it is manufactured or substantive I'll deal with later.
In January this year Gallagher resigned from the National Executive in a letter later published on politics.ie. In the same month, he helped launch at least two election campaigns of Fianna Fáil candidate, including front bencher Dara Calleary. He claimed for some time that he left in 2009, but whether he was officially a member or not (whatever that means), he was clearly continuing to support the party until just before the General Election this year. In fact he officially resigned as per the letter from the National Executive in January 2011. In that letter, he makes no reference to his membership of the party (as distinct from the national executive). He does however express his "continued support" to Sean Dorgan and his colleagues. He has openly told of working on Seamus Kirk's re-election campaign, and in Rory O'Hanlon's office, though he is not clear on when those roles ended, and the 1990's in particular seems light on detail. In 2006 he gave a gift of an iPod to then Taoiseach Bertie Ahern. As of today, Gallagher's representatives were denying he had anything to do with Fianna Fáil after 2009.
At best, Gallagher is being evasive on the question of the depth and recency of his relationship with Fianna Fáil, and, if he did indeed resign his membership of the party, why he did so. In one interview with Pat Kenny, he stated “I can’t be any more specific than I’m being. I’m standing as an independent candidate and I’m putting myself forward in that capacity. I’m not a member of any political party.” He is most likely at this point not affiliated with Fianna Fáil, he will have made sure of that. But the answers he is giving are Jesuitical - a phrase famously used by John Gormley to describe answers secured from their coalition partners Fianna Fáil on the occasion of the IMF bailout.
Membership of a political party in Ireland is at best a nebulous thing. What seems not to be in dispute is that Gallagher joined Fianna Fáil as a young man in the 1908s. It is unlikely that he ever formally resigned from the party; if people become effective non-members, it is through lapsing. And - taking Gallagher at his word - we can accept that he lapsed for significant periods over the past thirty years. It is also reasonable to assume that he has never been associated with any other political party in that time.
As Gallagher's profile rose with the Dragon's Den series, it was clear that it could provide him a platform for election to public office. Clearly also he is a man with personal ambition. Looking at the landscape in late 2009, the tide was turning. In November 2009, a RedC poll put Fine Gael at 36%, and Fianna Fail at 23%. If Gallagher at that time had designs on a Dáil seat, or the Presidency, the Fianna Fail ticket would possibly become more of a hindrance than a support.
However the thought process progressed from there, we can only speculate. But here's why his obfuscation is a problem for voters.
1) He appears to be misleading people about his history with the Fianna Fáil party. He says he left in 2009, while he was clearly providing public, active support in this year's general election.
2) His association with the party, while co-running a business with tight connections to the property industry, smells of that golden circle of Fianna Fail, Banks, and Property Developers. While Gallagher's company was a subcontractor, it was clearly likely to be well served by Gallagher's political connections. This is a point Gallagher has not addressed.
3) Gallagher, in distancing himself from Fianna Fail, appears to have done so exclusively for political gain. This is perhaps the most damaging aspect of his candidacy. His expressed continued support for the party seems in hindsight an attempt to retain whatever support he could from the party, its structure, and its network, while shedding the clearly toxic badge. It was, in effect, a power play. There was no valour in it, no idealism, no vision. It betrays a man who does not have strong principles, and who would be an apologist for Fianna Fáil.
Had he left the party on principle, he would have had a much better chance, and may even have had my vote. But it is not his attempts to downplay his relationship with Fianna Fáil that rankles; it is his attempts to retain that connection in spite of separation.
But to return to the original question of whether it's really an issue - people may see past it. Gallagher is a genial, charismatic speaker and the more people he speaks to the more people he will have voting for him. The media and the internet may make more of this isssue than is "real". Voters may not care, like with Fianna Fáil in 2007. This will play over the next few days, and the next polls will be out in five or six days. That will tell.
In January this year Gallagher resigned from the National Executive in a letter later published on politics.ie. In the same month, he helped launch at least two election campaigns of Fianna Fáil candidate, including front bencher Dara Calleary. He claimed for some time that he left in 2009, but whether he was officially a member or not (whatever that means), he was clearly continuing to support the party until just before the General Election this year. In fact he officially resigned as per the letter from the National Executive in January 2011. In that letter, he makes no reference to his membership of the party (as distinct from the national executive). He does however express his "continued support" to Sean Dorgan and his colleagues. He has openly told of working on Seamus Kirk's re-election campaign, and in Rory O'Hanlon's office, though he is not clear on when those roles ended, and the 1990's in particular seems light on detail. In 2006 he gave a gift of an iPod to then Taoiseach Bertie Ahern. As of today, Gallagher's representatives were denying he had anything to do with Fianna Fáil after 2009.
At best, Gallagher is being evasive on the question of the depth and recency of his relationship with Fianna Fáil, and, if he did indeed resign his membership of the party, why he did so. In one interview with Pat Kenny, he stated “I can’t be any more specific than I’m being. I’m standing as an independent candidate and I’m putting myself forward in that capacity. I’m not a member of any political party.” He is most likely at this point not affiliated with Fianna Fáil, he will have made sure of that. But the answers he is giving are Jesuitical - a phrase famously used by John Gormley to describe answers secured from their coalition partners Fianna Fáil on the occasion of the IMF bailout.
Membership of a political party in Ireland is at best a nebulous thing. What seems not to be in dispute is that Gallagher joined Fianna Fáil as a young man in the 1908s. It is unlikely that he ever formally resigned from the party; if people become effective non-members, it is through lapsing. And - taking Gallagher at his word - we can accept that he lapsed for significant periods over the past thirty years. It is also reasonable to assume that he has never been associated with any other political party in that time.
As Gallagher's profile rose with the Dragon's Den series, it was clear that it could provide him a platform for election to public office. Clearly also he is a man with personal ambition. Looking at the landscape in late 2009, the tide was turning. In November 2009, a RedC poll put Fine Gael at 36%, and Fianna Fail at 23%. If Gallagher at that time had designs on a Dáil seat, or the Presidency, the Fianna Fail ticket would possibly become more of a hindrance than a support.
However the thought process progressed from there, we can only speculate. But here's why his obfuscation is a problem for voters.
1) He appears to be misleading people about his history with the Fianna Fáil party. He says he left in 2009, while he was clearly providing public, active support in this year's general election.
2) His association with the party, while co-running a business with tight connections to the property industry, smells of that golden circle of Fianna Fail, Banks, and Property Developers. While Gallagher's company was a subcontractor, it was clearly likely to be well served by Gallagher's political connections. This is a point Gallagher has not addressed.
3) Gallagher, in distancing himself from Fianna Fail, appears to have done so exclusively for political gain. This is perhaps the most damaging aspect of his candidacy. His expressed continued support for the party seems in hindsight an attempt to retain whatever support he could from the party, its structure, and its network, while shedding the clearly toxic badge. It was, in effect, a power play. There was no valour in it, no idealism, no vision. It betrays a man who does not have strong principles, and who would be an apologist for Fianna Fáil.
Had he left the party on principle, he would have had a much better chance, and may even have had my vote. But it is not his attempts to downplay his relationship with Fianna Fáil that rankles; it is his attempts to retain that connection in spite of separation.
But to return to the original question of whether it's really an issue - people may see past it. Gallagher is a genial, charismatic speaker and the more people he speaks to the more people he will have voting for him. The media and the internet may make more of this isssue than is "real". Voters may not care, like with Fianna Fáil in 2007. This will play over the next few days, and the next polls will be out in five or six days. That will tell.
Rousseau and Ireland (Part Un)
I've been re-reading my Rousseau. The concept of the General Will is not a difficult one to grasp - in essence, we all willingly give up our freedom to the Sovereign (in a representative demoncracy that being the collective The People, i.e. us) and in turn the Sovereign redistributes that freedom in an equitable and socially conscious way. It facilitates that freedom generally - that is, in line with a General Will, a kind of will that attaches to the sovereign, which should in effect represent, broadly, the will of the people. Of course, it doesn't always work that way.
There are several reasons for this. Rousseau abhorred the concept of representative democracy; yet his ideas on democracy were taken by Robespierre and transposed onto the revolutionary movement in France immediately after Rousseau's death in 1778. Rousseau, to butcher an idiom, a était retourner dans sa tombe. He would not have been impressed. Nevertheless, the French model persisted, spawned the American model, and the post-Colonial English model that ultimately found its way to Dublin.
And now we have a problem. Politics has become deeply unrepresentative. As politics and business merge, the notion of a ship of state - one unit, sailing forth - is abandoned in favour of the administration of state, a kind of elevated functionary above the civil service by dint of some arbitrary mandate that bears no resemblance to any legitimacy that Rousseau may have sought in a government. Everything is about the economy - as it was in the good times (a successful economy will make everything else successful), and especially so in the bad, where the focus is on fixing what's broken in the economy, and trying to soften the impact of cuts. In the meantime, the gap between rich and poor grows ever greater, and the invalidation of the structures of legitimacy accelerates. The General Will is almost ignored; there is a default position. The government does nothing unless it has to do with the economy. But was the General Will ever relevant?
There are several reasons for this. Rousseau abhorred the concept of representative democracy; yet his ideas on democracy were taken by Robespierre and transposed onto the revolutionary movement in France immediately after Rousseau's death in 1778. Rousseau, to butcher an idiom, a était retourner dans sa tombe. He would not have been impressed. Nevertheless, the French model persisted, spawned the American model, and the post-Colonial English model that ultimately found its way to Dublin.
And now we have a problem. Politics has become deeply unrepresentative. As politics and business merge, the notion of a ship of state - one unit, sailing forth - is abandoned in favour of the administration of state, a kind of elevated functionary above the civil service by dint of some arbitrary mandate that bears no resemblance to any legitimacy that Rousseau may have sought in a government. Everything is about the economy - as it was in the good times (a successful economy will make everything else successful), and especially so in the bad, where the focus is on fixing what's broken in the economy, and trying to soften the impact of cuts. In the meantime, the gap between rich and poor grows ever greater, and the invalidation of the structures of legitimacy accelerates. The General Will is almost ignored; there is a default position. The government does nothing unless it has to do with the economy. But was the General Will ever relevant?
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Sean Quinn and the Lowry effect
The continuing travails of Séan Quinn are continuing to be portrayed by the media as just that - travails, inconveniences, challenges - and remain of interest to the country while becoming something of a cause for his followers in the border region. Of all of the major figures to be "caught up" in the banking crisis and the "travails" of our nation, he alone retains the sympathy of many people, and seemingly suffers only from the ill-judged accusations of the Financial Regulator, and some revisionist appraisal of his dealings with Anglo Irish Bank. He is not a banker, or a builder, or a politician. In that, therefore, he is unique.
Today (Saturday) it was reported that he was refusing to give Anglo information about what he owns, and what he owes. During the week two very straight looking accountants very matter-of-factly told business journalists that the Quinn Insurance business had lost €700m in the year prior to the administrators being called in. This is despite Mr Quinn himself telling the regulator that the business was hugely profitable, and that it would be through the several hundred million euros in annual profit that he could repay the debts owed to Anglo.
Now - step back a moment and consider the debt he owed. It became clear as Anglo fell apart in early 2009 that there were serious problems, and that Quinn was at the heart of it. Much of the commentary centers on Quinn's catastrophic €2.8bn punt that went wrong, but it was merely the inevitable end of an appalling sequence of decisions where Quinn made poor investments, managed his companies terribly, and piled up losses upon losses. This was not just one bad investment, but the inevitable consequence of failure being rewarded again and again and again by the banks, the state, and the infrastructure in Ireland. Either Quinn was stupid, badly advised, or reckless. Given his position in Irish life and society, his responsibility required that he act far more prudently than he did, and he failed.
Was that bad enough? No, of course not. Emboldened by the myopic sheep of Cavan, the defenders of the man who gave them work when none was going, in a Lowry-esque descent into economic ostrich politics that eschews solidarity and national interest, Quinn fights on. He has been slighted. The Quinn Group showed no losses when he was in charge, but now that the administrators are in, they've destroyed the company (he skirts around the fact that he didn't employ a single actuary in his insurance business - go figure).
There was a point when Seán Quinn was a young man with a farm, from which he quarried stone and made a small business a big business. He hired people. He helped people. And they remember him for that. But he crossed a line when he diversified into other segments. When he went into insurance, the Quinn group was certainly a conglomerate. When he took over the former BUPA business, he was hailed by the establishment as a saviour of competition in the health sector. My sense is he began failing almost immediately after that. The extent to which the State facilitated Quinn's takeover of BUPA was extraordinary, though not unexpected. There were some echoes of the Russian oligarch's enrichment in the 1990's with the distribution of former state assets, though in this case it would have been difficult to line up a buyer for a business that was pulling out for legitimate commercial reasons (the community rating issue and all that jazz), notwithstanding the fact that Mary Harney had been fighting this issue through the courts for a number of years at that stage. The thought has to be that BUPA called Harney's bluff, and she got found out. With few people to turn to, Quinn was probably on a shortlist of one (the alternative being nationalisation or merging with the VHI) to take on the alternative healthcare supplier (with apologies to Vivas). Getting into the healthcare business was enormous for Quinn, and made him politically significant if he was not already that.
Having significant interests then in building materials, and by extension the property market; and in the broad insurance business at home and abroad, Quinn set about leverage his systemic importance in Ireland to bail himself out of every increasing debt. While any normal business faced with compromised positions would scale back, lay people off, take losses and move on, he buried them in a sea of credit, and the Quinn group became a black hole into which massive losses mounted, millions, then tens of millions of euros, suddenly a hundred million euros, then more, and still more, and ultimately almost three billion that we know of, tied up in a twisted, gnarled series of cyclical transactions in, with and of Anglo Irish Bank. Quinn couldn't face the prospect of admitting failure, and he compromised all of those businesses, the Irish health service, the competitiveness of the insurance market, and thousands of jobs, in order to save face. That's what all of this was about - saving his reputation.
And so still today he protests, it wasn't me. I was a victim. The regulator is wrong. By implication, there's a conspiracy. He is insidious in his manipulation of those in Cavan who support him, because they believe he's been unfairly treated, and he does nothing to disabuse them of this. They are following a lie, and he fosters the lie. Sean Quinn crossed a line some time ago when he abandoned all propriety, and compromised the interests of his employees, his companies, his bank, and his country. He should be ashamed of himself, and he should be in jail.
Today (Saturday) it was reported that he was refusing to give Anglo information about what he owns, and what he owes. During the week two very straight looking accountants very matter-of-factly told business journalists that the Quinn Insurance business had lost €700m in the year prior to the administrators being called in. This is despite Mr Quinn himself telling the regulator that the business was hugely profitable, and that it would be through the several hundred million euros in annual profit that he could repay the debts owed to Anglo.
Now - step back a moment and consider the debt he owed. It became clear as Anglo fell apart in early 2009 that there were serious problems, and that Quinn was at the heart of it. Much of the commentary centers on Quinn's catastrophic €2.8bn punt that went wrong, but it was merely the inevitable end of an appalling sequence of decisions where Quinn made poor investments, managed his companies terribly, and piled up losses upon losses. This was not just one bad investment, but the inevitable consequence of failure being rewarded again and again and again by the banks, the state, and the infrastructure in Ireland. Either Quinn was stupid, badly advised, or reckless. Given his position in Irish life and society, his responsibility required that he act far more prudently than he did, and he failed.
Was that bad enough? No, of course not. Emboldened by the myopic sheep of Cavan, the defenders of the man who gave them work when none was going, in a Lowry-esque descent into economic ostrich politics that eschews solidarity and national interest, Quinn fights on. He has been slighted. The Quinn Group showed no losses when he was in charge, but now that the administrators are in, they've destroyed the company (he skirts around the fact that he didn't employ a single actuary in his insurance business - go figure).
There was a point when Seán Quinn was a young man with a farm, from which he quarried stone and made a small business a big business. He hired people. He helped people. And they remember him for that. But he crossed a line when he diversified into other segments. When he went into insurance, the Quinn group was certainly a conglomerate. When he took over the former BUPA business, he was hailed by the establishment as a saviour of competition in the health sector. My sense is he began failing almost immediately after that. The extent to which the State facilitated Quinn's takeover of BUPA was extraordinary, though not unexpected. There were some echoes of the Russian oligarch's enrichment in the 1990's with the distribution of former state assets, though in this case it would have been difficult to line up a buyer for a business that was pulling out for legitimate commercial reasons (the community rating issue and all that jazz), notwithstanding the fact that Mary Harney had been fighting this issue through the courts for a number of years at that stage. The thought has to be that BUPA called Harney's bluff, and she got found out. With few people to turn to, Quinn was probably on a shortlist of one (the alternative being nationalisation or merging with the VHI) to take on the alternative healthcare supplier (with apologies to Vivas). Getting into the healthcare business was enormous for Quinn, and made him politically significant if he was not already that.
Having significant interests then in building materials, and by extension the property market; and in the broad insurance business at home and abroad, Quinn set about leverage his systemic importance in Ireland to bail himself out of every increasing debt. While any normal business faced with compromised positions would scale back, lay people off, take losses and move on, he buried them in a sea of credit, and the Quinn group became a black hole into which massive losses mounted, millions, then tens of millions of euros, suddenly a hundred million euros, then more, and still more, and ultimately almost three billion that we know of, tied up in a twisted, gnarled series of cyclical transactions in, with and of Anglo Irish Bank. Quinn couldn't face the prospect of admitting failure, and he compromised all of those businesses, the Irish health service, the competitiveness of the insurance market, and thousands of jobs, in order to save face. That's what all of this was about - saving his reputation.
And so still today he protests, it wasn't me. I was a victim. The regulator is wrong. By implication, there's a conspiracy. He is insidious in his manipulation of those in Cavan who support him, because they believe he's been unfairly treated, and he does nothing to disabuse them of this. They are following a lie, and he fosters the lie. Sean Quinn crossed a line some time ago when he abandoned all propriety, and compromised the interests of his employees, his companies, his bank, and his country. He should be ashamed of himself, and he should be in jail.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Property Valuation Con Continues in Ireland
My home insurance renewal letter came in the post today. I called the AA, who have my car policy, and they gave me a quote that was half what Bank of Ireland were charging for the same terms. So I rang the Bank of Ireland - the insurance guys first. They told me that one way to reduce my premium would be to reduce the rebuild cost of the house. So I said OK, but wouldn't the mortgage guys be upset with me for doing that? She said that while I was right, it wasn't their concern, but I should probably talk to them (the mortgage people) first. Property values had come down, so rebuild costs would too.
They suggested I consult the Chartered Surveyors Website, who had a guide to proper insurance, and a table in the guide indicating what the likely cost of rebuilding a house is (on page 3). It varies around the country, but in Dublin it's €164 per square foot, and in the rest of the country around €124, to rebuild a detached house like mine. In 2006-7, when getting quotes to build my house, the prices ranged from €85 to €95 per square foot. This is extraordinary. If the pillar bank is relying on these valuations, they're absolutely nuts. Bonkers. La la la la la. Prices for rebuild have probably fallen in the last few years, and direct labour costs would be significantly lower again (and given my experience building my house - not that the builder was bad, he was great - I'd probably be able to do that if I had to; which would be even cheaper because of the extent to which cash now dominates the building trade). Of course it means that insurance premia are inflated, and that means more money for then banks and insurance companies, who are very innovative in finding ways to screw you. But that was only the start of it.
I thanked her for her advice, and rang Bank of Ireland Mortgages. They advised me to look at the SCSI website as well, and then said I needed to get a new valuation done on the property in order that my house rebuild estimate - and therefore insurance costs - be reduced. I asked who should do the valuation, and she said it didn't need to be anyone on "the list". the conversation that followed was extraordinary:
Me: "I'm not sure I follow - can anyone do it?"
BOI Lady: "Well, someone qualified, obviously."
Me: "What qualification do you mean?"
BOI Lady: "Well, an estate agent, or auctioneer, or valuer, you know."
Me: "But you don't need any qualification to be an estate agent or auctioneer."
BOI Lady: "Well, it must be someone working for an estate agent"
Me: "What about my sister in law, she's temping as a secretary for an estate agent in Offaly, would she do?"
BOI Lady: "No, well, I mean, I know some people who work for estate agents aren't qualified, but it needs to be, you know, someone qualified"
Me: "But - you don't need to be qualified in anything to be an estate agent"
BOI Lady: "well..."
Me: "Look, I've a friend who used to be an estate agent, could he do it? I could just throw him twenty quid, you know, that'd do."
BOI Lady: "Well it must be sort of official, you know? On letter paper and all that"
Me: "Oh, sure he has letter paper."
BOI Lady: "But if he's not in business..."
Me: "He has a registered company"
BOI Lady: "Oh that's fine then, if he has a registered company"
Me: "Thanks, I'll do that so."
And there we have it folks. the valuation of my mortgage - that you all are on the hook for - can be based on whatever my mate Charlie thinks if I buy him a couple of pints down the pub. I reckon the value of my house will have fallen even more significantly than the national average, don't you?
Of course, the interesting thing is that as people re-value their homes for insurance purposes, will these new valuations register with NAMA, or the NTMA? Not a hope. Complete disconnect. It's all a con, the whole lot of it.
They suggested I consult the Chartered Surveyors Website, who had a guide to proper insurance, and a table in the guide indicating what the likely cost of rebuilding a house is (on page 3). It varies around the country, but in Dublin it's €164 per square foot, and in the rest of the country around €124, to rebuild a detached house like mine. In 2006-7, when getting quotes to build my house, the prices ranged from €85 to €95 per square foot. This is extraordinary. If the pillar bank is relying on these valuations, they're absolutely nuts. Bonkers. La la la la la. Prices for rebuild have probably fallen in the last few years, and direct labour costs would be significantly lower again (and given my experience building my house - not that the builder was bad, he was great - I'd probably be able to do that if I had to; which would be even cheaper because of the extent to which cash now dominates the building trade). Of course it means that insurance premia are inflated, and that means more money for then banks and insurance companies, who are very innovative in finding ways to screw you. But that was only the start of it.
I thanked her for her advice, and rang Bank of Ireland Mortgages. They advised me to look at the SCSI website as well, and then said I needed to get a new valuation done on the property in order that my house rebuild estimate - and therefore insurance costs - be reduced. I asked who should do the valuation, and she said it didn't need to be anyone on "the list". the conversation that followed was extraordinary:
Me: "I'm not sure I follow - can anyone do it?"
BOI Lady: "Well, someone qualified, obviously."
Me: "What qualification do you mean?"
BOI Lady: "Well, an estate agent, or auctioneer, or valuer, you know."
Me: "But you don't need any qualification to be an estate agent or auctioneer."
BOI Lady: "Well, it must be someone working for an estate agent"
Me: "What about my sister in law, she's temping as a secretary for an estate agent in Offaly, would she do?"
BOI Lady: "No, well, I mean, I know some people who work for estate agents aren't qualified, but it needs to be, you know, someone qualified"
Me: "But - you don't need to be qualified in anything to be an estate agent"
BOI Lady: "well..."
Me: "Look, I've a friend who used to be an estate agent, could he do it? I could just throw him twenty quid, you know, that'd do."
BOI Lady: "Well it must be sort of official, you know? On letter paper and all that"
Me: "Oh, sure he has letter paper."
BOI Lady: "But if he's not in business..."
Me: "He has a registered company"
BOI Lady: "Oh that's fine then, if he has a registered company"
Me: "Thanks, I'll do that so."
And there we have it folks. the valuation of my mortgage - that you all are on the hook for - can be based on whatever my mate Charlie thinks if I buy him a couple of pints down the pub. I reckon the value of my house will have fallen even more significantly than the national average, don't you?
Of course, the interesting thing is that as people re-value their homes for insurance purposes, will these new valuations register with NAMA, or the NTMA? Not a hope. Complete disconnect. It's all a con, the whole lot of it.
Friday, April 08, 2011
Improving Youghal: A Two-Sided Business Model Approach
The Irish Times story on Youghal - and the subsequent stories - made for difficult reading. Having grown up in the town, and moved back to the area in recent years, I know it intimately. It has never in recent times been a wealthy town, and ever since the carpet factory shut down in the early 1980s, followed shortly thereafter by Murray Kitchens, it has been in decline.
Today's Irish Times editorialises on the resilience of the Irish Town. I disagree. In America, Detroit was once a huge bustling metropolis, the fifth largest city in America. Today, it has slipped to eighteenth; at the recently completed census, the city asked for a recount because the Federal Funding level is likely to drop dramatically. A once proud city, center of the world in car manufacture, the top eight employers are "public sector" - education, healthcare, government. General Motors is number nine. Its exquisite art deco architecture is now in decay. Cities, towns, villages have been abandoned throughout history. If our towns are not managed properly, they may also slip quietly into history.
Some others have offered some suggestions as to how Youghal might be improved - the rail line to Cork (a feasability study for which is tentatively roadmapped for "sometime before 2020 in the County Development Plan); the monk's road and other tourist attractions; a mayor, and devolved local government. Previously there have been discussions with interested parties on the construction of a marina, and attendant facilities.
Youghal is not the only town, of course, that finds itself in trouble. It has its own plusses and minuses, but there are things in common, including the building boom legacy. The National Asset Management Agency is in control of countless properties and assets that they are trying to generate a return on. For example, let's consider an apartment that cost €200,000, with loans attaching of maybe €150,000, and a market value of - maybe - €50,000. Even with that market value, it is not an immediate value, but a future likely value. There are of course other assets available - building land, houses, hotels, and so forth. In the mean time, these assets are decaying, or costing more money to maintain or complete. Half built developments may be destroyed.
There could be a way to take some of those assets, and make them generate a value return other than simply cash. For example, could the town of Youghal lease a dozen apartments from NAMA for ten years for €1 per apartment, and then use its own resources (the resources of the town clerk, essentially) to maintain them? They could be rented out to holiday makers for €50 per week, the intention being to cover costs of maintenance only, in the hope of generating tourist revenue for the region?
If there are hotels owned by NAMA, the same could apply. If we are making an assumption that the value of an asset is only realisable in the medium to long term for accounting purposes, then it appears logical that we should be trying to maximise the value of that asset in the near term - NAMA could let the property....or it could seek to find other uses for it that would generate value in other ways. There are issues to consider - local hotels would be upset at the competition, for example (although in Youghal, I'm not sure there are many who would have that problem) and others struggling in the buy to let market may similarly complain. However, the argument may be that prices need aggressive downward pressure like this in order to re-set them properly. If the apartments are not being let anyway, that would certainly be true. And only certain types of landlords open apartments for short term let like that.
Other assets could be used for other things. Sites, fields could be alternately developed for short term use - markets, festivals, fairs could be organised on downtown sites where planning was secured for an unbuilt apartment block.
The impact would be to unlock some of the value trapped in a pincer movement of a depressed market for property, and the NAMA / loan structures. Allowing regional or local access to the economic value even for a short time could be modelled to have an impact on the economy as a whole, and accelerate its move out of recession. In turn the properties become more valuable - and NAMA gets its return, while its assets are protected and utilised. Just a thought...
Today's Irish Times editorialises on the resilience of the Irish Town. I disagree. In America, Detroit was once a huge bustling metropolis, the fifth largest city in America. Today, it has slipped to eighteenth; at the recently completed census, the city asked for a recount because the Federal Funding level is likely to drop dramatically. A once proud city, center of the world in car manufacture, the top eight employers are "public sector" - education, healthcare, government. General Motors is number nine. Its exquisite art deco architecture is now in decay. Cities, towns, villages have been abandoned throughout history. If our towns are not managed properly, they may also slip quietly into history.
Some others have offered some suggestions as to how Youghal might be improved - the rail line to Cork (a feasability study for which is tentatively roadmapped for "sometime before 2020 in the County Development Plan); the monk's road and other tourist attractions; a mayor, and devolved local government. Previously there have been discussions with interested parties on the construction of a marina, and attendant facilities.
Youghal is not the only town, of course, that finds itself in trouble. It has its own plusses and minuses, but there are things in common, including the building boom legacy. The National Asset Management Agency is in control of countless properties and assets that they are trying to generate a return on. For example, let's consider an apartment that cost €200,000, with loans attaching of maybe €150,000, and a market value of - maybe - €50,000. Even with that market value, it is not an immediate value, but a future likely value. There are of course other assets available - building land, houses, hotels, and so forth. In the mean time, these assets are decaying, or costing more money to maintain or complete. Half built developments may be destroyed.
There could be a way to take some of those assets, and make them generate a value return other than simply cash. For example, could the town of Youghal lease a dozen apartments from NAMA for ten years for €1 per apartment, and then use its own resources (the resources of the town clerk, essentially) to maintain them? They could be rented out to holiday makers for €50 per week, the intention being to cover costs of maintenance only, in the hope of generating tourist revenue for the region?
If there are hotels owned by NAMA, the same could apply. If we are making an assumption that the value of an asset is only realisable in the medium to long term for accounting purposes, then it appears logical that we should be trying to maximise the value of that asset in the near term - NAMA could let the property....or it could seek to find other uses for it that would generate value in other ways. There are issues to consider - local hotels would be upset at the competition, for example (although in Youghal, I'm not sure there are many who would have that problem) and others struggling in the buy to let market may similarly complain. However, the argument may be that prices need aggressive downward pressure like this in order to re-set them properly. If the apartments are not being let anyway, that would certainly be true. And only certain types of landlords open apartments for short term let like that.
Other assets could be used for other things. Sites, fields could be alternately developed for short term use - markets, festivals, fairs could be organised on downtown sites where planning was secured for an unbuilt apartment block.
The impact would be to unlock some of the value trapped in a pincer movement of a depressed market for property, and the NAMA / loan structures. Allowing regional or local access to the economic value even for a short time could be modelled to have an impact on the economy as a whole, and accelerate its move out of recession. In turn the properties become more valuable - and NAMA gets its return, while its assets are protected and utilised. Just a thought...
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Ireland's Task: Destroy the Euro
Ireland finds itself in an invidious position. Due to a combination of light-touch regulation, indecent capitalism, and cowboy banking, the state has an eye-watering budget deficit that in percentage terms (at around 32%) is more than Greece, Spain and Portugal combined, and a debt pile that is simply unpayable. Stringent austerity has not helped - sure, the deficit has been reduced - from €18bn to €9bn, roughly, but growth has still not returned. There is no stimulus, and now, there is very little fat to cut.
The bank debt - now sovereign debt - is simply unpayable. At somewhere in the region of €100bn, the interest alone amounts to almost €6bn per annum, which represents 66% of our current projected deficit. Burden sharing, debt restructuring, whatever mechanism is arrived at - none will significantly assist the position without compromising Ireland's future for decades to come.
The Euro mechanism managed to save Ireland from immediate freefall when the crisis hit, but at what cost? Three years into the financial crisis, and four years into economic contraction, we are still searching for the floor, and while the currency trundles along in step with the overweight Eurozone economies of France and Germany, everything else in Ireland seems to be falling in value - businesses, property, and even wages, while not impacted in currency terms, are being impacted instead by taxation, levies and cuts.
The long slow decline in the value of Ireland makes the hardship more difficult, extended and delays any sense of recovery. The ECB and Eurozone partners in the first instance encouraged Ireland to manage its own affairs. Any bank default by national institutions like AIB or Bank of Ireland would be seen as damaging to national standing, the partners suggested; internally, Ireland's leading bankers made similar soundings, in a desperate scramble defence of a system that had been wholly corrupted by several years of unfettered profiteering in a bubble economy. The Eurozone partners sought to protect their own bank exposures to the Irish Economy. With so much pressure on the Government in a single direction, and only Sinn Féin and Labour vocal on the other side, it is not surprising that they took the course of action that they did - issuing the bank guarantee - though it was to prove extraordinarily damaging.
So, we are where we are. Thursday will see the results of the latest stress tests on the banks, and it is likely we'll see a requirement for an additional €15bn-€20bn. We will not know definitively if that is the end. It doesn't really matter - we're long past the point where we can't afford it any more.
If de-merging from the Euro was an option, it would be the one to take. A subsequent devaluation of the Irish currency - and thereby, its debt - in the order of, say, 30%, would make our exports even more valuable than they are now, attract significant incremental investment, fix the problem with public sector pay at a stroke, and also much of the problem with pension funds. Imports would become very expensive, and multi national retailers would find it very difficult to adjust - Tescos especially comes to mind, with their recently found religion of centralism presenting Ireland with Ribena full of blackcurrants that are no longer from Wexford, but from Britain. Irish suppliers would of course be far more competitive for those multis, and given the real estate investment that these guys (particularly Lidl) have made, they will either stay, and switch suppliers back to Irish businesses, or go, and leave Irish businesses compete for themselves.
But of course it's not on the table. A Eurozone "de-merger" would be difficult to effect in cash terms, as the physical currency is easily portable to other European countries. All ports would have to be monitored, and everyone would be required by law to surrender all Euro cash held. We have an advantage in that there is no land border with a Eurozone country, and therefore enforcement would be easier as an option for Ireland rather than, say, Belgium. I don't know how much is in circulation, but any de-merger (and a presumed devalutation) would have to cost in significant cash leakage. It would of course have to be managed in conjunction with our Eurozone partners, and an alternative cash strategy would need to be developed - and cash would need to be printed somewhere.
In the spirit of solidarity (though there seems little enough of that particular tonic to go around these days), the ECB should consider a group de-merger - Greece, Ireland, Portugal, and even Spain could leave the Euro concurrently. This would be a far more structural adjustment, and many of the philosohpical proponents of the Euro would see it as a defeat for the project. While it would be presented as a structured measure, and that these countries could adjust and apply for re-admission, the validity of the project would be questioned, and arguments about political unity versus economic unity, and you-can't-have-one-without-the-other type stuff would permeate political discourse.
It seems however that the Eurozone partners can't agree on much these days, and the facilitate or agree such seismic adjustments in the Eurozone would be unthinkable for most. Domestic politics in Germany, Finland and other places has the current group of leaders hamstrung, and in the absence of weighted voting that the Constitution would have brought (and which arguably was essential for the management of the single currency) they are powerless to do most anything.
Which brings us back to Ireland. If the status quo is maintained, and essentially we carry on as we have been, Ireland's debt will remain unservicable, and Ireland - like Greece - will inevitably default. That would be messy, damaging, and - for Ireland - an awful thing. While the markets have priced in high default risk to bond yields, things are being managed now, and in any case there are no new issues to test the market. There are ongoing initiatives to ease the burden on Ireland, and the markets are betting that the Eurozone partners will not permit a sovereign default.
So we will continue to bleed, and bleed, and bleed, and when we have no more blood to give, the ECB will inject some more blood, and we will continue to bleed. However, should the contagion spread from Portugal into Spain, the sovereign debt crisis will become a major currency crisis. There are very many institutions in Spain that have significant investments in Portugal, and so the contagion effect is more possible in this case. A clean alternative for the Eurozone rather than a partial demerger would be an entire re-set; wind the clock back, and party like it's 1999 - back to your old currencies, allow free float to correct economic imbalances, and rebuild the Euro project over the next three to five years. The institutional work has been done; the project in itself was unique anywhere in the world, and hard lessons have been learned. And, in that circumstance, Ireland would be the least of anyone's concerns.
It is now in Ireland's interests to see the Euro fail. It can be argued that there are few whose interests would not be served, save perhaps the money markets and bankers who would see their Euro bonds converted back into constituent country bonds, and who would have previously thought they were investing in Germany, and now holding Irish, Portuguese and Greek paper (as well as a large chunk of German). As a race, and perhaps this is more about men than women, we do not see failure as progress. We find it difficult to grasp that the learnings from failure can make us stronger; perhaps for the individuals at the front line when failure strikes, it is hard to disabuse them of their discontent. With the passing of the Euro, perhaps Europe can again rediscover the joy of diversity, and all of the things that made Europe and Europeans once great. And perhaps as we rediscover ourselves, we can forge ever closer political unity, as a precursor for a stronger economic union in the future.
The bank debt - now sovereign debt - is simply unpayable. At somewhere in the region of €100bn, the interest alone amounts to almost €6bn per annum, which represents 66% of our current projected deficit. Burden sharing, debt restructuring, whatever mechanism is arrived at - none will significantly assist the position without compromising Ireland's future for decades to come.
The Euro mechanism managed to save Ireland from immediate freefall when the crisis hit, but at what cost? Three years into the financial crisis, and four years into economic contraction, we are still searching for the floor, and while the currency trundles along in step with the overweight Eurozone economies of France and Germany, everything else in Ireland seems to be falling in value - businesses, property, and even wages, while not impacted in currency terms, are being impacted instead by taxation, levies and cuts.
The long slow decline in the value of Ireland makes the hardship more difficult, extended and delays any sense of recovery. The ECB and Eurozone partners in the first instance encouraged Ireland to manage its own affairs. Any bank default by national institutions like AIB or Bank of Ireland would be seen as damaging to national standing, the partners suggested; internally, Ireland's leading bankers made similar soundings, in a desperate scramble defence of a system that had been wholly corrupted by several years of unfettered profiteering in a bubble economy. The Eurozone partners sought to protect their own bank exposures to the Irish Economy. With so much pressure on the Government in a single direction, and only Sinn Féin and Labour vocal on the other side, it is not surprising that they took the course of action that they did - issuing the bank guarantee - though it was to prove extraordinarily damaging.
So, we are where we are. Thursday will see the results of the latest stress tests on the banks, and it is likely we'll see a requirement for an additional €15bn-€20bn. We will not know definitively if that is the end. It doesn't really matter - we're long past the point where we can't afford it any more.
If de-merging from the Euro was an option, it would be the one to take. A subsequent devaluation of the Irish currency - and thereby, its debt - in the order of, say, 30%, would make our exports even more valuable than they are now, attract significant incremental investment, fix the problem with public sector pay at a stroke, and also much of the problem with pension funds. Imports would become very expensive, and multi national retailers would find it very difficult to adjust - Tescos especially comes to mind, with their recently found religion of centralism presenting Ireland with Ribena full of blackcurrants that are no longer from Wexford, but from Britain. Irish suppliers would of course be far more competitive for those multis, and given the real estate investment that these guys (particularly Lidl) have made, they will either stay, and switch suppliers back to Irish businesses, or go, and leave Irish businesses compete for themselves.
But of course it's not on the table. A Eurozone "de-merger" would be difficult to effect in cash terms, as the physical currency is easily portable to other European countries. All ports would have to be monitored, and everyone would be required by law to surrender all Euro cash held. We have an advantage in that there is no land border with a Eurozone country, and therefore enforcement would be easier as an option for Ireland rather than, say, Belgium. I don't know how much is in circulation, but any de-merger (and a presumed devalutation) would have to cost in significant cash leakage. It would of course have to be managed in conjunction with our Eurozone partners, and an alternative cash strategy would need to be developed - and cash would need to be printed somewhere.
In the spirit of solidarity (though there seems little enough of that particular tonic to go around these days), the ECB should consider a group de-merger - Greece, Ireland, Portugal, and even Spain could leave the Euro concurrently. This would be a far more structural adjustment, and many of the philosohpical proponents of the Euro would see it as a defeat for the project. While it would be presented as a structured measure, and that these countries could adjust and apply for re-admission, the validity of the project would be questioned, and arguments about political unity versus economic unity, and you-can't-have-one-without-the-other type stuff would permeate political discourse.
It seems however that the Eurozone partners can't agree on much these days, and the facilitate or agree such seismic adjustments in the Eurozone would be unthinkable for most. Domestic politics in Germany, Finland and other places has the current group of leaders hamstrung, and in the absence of weighted voting that the Constitution would have brought (and which arguably was essential for the management of the single currency) they are powerless to do most anything.
Which brings us back to Ireland. If the status quo is maintained, and essentially we carry on as we have been, Ireland's debt will remain unservicable, and Ireland - like Greece - will inevitably default. That would be messy, damaging, and - for Ireland - an awful thing. While the markets have priced in high default risk to bond yields, things are being managed now, and in any case there are no new issues to test the market. There are ongoing initiatives to ease the burden on Ireland, and the markets are betting that the Eurozone partners will not permit a sovereign default.
So we will continue to bleed, and bleed, and bleed, and when we have no more blood to give, the ECB will inject some more blood, and we will continue to bleed. However, should the contagion spread from Portugal into Spain, the sovereign debt crisis will become a major currency crisis. There are very many institutions in Spain that have significant investments in Portugal, and so the contagion effect is more possible in this case. A clean alternative for the Eurozone rather than a partial demerger would be an entire re-set; wind the clock back, and party like it's 1999 - back to your old currencies, allow free float to correct economic imbalances, and rebuild the Euro project over the next three to five years. The institutional work has been done; the project in itself was unique anywhere in the world, and hard lessons have been learned. And, in that circumstance, Ireland would be the least of anyone's concerns.
It is now in Ireland's interests to see the Euro fail. It can be argued that there are few whose interests would not be served, save perhaps the money markets and bankers who would see their Euro bonds converted back into constituent country bonds, and who would have previously thought they were investing in Germany, and now holding Irish, Portuguese and Greek paper (as well as a large chunk of German). As a race, and perhaps this is more about men than women, we do not see failure as progress. We find it difficult to grasp that the learnings from failure can make us stronger; perhaps for the individuals at the front line when failure strikes, it is hard to disabuse them of their discontent. With the passing of the Euro, perhaps Europe can again rediscover the joy of diversity, and all of the things that made Europe and Europeans once great. And perhaps as we rediscover ourselves, we can forge ever closer political unity, as a precursor for a stronger economic union in the future.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Is it the end of Fine Gael? The end of the center?
While copious newsprint has been expended on answering whether this weekend's election result heralds the end of Fianna Fáil, a less obvious question has not been asked - is this perhaps the end also of Fine Gael? Theo Dorgan argued on RTE's The Eleventh Hour last Friday night that Fianna Fáil had been dealt with, and now Fine Gael were being given their chance - which they would inevitably spurn - and the true political reshaping of Ireland would happen at the next election. That, he said, was when the New Politics - presumably some kind of evacuation of the center - would begin.
They are an undeniably populist, centrist party, just as Fianna Fáil were. They will act politically, in the interests of power, reckoning that serving power is systemically analogous to serving the people. They are not ideological, and even the Labour party, their putative junior coalition partner, while more clearly defined ideologically as a party of the left, has moved so far from the lunatic fringe (in large part through its ingestion of the Democratic Left) that it is barely recognisable any more as socialist, or left wing. Left leaning is about as much as one could say, and that they spent the last few days of the campaign arguing for balance in the center suggests that they were about as left of center as Fine Gael were right of it.
Centrism, populism, conservatism. It has defined Ireland for generations. The intellectual argument - a la Theo Dorgan - has always had it that the revolution is just around the corner. The inevitability of radicalism (as an aside, Micheal Martin's talk of a radical center is just stupid. He doesn't understand either centrism or radical) had seemed to be upon us after the arms crisis of the 1970s, then again after the GUBU years in the early 1980's, and even in the wake of Bertie Ahern's blatant and unrepentant cronyism during the Celtic Tiger years. In each case, the inner conservative asserted itself in the Irish electorate. A fear of the unknown, a lack of confidence in the nation as a mature entity, a selfishness presented itself to the polling stations across the country and said "well maybe if we nudge it slightly this way it will be OK."
Another commentator during the week mentioned the Clement Atlee comment on returning from America, that they had two parties dominating, one the Republican party much like the Conservative Party, and one the Democrats, much like the Conservative party. Today, I'm not sure the Labour party - or the Liberal Democrats for that matter - are all that different either, as the Tories moved back towards the center from the right under Cameron, and as Labour under Blair simply snaffled the center vacated by the post-Thatcher Tories under Major. In Ireland, The Fianna Fáil / Fine Gael / Labour triptych is much the same.
It is in this light that I am unsure whether we will have any "New Politics". We're not going to lurch to the left, in search of higher taxes so we can fund the less well off. We're too selfish, and - notwithstanding the recession - too well off to countenance such largesse. We're not going to lurch the right and risk alienating our European neighbours with whom we enjoy such a strong trading relationship.
The only way in which any kind of revolution will be born in this country is if its people suddenly become poor. Whether that is a result of sovereign default, currency detatchment from the Euro, or some other Global catastrophe waiting around the corner, I don't know. Until then, People Before Profit will attract transfers in the leafy suburbs from frustrated housewives feeling strangely unfulfilled by the promise of Ireland, who give their number ones to the establishment candidate who will maintain a not unpleasant status quo, and their preferences to socialist candidates in much the same way as they pay €100 for a social event to help the disadvantaged. "These tickets are not cheap," they will protest. But, then, all things are relative.
They are an undeniably populist, centrist party, just as Fianna Fáil were. They will act politically, in the interests of power, reckoning that serving power is systemically analogous to serving the people. They are not ideological, and even the Labour party, their putative junior coalition partner, while more clearly defined ideologically as a party of the left, has moved so far from the lunatic fringe (in large part through its ingestion of the Democratic Left) that it is barely recognisable any more as socialist, or left wing. Left leaning is about as much as one could say, and that they spent the last few days of the campaign arguing for balance in the center suggests that they were about as left of center as Fine Gael were right of it.
Centrism, populism, conservatism. It has defined Ireland for generations. The intellectual argument - a la Theo Dorgan - has always had it that the revolution is just around the corner. The inevitability of radicalism (as an aside, Micheal Martin's talk of a radical center is just stupid. He doesn't understand either centrism or radical) had seemed to be upon us after the arms crisis of the 1970s, then again after the GUBU years in the early 1980's, and even in the wake of Bertie Ahern's blatant and unrepentant cronyism during the Celtic Tiger years. In each case, the inner conservative asserted itself in the Irish electorate. A fear of the unknown, a lack of confidence in the nation as a mature entity, a selfishness presented itself to the polling stations across the country and said "well maybe if we nudge it slightly this way it will be OK."
Another commentator during the week mentioned the Clement Atlee comment on returning from America, that they had two parties dominating, one the Republican party much like the Conservative Party, and one the Democrats, much like the Conservative party. Today, I'm not sure the Labour party - or the Liberal Democrats for that matter - are all that different either, as the Tories moved back towards the center from the right under Cameron, and as Labour under Blair simply snaffled the center vacated by the post-Thatcher Tories under Major. In Ireland, The Fianna Fáil / Fine Gael / Labour triptych is much the same.
It is in this light that I am unsure whether we will have any "New Politics". We're not going to lurch to the left, in search of higher taxes so we can fund the less well off. We're too selfish, and - notwithstanding the recession - too well off to countenance such largesse. We're not going to lurch the right and risk alienating our European neighbours with whom we enjoy such a strong trading relationship.
The only way in which any kind of revolution will be born in this country is if its people suddenly become poor. Whether that is a result of sovereign default, currency detatchment from the Euro, or some other Global catastrophe waiting around the corner, I don't know. Until then, People Before Profit will attract transfers in the leafy suburbs from frustrated housewives feeling strangely unfulfilled by the promise of Ireland, who give their number ones to the establishment candidate who will maintain a not unpleasant status quo, and their preferences to socialist candidates in much the same way as they pay €100 for a social event to help the disadvantaged. "These tickets are not cheap," they will protest. But, then, all things are relative.
Tuesday, February 01, 2011
The Death of Fianna Fáil, and the Unsustainability of the Center
In all modern democracies, there is a problem with the narrative. Most start in some kind of war or other, be it the French Revolution, the American War of Independence and Civil War, and Ireland’s Independence and Civil War. Clausewitz said something to the effect that war is simply politics by other means, and certainly as wars end and politics take over, the war has a great influence on the political structures that emerge.
Once those structures are established, the life or death incantations from the battlefield and other bloodied words become political invocations. Vote Johnny because he saved your sons and daughters from the evil! Vote Mary because she fought for you! You owe your life to Tony! That sort of thing. There is real depth of feeling, strength of purpose, an offence strongly enough felt to fight and die for, be it slavery, dependence, partition, or a massacre. The political organisations that coagulate around the remnants of war develop other identities, along broad socio-political lines. Socialism, capitalism, nationalism, sectarianism, secularism, environmentalism, and religion can differentiate them.
After the War
Invariably, the dominant forces tend to occupy the winners in the war, those who get to dictate the national narrative post-war. They get to decide who the heroes were, what the school text books say, when the days of celebration shall be, and how the society shall be run. In building this national structure, it is a structure intended as a home for that new dominant political movement.
As the memory of war fades into history, and the blood and thunder disappears into the mists of time, politics “normalises”. In order to accommodate the wishes of the majority, the dominant party or parties concede ideological ground to minorities. In reconciling disparate opinion, different ethical, religious and cultural norms, the strength of commitment to a core set of beliefs diminishes. As time goes on, people, parties and movements dilute their zeal, undermine their original purpose, and compromise their very raison d’être.
Fianna Fáil: A Case Study
Thinking about Fianna Fáil, all of this is relevant. Built out of the remains of war, designed as an anti-Brit party, creator of the modern Ireland and synonymous with our politics for almost a century, it has now reached that stage where its identity has been so diluted as to represent nothing at all, and everything. Fianna Fáil became Ireland, for a time, and Ireland became Fianna Fáil. As its authority waned towards the end of the twentieth century, it accepted the inevitability of coalition government, dealing with the leftist labour party, then the Fianna Fáil breakaway right wing party the progressive democrats, then finally the Green party.
Signs of Demise: Coalition
By the time it acknowledged the need for coalition government, Fianna Fáil was already beginning to break up. The Progressive Democrat breakaway represented a group of ideologically driven politicians who wanted in some respects to resurrect the kind of politics that characterised the post-independence Ireland, a driven, thoughtful, productive politics. In some respects they simply wanted to pursue ideas, rather than power and politics as an end in itself. In the British sit-com Yes Minister, when Jim Hacker, a government minister, is asked whether he should reverse a particular policy because it is unpopular in his constituency, he solemnly declares “they are my people, I am their leader – I must follow them!” In a way, this reflected the Fianna Fáil of the 1980s, when the fractious state of the parties in Dáil Eireann reflected a disintegrating consensus about how Ireland should be run. It has yet to be restored.
The 1990’s
Fianna Fáil continued in coalition under Albert Reynolds and Bertie Ahern. There was an admirable consistency to the governments led by Fianna Fáil in the years since 1992. The story, however, was told by the junior partners in government in that time. The Labour party won a massive vote in the Spring Tide in 1992 in what was in essence an anti-Fianna Fáil vote. When they went into coalition with Fianna Fáil, there was a huge backlash, and the Labour vote suffered terribly in 1997. Had Reynolds gone to the park in 1994 when the coalition collapsed, Labour would have been decimated. As it was, they gave up all of their 1992 gains and more in 1997, and only the amalgamation of the Democratic Left managed to allow it a critical mass in opposition.
Hanging On In There
Fianna Fáil continued to attract a large vote, with a seat bonus that was crucial to its maintenance of power. Increasingly, however, they were dependent on older voters, the more atavistic and the middle classes were more clearly divided. The lower classes were deserting them in droves. The first coalition with the Progressive Democrats limped through several crises, but managed to serve the full term, buoyed by the success in the Peace Process, and encouraged by a rising international economic boom that underpinned significant growth in Ireland. In 2002, Ireland voted to maintain the growth in the economy, maintaining Fianna Fáil’s position in power, but decimating the opposition benches by returning record numbers of independents. Local issues – in particular healthcare, and local hospitals – now dominated, as the national position seemed to be of less concern. Fine Gael suffered tremendous losses in that campaign, unable to compete with a successful economy, and – crucially – unable to differentiate itself from Fianna Fáil.
The Peace Process and The Property Thing
It had at this stage become impossible to define what Fianna Fáil stood for. Bertie Ahern had been able to successfully negotiate peace in the six counties primarily because he had no ideology, no attachment one way or the other. He – and Fianna Fáil – was too far removed from the war to empathise too much with the Republican side. Certainly it was now possible for them to objectively discuss peace with the Unionists, and indeed the Unionists saw that too.
After the 2001 financial blip, it became clear that growth that was dependent on the export sector would offer up a hostage to fortune. Ireland would not be in control of its own economy. Thus began a series of measures designed to drive the construction sector into overdrive, in a combination of major national infrastructure development combined with tax incentives for housing development.
The Last Socialist (Except Joe)
In 2004, as people and opinion polls began to become concerned that the country was more like an economy than a society, Ahern famously gathered the great and the good of Fianna Fáil at Inchadonney, and had them listen to people like Seán Healy so that they could become more empathetic, and caring. In an interview for a Sunday newspaper that weekend, he declared him (alongside the inimitable Joe Higgins) to be the only socialist in Dáil Eireann.
There was no cynicism in Ahern’s mis-statement. He was, from a political science point of view, clearly not a socialist. But he was absolutely and unapologetically populist, and at that time when the health service was in difficulty and young people were having difficulty buying their first house, he genuinely set about redistributing the wealth. However, in that redistribution, he did so according to who was more likely to vote for Fianna Fáil, and therefore perpetuate his power. The decentralisation of the civil service was the last great act of Charlie McCreevy, who was summarily dispatched to Brussels for not being socialist enough.
A Party Devoid of Direction
Fianna Fáil had finally become devoid of purpose, save political administration. In that, two things happened. First, they became exposed to crisis – there was no ideology, no plan to fall back on. Second, and perhaps more importantly, they became fodder for the civil service administration. John Bruton’s recent assessment of the Cabinet as the execution arm of the civil service is correct – and unveils a constitutional anomaly where the Dáil is irrelevant, the Seanad an inconvenience, and the country itself disrespected by the politicians who would seek to serve it. In essence, the Cabinet itself has become the fall guy for the Civil Service.
Oblivion on the Horizon?
It is unlikely that Fianna Fáil will be completely decimated at the forthcoming general election. It is difficult to know where the floor is in terms of seats, but to see them winning more than 30 seats (or roughly one per constituency) seems far fetched. There will be constituencies where they will win no seats; and there will be very, very few where they win more than one. Dun Laoighre will be interesting, with a cabinet member and two junior ministers all looking likely to lose their seats – ironically because of their profile; those Fianna Fáil politicians who retain their seats are more likely to be the less well known members, and therefore those less well associated with the party. The Fianna Fáil logos on their election posters will be small indeed.
The movement, however, will be undeniably at an end. Fianna Fáil politicians grasping for the leadership of the party this week have been talking about Fianna Fáil as more than just a party, as a community movement, something belonging to the people, a part of the fabric of the country. That is no longer true.
An Unsustainable Center?
Ultimately, it was Fianna Fáil’s centrism, populism that got found out. For years, people demanded, and people got. Fianna Fáil read the tea leaves, the opinion polls, Liveline and the Sunday Papers, and blithely designed policies around that. In the process, it abdicated an identity of its own. And when crisis hit, and the people said “lead us, where should we go? What should we do?” the party had no answers. When the leadership of the party was in the balance last Thursday evening, members of the party disappeared off to their constituencies nevertheless. The party was irrelevant now.
Was it inevitable? Is populist centrism unsustainable in the face of crisis? Is it inevitable that people in a democracy gravitate to this cobbled-together ideology that is least well suited to serve them in a crisis? Maybe it is. Fine Gael is undeniably now defined as not Fianna Fáil, but it remains centrist, and populist. Labour has succeeded in attracting support because it moved to the center from the radical left. I would be unsurprised if Fine Gael and Labour did not do as well as people think in the upcoming election – independents, radicals will do well. Ireland may well become like Italy. A balkanised political class, and a disaffected populace, but with the added ingredient of an economy in freefall. We need to tread softly now, for we tread on our dreams.
Monday, March 05, 2007
Media as Opiate: Internet Television, Satellite Television, IPTV...
So, here's why it won't work. People like to be told what to watch. People think, occasionally, jeeze, I'd love to see an episode of the Simpsons right now. But the waiting, the channel hopping, the yearning, is all part of the experience. How many people have massive DVD collections, but never watch them? Or have taped movies on VHS or DVD burners or whatever, but won't watch them? They are the same people who will get excited about the fact that the Godfather's on tonight, and sit in and watch it (and the ads), and get popcorn and make an event out of it, even though they have a recording with ads on VHS, an original copy of the movie on VHS, and the box set of the trilogy on DVD. The fact is that people like to be told what to watch. They like how the programming directs, and affirms their lives. The cyclical nature - see on TV, do in real life, watch on TV and smile smugly. Smugness. That's what it's all about. And, like goldfish, how quickly we forget. We see the Devil wears Prada previews on TV. We save up and buy the Prada bag (well, my wife does). Then we watch the movie when it makes it to air, and we feel smug - this movie is telling people to go out and buy what I already own.
Sheep. Stupid, woolly, opiated sheep. Happy Monday.
Friday, March 02, 2007
Europe and America
The rivets are popping, according to The Economist, in the relationship between Europe and America. The article pulls no punches. Labelling the invasion of Iraq 'bloody and incompetent', and abdicating any predilection for equivocation on the rendition scandal, it refers to 'astonishing amnesia and lazy prejudice'. Almost like something I'd write, and certainly not to be expected of the Economist. Well, we all know it's politics, but even this is going a little too far.
Question is, if all of these diabolicalisms are destroying the historical relationship between Europe and America (Sam Huntingdon would no doubt disagree), whither next? Do we re-enter a period of isolationism? That is perfectly impossible. Even China has a massive influence over Europe and America these days, to say nothing of the effect they have on each other. Modern capitalist democracies are economies first, societies second, the theory being that one pays for the infrastructure that delivers the second. Questionable philosophy, perhaps, but nevertheless exposes the nation, the country, the region to disproportionate external influence. It is the way that countries, economies and regions are organised that precludes isolationism. Even DPRK, even with its ideological differentiation, its social alternative, could not resist integration and did the deal. We're all in this together.
So if we can't hide in an isolationist shell, where do we go next? Truth is we have to get on with it, and the further truth is that we have, in fact, been getting on with it for some time.
Question is, if all of these diabolicalisms are destroying the historical relationship between Europe and America (Sam Huntingdon would no doubt disagree), whither next? Do we re-enter a period of isolationism? That is perfectly impossible. Even China has a massive influence over Europe and America these days, to say nothing of the effect they have on each other. Modern capitalist democracies are economies first, societies second, the theory being that one pays for the infrastructure that delivers the second. Questionable philosophy, perhaps, but nevertheless exposes the nation, the country, the region to disproportionate external influence. It is the way that countries, economies and regions are organised that precludes isolationism. Even DPRK, even with its ideological differentiation, its social alternative, could not resist integration and did the deal. We're all in this together.
So if we can't hide in an isolationist shell, where do we go next? Truth is we have to get on with it, and the further truth is that we have, in fact, been getting on with it for some time.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Thursday, February 22, 2007
The Trial of Kareem Amer
It is such a pitiful thing. We may criticise our governments, and chastise our venerable Minister for Justice for his neglect of Human Rights, but we're really not all that badly off.
Kareem Amer, whose real name is Abdel Kareem Soliman, was convicted and sentenced to four years in prison in Egypt yesterday. He was improsoned for three years for 'insulting Islam and inciting sedition', and to one year for insulting President Hosni Mubarak, whom he called a dictator.
Michael McDowell is a mad mullah dictator who oppresses people and should be deposed as Minister for Justice in favour of anyone else. There. I said it.
But there is no courage in rant, no bravery in rage, and no conviction in blogging in a democracy such as the one it is our privilege to inhabit. Sure it's imperfect, but I won't be looking over my shoulder when I pull up outside my house tonight. Even if Michael McDowell is trying to make us think crime is a real issue :)
Kareem Amer, whose real name is Abdel Kareem Soliman, was convicted and sentenced to four years in prison in Egypt yesterday. He was improsoned for three years for 'insulting Islam and inciting sedition', and to one year for insulting President Hosni Mubarak, whom he called a dictator.
Michael McDowell is a mad mullah dictator who oppresses people and should be deposed as Minister for Justice in favour of anyone else. There. I said it.
But there is no courage in rant, no bravery in rage, and no conviction in blogging in a democracy such as the one it is our privilege to inhabit. Sure it's imperfect, but I won't be looking over my shoulder when I pull up outside my house tonight. Even if Michael McDowell is trying to make us think crime is a real issue :)
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Sergeant Arrested and Questioned...
Did I hear this right? On the One O'Clock News? That a Garda has been arrested for sharing information with a non-Garda about a criminal proceeding?
Why don't we wheel out the old Frank Connolly precedent, and put that in the investigating officer's pipe and have him smoke it. If Minister for Justice Michael McDowell can do it, anyone can do it. Right?
Look at this post from the height of the Frank Connolly scandal. Look at this line, quoted by Professor Walsh in the Irish Times:
“The principle of innocence until proven guilty is fundamental to civilisation throughout the world. Leaking documents from a criminal investigation to a particular newspaper – that’s subversion of the State,” Professor Walsh says.
Unless, that is, you happen to be the Minister for Justice.
And while we're at it, let's arrest Sam Smyth as well.
Why don't we wheel out the old Frank Connolly precedent, and put that in the investigating officer's pipe and have him smoke it. If Minister for Justice Michael McDowell can do it, anyone can do it. Right?
Look at this post from the height of the Frank Connolly scandal. Look at this line, quoted by Professor Walsh in the Irish Times:
“The principle of innocence until proven guilty is fundamental to civilisation throughout the world. Leaking documents from a criminal investigation to a particular newspaper – that’s subversion of the State,” Professor Walsh says.
Unless, that is, you happen to be the Minister for Justice.
And while we're at it, let's arrest Sam Smyth as well.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
The Hospital Consultants of Death
Now, this is a little different. Nothing to do with Michael McDowell, and a complement for his party colleague and erstwhile nemesis, Mary Harney. The hospital consultants.
Back in 1999, the consultants voted unanimously in favour of hiring more consultants. In 2004, Harney allegedly drew the battle lines with the consultants because they were bottlenecking the system and not delivering enough into public practice. They threaten industrial action over insurance, and then disciplinary procedures. Further problems arise over the HSE's refusal to offer new 'hybrid contracts', allowing consultants to work as much as they like (pretty much) in private hospitals, reinforcing the two tier system.
Here's the thing. Irish Hospital Consultants run a cartel. They are all earning three, four hundred thousand euros a year, because there are not enough of them, and because they protect their cartel status. And they even have a union - I mean, if you thought the ESB was bad, with average wages of around 80K per annum, these guys are nuts!
In ye olde times, gentlemen became either barristers or consultants, they were the only two professions that were respectable. (Barristers are going to get it in the neck shortly as well, as soon as McDowell gets one in the ear) Consultants don't work for anyone, essentially, they work for themselves. And so do barristers. There is a niceness to it all that is a sickening throwback to empire and class. It does two things - it makes the consultants very, very rich, and it protects their riches from encroachment by the great unwashed. Similarly, that layer of arbitrary protection compromises the health service, and because of their greed people die.
These consultants are earning millions, millions, millions of taxpayers money in most cases, and they are taking the money and letting people die. Brian Cowen knew it, and ran away from what he called 'Angola'. Mary Harney had the cohones to take them on, and has done so. Fair play to her, I hope she bursts them good and proper.
One final spit-in-the-eye from the IHCA - on the website, the following is what they are about:
The Association was established to promote, encourage and support the advancement of the practice of Medicine, in all specialties and areas, and the improvement of the Health Services in Ireland.
What a load of absolute horse shit. There. I did it. The first swear word on my blog. The secondary 'oh, by the way, we also dabble in a bit of this' line is the following:
It also seeks to promote and protect the interests of Medical and Dental hospital consultants in Ireland.
Does it really? Here's the thing. The only thing that this organisation is about is representing their interests, protecting the cartel, assuring their futures and keeping riff-raff out of the profession. And as for the 'practice of Medicine'? Well, their steadfast defence of their cartel has resulted in people dying. Where's your hypocratic oath now? Shoved up the fat arse of Mr. I-Don't-Give-A-Flying-Fiddlers-Fuck-How-Many-People-Die consultant.
More rage. And not even a mention of McDowell, apart from the mention at the start that it had nothing to do with McDowell.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Rugby. A Diversion.
The arguing over Norn Iron and how demonic McDowell actually is makes on depressed. But the rugby energises me.
Looks like we'll have a full complement from which to select for Saturday's game against England at Croke Park. The English are not exactly firing on all cylinders, and notwithstanding Wilkinson's rest weekend, I don't think they're going to have enough. One wag suggested to the Irish Times that whatever about beating the English 19-16, it would be horrendous to lost 19-20; Can I suggest a more futuristic result - 36-11, perhaps.
Garrett Fitzgerald, and David Adams
Two stories from the Irish Times (sub reqd), on Friday and Saturday respectively. The first, David Adams - our enlightened Unionist faux-intellectual doorknob - suggests that the media in the South have not been sufficiently critical of Mary MacAleese (aka El Presidente) when she brings up the pain of her Northern Nationalist upbringing in seeking a point of empathy with the less well off. She probably overstepped the mark when comparing Unionists to Nazis - while there were undoubtedly some similarities, there were a great many things that were unique to Naziism. In any case, the First Lady was pilloried on both sides of the border for that particular pas trop loin. But the instance in question that sent our venerable Mr. Adams into a tizzy was a speech in Scotland where she was addressing some people involved in combatting homelessness, and she again went to the well in search of a personal point of reference, coming up with the time when her family were burned out of their home in Belfast.
Now, there are a series of issues here. First, she can't be prevented from drawing on her personal history to empathise with others, which is what she needs to do in order to do her job. I suspect Mr. Adams would have been equally aghast had she brought up the famine, and how thousands of Irish families were turfed out onto their bare arses, because that was too provocative as well.
Here's the central point - Unionists don't like being reminded about how oppressive and violent and discriminatory and illiberal and racist and snobbish they were in the past. In particular, they don't like being reminded of it by an uppity taigue who managed to escape the appalling conditions that her family was subjected to, rise above it, and be nice to the same people who tried to beat her down.
In the same paper, on the same page, but on a different day, Garrett Fitzgerald blames the IRA for having dampened economic development in the North. Have ranted about this a little over at slugger. Let me go a little further here. There is a time when the establishment says 'can't we just let everything be', and it is wrong to say OK. It is wrong to let everything be, because everything is very much not OK, and the establishment is wrong. Garrett Fitzgerald presents a one dimensional econometric argument that is poorly weighted and deeply imbalanced, and proceeds to infuse the conclusion with personal comment ('I resent', etc.) that has no place.
The man may have had his time, and perhaps that time has passed.
Now, there are a series of issues here. First, she can't be prevented from drawing on her personal history to empathise with others, which is what she needs to do in order to do her job. I suspect Mr. Adams would have been equally aghast had she brought up the famine, and how thousands of Irish families were turfed out onto their bare arses, because that was too provocative as well.
Here's the central point - Unionists don't like being reminded about how oppressive and violent and discriminatory and illiberal and racist and snobbish they were in the past. In particular, they don't like being reminded of it by an uppity taigue who managed to escape the appalling conditions that her family was subjected to, rise above it, and be nice to the same people who tried to beat her down.
In the same paper, on the same page, but on a different day, Garrett Fitzgerald blames the IRA for having dampened economic development in the North. Have ranted about this a little over at slugger. Let me go a little further here. There is a time when the establishment says 'can't we just let everything be', and it is wrong to say OK. It is wrong to let everything be, because everything is very much not OK, and the establishment is wrong. Garrett Fitzgerald presents a one dimensional econometric argument that is poorly weighted and deeply imbalanced, and proceeds to infuse the conclusion with personal comment ('I resent', etc.) that has no place.
The man may have had his time, and perhaps that time has passed.
Friday, February 16, 2007
McDowell: A Picture of Pain
With thanks to Blogorrah for pic 1, and to Skin Fliks for pic 2, we're starting to get enraged about McDowell.Starting? Happened long ago bud.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
McDowell Launches Poster Campaign Lauding Rights Restrictions
Michael McDowell today launched a new poster campaign listing all of the things Michael McDowell has done since becoming Minster for Justice. "In my tenure, I have overseen deep resentment in the Gardaí over undertrained revervists in a vain effort to make up for my own failure in recruiting more Gardaí; massive corruption in the force in Donegal; abusing the rights of Irish citizens in nursing homes; deporting Irish born babies; exponentially increasing the gap between rich and poor; undermining the judicial process by denying Frank Connolly a presumption of innocence; directly compromising the separation of powers by telling the judges what to do when considering bail terms; lowering myself to ego-baiting against Richard Bruton; mis-representing the will of the Irish people, and embarrassing the nation by not buying a wig."
He continued "we look forward to your support in the next general election."
The PD's did nothing, apparently, and if you look at the home page there is a vague reference to health turning the corner, but apart from that it is justice, crime and Michael McDowell.
How the party must hate him - he may well manage to have himself and no one else elected to the Dáil next time out.
He continued "we look forward to your support in the next general election."
The PD's did nothing, apparently, and if you look at the home page there is a vague reference to health turning the corner, but apart from that it is justice, crime and Michael McDowell.
How the party must hate him - he may well manage to have himself and no one else elected to the Dáil next time out.
DPRK, DPRK, DPRK, DPRK
The new 'in' word is DPRK. When conversing with people about the state of the world, an Iraq conversation, say, then toss in a sentence like 'this DPRK thing has me so freaked o
ut.' DPRK, of course, is the acronym for the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. It's troubling because the United States appears to have secured a withdrawal from the nuclear brink by Kim Jong-Il and his communist friends, but t a massive price. Apparently, they're giving them something like a billion tons of oil or something like that. Like, lots of the stuff.
And they are now not officially on the axis of evil any more. Presumably Iraq has also now been removed from the axis, which leaves Iran, really, as a Point of Evil. An evil constructs go, a point really isn't all that bad. I mean, everyone knows that there's evil in the world, and to identify one point of evil as more important or offensive than the next, well, that's almost racist, isn't it?
Now here's the other thing. Bush has consistently referred to two groups in his presidency. The first, the axis of evil, is now a point. The second, the Coalition of the Willing, is decidedly frosty now, but I guess with the Brits still committed to Afghanistan and Iraq, remains a coalition. Question is, should the other countries be put into a box - one, for example, where we could place DPRK. They're certainly not going into the good guys box - the Coalition. Even for a squillion tons of oil I doubt we're going to see Kil Jong-Il's boys taking on Moqtada Al-Sadr any time soon. So I guess we could call the middle ground the Alliance of the Distinctly Average. We're not evil (just like Google), and we're not good either - at least not to the point of invading Iraq (or Iran for that matter - that will probably need a Coalition of the Coerced). We're just kind of OK.
Did anyone mention rendition? Oh no, here we go.
ut.' DPRK, of course, is the acronym for the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. It's troubling because the United States appears to have secured a withdrawal from the nuclear brink by Kim Jong-Il and his communist friends, but t a massive price. Apparently, they're giving them something like a billion tons of oil or something like that. Like, lots of the stuff.And they are now not officially on the axis of evil any more. Presumably Iraq has also now been removed from the axis, which leaves Iran, really, as a Point of Evil. An evil constructs go, a point really isn't all that bad. I mean, everyone knows that there's evil in the world, and to identify one point of evil as more important or offensive than the next, well, that's almost racist, isn't it?
Now here's the other thing. Bush has consistently referred to two groups in his presidency. The first, the axis of evil, is now a point. The second, the Coalition of the Willing, is decidedly frosty now, but I guess with the Brits still committed to Afghanistan and Iraq, remains a coalition. Question is, should the other countries be put into a box - one, for example, where we could place DPRK. They're certainly not going into the good guys box - the Coalition. Even for a squillion tons of oil I doubt we're going to see Kil Jong-Il's boys taking on Moqtada Al-Sadr any time soon. So I guess we could call the middle ground the Alliance of the Distinctly Average. We're not evil (just like Google), and we're not good either - at least not to the point of invading Iraq (or Iran for that matter - that will probably need a Coalition of the Coerced). We're just kind of OK.
Did anyone mention rendition? Oh no, here we go.
Slugger and the Rugby
Slugger O'Toole, our friend up North, has a penchant for stirring things up a little, but one has to admit it's strange the things that stir the soul of the less thuggish element of society (assuming in an entirely elitist kind of way that most blog contributors are at least marginally less malnourished and fractionally better educated than the great unwashed, and therefore capable of rational thought and reasonable dialogue). In this instance, it's the rugby, with its 32 country protestant origins and the symbolism attached
thereto.
Ironies abound in this one. The all-island nature of the game, the 'true' provincial separations and national unification with the oval ball, came about through privilege. Rugby, an English game for the fee-paying schools and young men of the social elite, has always been the protestant game. And because the protestants ran it, the protestants in the North could agree with the protestants in the south how best to run the game. And so we have this clarity of purpose, undimmed by politics, unclouded by cynicism and blind loyalism, that has brought us to a point where we have an extraordinary day out in Croke Park.
If in the six counties GAA is dominated by the Catholic nationalist, and soccer by the protestant loyalist, for so long rugby has been in the preserve of the progressive unionist. Not, of course, the late lamented David Ervine's breed, but rather the gone-but-not-forgotten David Trimble variety. These are ordinary unaspiring pragmatists, the undogmatic and pea-eating middle classes who don't even ask 'why everyone can't just get along' when politics comes up at a dinner party, they rather recoil into themselves and ask whether anyone would like more coffee. These are good people.
Now, there's a quote from Edmund Burke that goes along the lines of 'all that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing.' The implication is that we all have responsibilities that extend beyond ourselves into the broader realms of society; this is altogether true. However, some people are weak, one could perhaps argue cowardly. Whether that is a failing in themselves, or within their culture is not for me to say, but there is a certain amount of that shirk of responsiblity in all of us, and we should therefore not be too quick to judge.
So, back to the rugby. These good people took it upon themselves to organise games across the island, and upon partition chose to ignore politics and acknowledge that the political division of the island could not separate the sporting ambitions of men who had more in common than not. That it has persisted to see the day when rugby is welcomed into Croke Park is indeed encouraging.
But such a skirmish on Slugger. The only organisation on the island with the cohones to push a compromise anthem through, leading the way for others to follow, and it is pilloried. Such demented, enraged, mind-numbingly myopic (an innovative construct, I grant you), and pitiful arguments, occasionally descending into farcical name calling, often boiling over into heated and vitriolic rejection of another man's point, one wonders where it will all end.
One wonders whether the inanity of the subject matter gives space to the intellectual rejectionists - for example, if a Catholic kid is blown up by a Protestant pipe bomb, it is intellectually (or perhaps sensitively) repulsive to use that subject to exercise one's politics. Even arson attacks, as have happened all too often of late - dangerous, potentially deadly acts that everyone needs to condemn.
Yet for a sporting event, the most measured, meek, mild-mannered men come over all tattooed and loyalist. The calm, collected, considerate folk of 'the republican tradition' don the balaclava of indignancy and the kalashnikov of struggle. And they have a set-to.
There is a latent division, something that we all have to recognise, something that we all have to open ourselves to, that needs to be wiped away. I'm not talking about the border, I'm talking about our comfort with ourselves. There is a tribalism that is too exclusive, an identity that is too defensive, on each side that must find solace and reason.
But I guess at least we're only arguing about it, mostly, and not killing each other any more. And maybe robbing the odd bank.
thereto.Ironies abound in this one. The all-island nature of the game, the 'true' provincial separations and national unification with the oval ball, came about through privilege. Rugby, an English game for the fee-paying schools and young men of the social elite, has always been the protestant game. And because the protestants ran it, the protestants in the North could agree with the protestants in the south how best to run the game. And so we have this clarity of purpose, undimmed by politics, unclouded by cynicism and blind loyalism, that has brought us to a point where we have an extraordinary day out in Croke Park.
If in the six counties GAA is dominated by the Catholic nationalist, and soccer by the protestant loyalist, for so long rugby has been in the preserve of the progressive unionist. Not, of course, the late lamented David Ervine's breed, but rather the gone-but-not-forgotten David Trimble variety. These are ordinary unaspiring pragmatists, the undogmatic and pea-eating middle classes who don't even ask 'why everyone can't just get along' when politics comes up at a dinner party, they rather recoil into themselves and ask whether anyone would like more coffee. These are good people.
Now, there's a quote from Edmund Burke that goes along the lines of 'all that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing.' The implication is that we all have responsibilities that extend beyond ourselves into the broader realms of society; this is altogether true. However, some people are weak, one could perhaps argue cowardly. Whether that is a failing in themselves, or within their culture is not for me to say, but there is a certain amount of that shirk of responsiblity in all of us, and we should therefore not be too quick to judge.
So, back to the rugby. These good people took it upon themselves to organise games across the island, and upon partition chose to ignore politics and acknowledge that the political division of the island could not separate the sporting ambitions of men who had more in common than not. That it has persisted to see the day when rugby is welcomed into Croke Park is indeed encouraging.
But such a skirmish on Slugger. The only organisation on the island with the cohones to push a compromise anthem through, leading the way for others to follow, and it is pilloried. Such demented, enraged, mind-numbingly myopic (an innovative construct, I grant you), and pitiful arguments, occasionally descending into farcical name calling, often boiling over into heated and vitriolic rejection of another man's point, one wonders where it will all end.
One wonders whether the inanity of the subject matter gives space to the intellectual rejectionists - for example, if a Catholic kid is blown up by a Protestant pipe bomb, it is intellectually (or perhaps sensitively) repulsive to use that subject to exercise one's politics. Even arson attacks, as have happened all too often of late - dangerous, potentially deadly acts that everyone needs to condemn.
Yet for a sporting event, the most measured, meek, mild-mannered men come over all tattooed and loyalist. The calm, collected, considerate folk of 'the republican tradition' don the balaclava of indignancy and the kalashnikov of struggle. And they have a set-to.
There is a latent division, something that we all have to recognise, something that we all have to open ourselves to, that needs to be wiped away. I'm not talking about the border, I'm talking about our comfort with ourselves. There is a tribalism that is too exclusive, an identity that is too defensive, on each side that must find solace and reason.
But I guess at least we're only arguing about it, mostly, and not killing each other any more. And maybe robbing the odd bank.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
The Dying Town
In the early 1980's, the first impacts of globalisation hit the Cork seaside town of Youghal when Youghal Carpets closed its doors, as the textile business moved to the far east. 
People were aware then that there was competition in textiles, and put it down to experience. What people did not realise was the massive competition in labour which was to follow, empowered by massive changes in technology and travel. So the manufacturing jobs that the government worked hard to secure for Youghal have all gradually disappeared as well. One local TD David Stanton estimates that 2,000 jobs have been lost in Youghal over the past seven years. According to the Census estimates from 2006, Youghal has a population of 6,420.
The litany of closures and announcements is staggering. The most recent announcement at Elba was just the latest, and one of the smallest. What is not seen is the massive damage being done to the town and its people. Small shops are closing. 'For sale' and 'to let' signs are on all of the prime locations around the central Clock Tower. Building work is slowing.
Here's a look at some announcements:
55 jobs - Elba
160 jobs - Artesyn
200 jobs - Eastman Kodak
243 jobs - Technicolour Home Entertainment
86 jobs - Couristan Carpets
The list goes on, and on, and on, and on. And as mentioned above, the part time staff in the shops, the cleaners of these facilities, the people who make the sandwiches for their lunch breaks, it all amounts to a devastating cycle of impoverishment. Some jobs have been created - such as the new Tesco and Lidl, though I suspect that other shops closed down as a result of these behemoths making their presence felt.
A few years ago I tried to get a few people interested in building a marina in the town to attract
tourism and jobs. All I got was a pat on the head and a patronising 'don't call us'. Part of it was because I didn't live there any more. Well, now I'm back. I felt that the first thing to do was to invest myself in the town - I have done this. Now, to plan.
People were aware then that there was competition in textiles, and put it down to experience. What people did not realise was the massive competition in labour which was to follow, empowered by massive changes in technology and travel. So the manufacturing jobs that the government worked hard to secure for Youghal have all gradually disappeared as well. One local TD David Stanton estimates that 2,000 jobs have been lost in Youghal over the past seven years. According to the Census estimates from 2006, Youghal has a population of 6,420.The litany of closures and announcements is staggering. The most recent announcement at Elba was just the latest, and one of the smallest. What is not seen is the massive damage being done to the town and its people. Small shops are closing. 'For sale' and 'to let' signs are on all of the prime locations around the central Clock Tower. Building work is slowing.
Here's a look at some announcements:
55 jobs - Elba
160 jobs - Artesyn
200 jobs - Eastman Kodak
243 jobs - Technicolour Home Entertainment
86 jobs - Couristan Carpets
The list goes on, and on, and on, and on. And as mentioned above, the part time staff in the shops, the cleaners of these facilities, the people who make the sandwiches for their lunch breaks, it all amounts to a devastating cycle of impoverishment. Some jobs have been created - such as the new Tesco and Lidl, though I suspect that other shops closed down as a result of these behemoths making their presence felt.
A few years ago I tried to get a few people interested in building a marina in the town to attract
tourism and jobs. All I got was a pat on the head and a patronising 'don't call us'. Part of it was because I didn't live there any more. Well, now I'm back. I felt that the first thing to do was to invest myself in the town - I have done this. Now, to plan.
Makeover version 1
So, again for posterity, here's a new look.
We're going to stick with this for a little while, and see how we feel.
We're going to stick with this for a little while, and see how we feel.
Raging on McDowell
Again. This time over on irishelection.com.
It's getting old. The election will be over soon though, and he will be defeated.
It's getting old. The election will be over soon though, and he will be defeated.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Makeover on the way
Sheesh, this is an ugly blog. Righto. Time for a change. I have put the elves to work, and newness shall com. for the sake of posterity, I am attaching a series of screenshots so people can see the before and after stuff.
Election Auction!
My old friend Michael McDowell is at it again. Deceit on a grand scale. This morning on morning Ireland he was asked whether he was engaging in auction politics by offering OAP's €300 per week if they were re-elected, in response to Pat Rabbitte's stupefyingly brilliant 2% reduction in the lower rate of tax. You can tell when the government is spooked as first the Tánaiste, and then Brian Cowen, finance minister, get wheeled out, as the latter did on the news at one.
Anyway, back to McDowell. He of course denied the allegation, saying instead that this represented a fair deal to OAP's, a genuine slice of the wealth of the country that tehy were entitled to. The interviewer woefully failed to ask the logical follow-on question: you have been in government for ten years, why did you do nothing about this in all that time? Why have you this Pauline conversion now? (to twist Cowen's barb from the previous Sunday directed at the aforementioned Rabbitte) When exactly did you come to the conclusion that this was an appropriate amount for pensioners to receive, and why, for example, was it not €301 or €299?
This is not just auction politics, it is thoughtless politics. There are no considerations gone into this thing. Do Fianna Fail agree with this? Is this a policy that they share? The PD's don't have a programme for government, nor do they have a pact with Fianna Fail - who, by the way, are resting so hard on their laurels it's just not funny - so they can't implement anything they promise anyway.
McDowell. Makes the blood boil. A supposedly intelligent man, but devoid of idealism, of vision; a man poisoned by power, a galloping fool of a politician who will do well to hold onto his own seat, let alone the power of his party.
And as for the Fianna Fáil point - of all grassroots activists, Fianna Fáil have the oldest. They are getting older. They are more attached to the civil war than any other party, Fine Gael included - Fine Gael pretty much rid themselves of that baggage in that near existential moment in 2002 where people talked pompously of an opposition defeating themselves, an opposition voted out, and all that rubbish. Fianna Fáil after the Bertie money scandal have an air of superiority that is unparrallelled, an air of confidence, complacency and abject derision for the dissenting voice that makes one want to wretch. For God and Ireland I hope they get dumped into the ditches.
Maybe we can get better at the rugby then too, and have a Taoiseach who speaks English. I haven't forgotten his spelling mistake either - one careless, two unforgivable, and for a sitting, non-senile taoiseach? Capital.
Anyway, back to McDowell. He of course denied the allegation, saying instead that this represented a fair deal to OAP's, a genuine slice of the wealth of the country that tehy were entitled to. The interviewer woefully failed to ask the logical follow-on question: you have been in government for ten years, why did you do nothing about this in all that time? Why have you this Pauline conversion now? (to twist Cowen's barb from the previous Sunday directed at the aforementioned Rabbitte) When exactly did you come to the conclusion that this was an appropriate amount for pensioners to receive, and why, for example, was it not €301 or €299?
This is not just auction politics, it is thoughtless politics. There are no considerations gone into this thing. Do Fianna Fail agree with this? Is this a policy that they share? The PD's don't have a programme for government, nor do they have a pact with Fianna Fail - who, by the way, are resting so hard on their laurels it's just not funny - so they can't implement anything they promise anyway.
McDowell. Makes the blood boil. A supposedly intelligent man, but devoid of idealism, of vision; a man poisoned by power, a galloping fool of a politician who will do well to hold onto his own seat, let alone the power of his party.
And as for the Fianna Fáil point - of all grassroots activists, Fianna Fáil have the oldest. They are getting older. They are more attached to the civil war than any other party, Fine Gael included - Fine Gael pretty much rid themselves of that baggage in that near existential moment in 2002 where people talked pompously of an opposition defeating themselves, an opposition voted out, and all that rubbish. Fianna Fáil after the Bertie money scandal have an air of superiority that is unparrallelled, an air of confidence, complacency and abject derision for the dissenting voice that makes one want to wretch. For God and Ireland I hope they get dumped into the ditches.
Maybe we can get better at the rugby then too, and have a Taoiseach who speaks English. I haven't forgotten his spelling mistake either - one careless, two unforgivable, and for a sitting, non-senile taoiseach? Capital.
The Rugby
Bitter. And twisted. 90 seconds to go, I mean, how cruel was that. And to think they had come so far! Not just in terms of the game, resurrecting themselves as they did from that infernal slump that has infected every start in every game of any significance for the past two seasons. But in terms of their development from a group of undoubtedly talented footballers in 2000 to a seasoned, hard team of winners, moving beyond nearly men with a Heineken Cup win against Biarritz that they owned - notwithstanding a poor start. They had come so far, and needed to beat France to prove that they had moved to the next level. They have not. Pretenders. Will they beat England? Maybe. Otherwise, dammit, this team may have peaked in the Autumn of 2006 instead of in the Autumn of 2007. Maybe, just maybe, it's a ruse by Eddie O'Sullivan. Maybe it's all about the WRC for him. Maybe it's a plan to get at the French, to bestow upon all comers a false sense of security. Maybe we'll beat the hun 48-0 on Saturday week. Or maybe we just came up short. Again.
Friday, February 09, 2007
Job Cuts
There's a worrying trend beginning to emerge. Motorola, Thompson Scientific and now Pfizer are cutting jobs in Ireland, and rebalancing the labour cost in emerging economies. It's globalisation, and that's fine. However, these are skilled jobs. What started to happen thirty odd years ago in unskilled labour is now hitting its first generational cycle. The money that was injected into the economies of the far east and other developing economies has now educated and upskilled the follow-on generation, and they are now seeking to take skilled labour from mature economies. India is generating one million engineers per annum. One million. That is colossal. If Europe is generating 100,000 engineers per annum then it is doing exceedingly well.
What does that leave us with? Hard to say. The jobs can't all go. Can they?
What does that leave us with? Hard to say. The jobs can't all go. Can they?
Thursday, February 08, 2007
The Health Crisis. Again.
Repeat after me - 'This Is Not Angola'. And again. Brian Cowan famously referred to the Irish Health system as Angola, and I thought it would be interesting to examine the state of the Angolan Health system. Admittedly, it's not great. However, a USAid report in 2005 noted that Angola '...is an enormously wealthy country. Angola is the world’s fourth largest producer of rough diamonds; diamonds represent 95 percent of non-oil exports, and production is expected to reach $1billion in 2005, with Angola’s diamond deposits still largely untapped (Partnership Africa Canada 2004). More importantly, Angola is the second largest oil producer in SSA and the seventh-largest supplier to the United States. Production currently stands at 1.6 million barrels per day and is rising. Oil accounts for almost half of gross domestic product (GDP) and about 75 percent of government revenue.'
So it's a rich country, who's health system is rubbish. sound familiar?
So it's a rich country, who's health system is rubbish. sound familiar?
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
SStub: The Forest (A Societal Parable)
The forest was almost square, a diamond to the poles. On its north-eastern border, a small gently sweeping stream and the prevailing wind kept its edge tidy. The trees that lined the water's inside edge were old and withering in some branches, various white and bristlecone pines in an uneven set. At the base of the trees, the clumped scrub and some farming debris completed the demarcation. On the southern ends of the forest, an unnatural straightness trimmed the treeline, a monument to industrial revolution efficiencies. The forest had long ago spread deep beyond its current borders, but the value of the land required its curtailment. Each year more seemed to retreat, and only some latent nostalgia perhaps could account for its remaining presence.
There were three farmers at its edge. The land itself was owned, in the modern parlance, by the farmer to the south. Two farmers each owned the north-western and north-eastern edges. The farmer who owned the forest and the land to the south was of wealthy and prosperous stock, and a man of no small importance in the county. On the north eastern fringe, a relatively poor farmer supplemented farm income from a small amount of stream fishing, while on the north west a large farm had over the years been complicated and compromised by its pastors' undue attention to whiskey.
Inside the forest a small badger colony sheltered from the tractors, jeeps and guns of its neighbours. Some protection was afforded by local mythology about the forest. A handful of red squirrels, an assortment of birds, and an interloper gray squirrel called the forest home. There were no great trees left, no towering oaks or shimmering beech. Only the hardy pines could linger in what had become a dangerous place for trees.
The carpet of needles was soft and warm for the animals most of the year. Most of them ventured out on occasion, but endeavoured to remain within the confines of the trees whenever possible. There was limited sustenance, particularly for the badgers, and their number had been reducing over time.
There were three farmers at its edge. The land itself was owned, in the modern parlance, by the farmer to the south. Two farmers each owned the north-western and north-eastern edges. The farmer who owned the forest and the land to the south was of wealthy and prosperous stock, and a man of no small importance in the county. On the north eastern fringe, a relatively poor farmer supplemented farm income from a small amount of stream fishing, while on the north west a large farm had over the years been complicated and compromised by its pastors' undue attention to whiskey.
Inside the forest a small badger colony sheltered from the tractors, jeeps and guns of its neighbours. Some protection was afforded by local mythology about the forest. A handful of red squirrels, an assortment of birds, and an interloper gray squirrel called the forest home. There were no great trees left, no towering oaks or shimmering beech. Only the hardy pines could linger in what had become a dangerous place for trees.
The carpet of needles was soft and warm for the animals most of the year. Most of them ventured out on occasion, but endeavoured to remain within the confines of the trees whenever possible. There was limited sustenance, particularly for the badgers, and their number had been reducing over time.
Friday, September 08, 2006
Childe McDowell To The Dark Tower Came...
My first thought was, he lied in every wordAh, Michael McDowell. Doyen of the right, devil of the left, the guy who gives even lawyers a bad name. His ascension draws closer, as one senses does the next general election. Calling him a hoary cripple might be stretching it in our new politically correct times, but political correctness and Michael McDowell are indeed strange bedfellows.
That hoary cripple, with malicious eye
Askance to watch the working of his lie
On mine, and mouth scarce able to afford
Suppression of the glee that pursed and scored
Its edge, at one more victim gained thereby.
One muses on the outcome. As Mary (one more victim gained thereby, perhaps) Harney recedes into the quiet reflection on a career long run, Michael snipes and weaves, ducks and dives, prognosticates and elucidates on his distinguished career and celebrated cerebrum, to which all others are knee-high. Bertie began fighting his corner early. No tolerance of disunity. Commitent to stable government. No tomfoolery. did he mean no McDowell?
Informed sources close to the government (one has to laugh) tell us that Harney reversed her decision in June to step aside as a result of arm twisting claiming that McDowell's coronation would bring down the government. Whatever Bertie and Dermot Ahern may say publicly, the newly empowered backbenchers within Fianna Fail will have their cabinet colleagues' commitment of the summer severely tested should McDowell take the Tanaiste's post. Perhaps, in a bizarre twist, it shall not be the PD's who withdraw support from the government, but, rather, the backbenchers of Fianna Fail? It is about their seats, after all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)