Kingmakers or easy meat?

Well - isn't it exciting?  One minute Nick Clegg looks like he's going to fall into the arms of David Cameron, the next he's heading for the manly embrace of, er, um,  A N Other. Alas poor Gordon, we didn't have time to know him well. Ian Paisley figured that as a son of the manse, Gord would be sympathetic to fellow Presbyterians here in the North.  Mmm.  He should have tried telling that to the Presbyterian Mutual Fund people.

Anyway we are, as they say, where we are - with the possibility that the MPs from the North will form a vital part of a coalition mainly made up of Labour and the Lib Dems. You can almost hear Maggie Ritchie  getting her best red frock from the wardrobe and her best debating-society speech for delivery shortly after swearing fealty to Queen Elizabeth II.  But if the baker's dozen from here are key to the formation of the next British government, have Sinn Féin shot themselves in the foot (if that's the metaphor I want) by abstaining? Are they outside the loop?

Well yes, they're certainly outside the physical loop - they don't go into the debating chamber of the House of Commons. Does that mean they don't count? It does - they won't help form the numbers that would put the Lib-Lab group over the majority line. But it'd be a mistake to see the baker's dozen as wielding massive influence, or even teensy-weensy influence.

Supposing a coalition of Lib-Lab-Scots-Welsh-Irish is formed. And suppose the baker's dozen from here  - or some of them - decide they don't like something - say, the cuts planned for here - and they pull out and the whole edifice collapses and there's another general election. That's not going to endear the North's representatives to the Brits of whatever political stripe. It won't do anything for the state of affairs here  either - the government that gets elected next time will be mad as hell at the North and will have the support of the British people in putting the boot into this sad little corner.

Don't think our politicians haven't figured this out - they're not that stupid. If they go into coalition with the Lib Dems and Labour  - IF  - and by the time you read this,  the Lib Dems may have gone scurryring back into the clammy Cameron embrace - they  will be prisoners in the cage created by themselves. Incidentally, the people from here least likely to break out of any coalition are the DUPers.  Why? Because the last thing they want is to bring to the forefront a thought that continually lurks at the back of the British electorate's mind: what in God's name are we doing, paying £8 billion in subsidies to this bunch of Irish nutters?

Who's on next?

There is one hot topic bubbling beneath the surface of unionism this week, and that is, who’s going to replace Peter Robinson as DUP leader when, as inevitably he will, he steps/ is pushed down. It’s an important question because though the Robinson defeat in East Belfast was a catastrophe for the party and their share of the vote in several other constituencies went down, the party still returned eight MPs,  three more than their Sinn Féin opponents.

I was talking to two unionists  - neither DUP people  - on the morning after the Westminster election and I suggested that Ian Óg Paisley might be the man.  He seemed to be having a hard time restraining himself from breaking into an Irish jig up in North Antrim on election night. Not only had he slain the TUV dragon Jim Allister, not only had he proved he could step into his da’s shoes, but word from East Belfast suggested a coming vacancy for leader of the DUP. Wasn’t this a case, I asked my two unionists, of cometh the hour, cometh the Paisley?  Both were emphatic that Ian Óg would not fit as DUP leader. Too abrasive, too many enemies. Instead, they both said, Arlene Foster would be the DUP choice.

Are they right? Perhaps. But then have a look at some of the predictions by supposed experts prior to the election. Did many of them get it right? I know one eminent nationalist commentator who on the Sunday before the election confidently predicted that Michelle Gildernew would lose  in Fermanagh/South Tyrone and that the only threat to Peter Robinson in East Belfast would come from Trevor Ringland of UCUNF but that Robinson would see him off.

The thing about experts, besides their ability to get it wrong,  is that they have no shame. Remember Steven King? He was a key adviser to David Trimble in the years leading up to the UUP leader’s defeat.  Put bluntly,  he advised his boss into oblivion. So who did we get on election night  TV, dispensing his political wisdom to the nation? Yep – the triple-brass-necked Dr King.  The People Who Know are firm in dismissing the fruit of Dr Paisley’s loins. Don’t bet on it, guys. 

I don't think therefore...

They're going to close the philosophy department at Middlesex university.  It's not making enough money, the head honchos figure.  The fact that, like hospitals or schools, universities aren't in the business of making money doesn't seem to have struck them.  To their credit,  eminent philosophers from all around the world, including Noam Chomsky, have petitioned that the university have a rethink. It is an outstanding philosophy department, they say. If it's closed it will be a loss not just to Britain but  to the rest of Europe and the rest of the world.

I think their argument is a little flawed. It shouldn't matter whether a university has an A* philosophy department or a philosophy department that scrapes a C+ rating.  Any self-respecting university should have a philosophy department - the best they can make it. Why? Because philosophy informs everything in life. It looks at questions like why we're here, what's the best use we can make of our time while we are here, and what makes for a society that encourages good use of limited time. You can't get much more useful questions than that.

There are, of course, people who don't want to encourage thoughts about such things. Like politicians. In fact, in politics the word 'philosophy' has become a dirty word. You must be a a non-philosophical pragmatist  (yes I know it's a contradiction in terms, but that's how the enemies of philosophy talk). And so we have parties whose only boast to the electorate is that they would run things better than the other lot.  With them it's not a question of what the purpose of the machine is, or where it's taking us, or whether it wouldn't be far better to put in place another machine entirely.  It's a question of being able to oil the machine and keep it humming merrily along.

Take political parties in Ireland. What does Fianna Fail exist for, other than grabbing power when the opportunity arises? Or Fine Gael? Or (God help us) Labour?  In the north, the unionist parties declare their allegiance to the crown, and that's about it. Alliance's philosophy is that we should be nicer to each other. And the SDLP  believes that...Well, on TV today, according to Alastair McDonnell, they believe in a united Ireland. Before the election they were pretty quiet about it, but now they are Irish nationalists.  Perhaps the only party in Ireland which can lay claim to a political philosophy is Sinn Fein, who argue for equality,  justice and national unity - in short, republicanism.  For their pains they've been pilloried, denounced as doctrinaire, out-of-touch and lots of other barbs which suggest that anyone with a political philosophy  is  a fascist.


Naturally it's in the interests of those who control society to keep people from thinking about the shape of the state. The more you can convince them that we've arrived at Nirvana, and the only thing now is to keep the big machine chuntering along without too many breakdowns.  That way, you'll have the ideal: willing workers without a thought in their heads.

Asking big questions about the organisation of the state and how that fits in with one's vision of how life in general  - those should be at the heart of  the third-level education given to thousandes of young people here. If we had a philosophically-literate population,  those in power wouldn't get away with the talent-show rubbish that passed for politics in Britain during the leaders' debates and the low-level cunning of their present negotiations.   Here in our own dear statelet,  we might hear less howling when people like the Shinners put forward  for discussion alternative models of government.

Reflections on an election

 

OK, OK - I'm a lazy sod. Also very knackered after staying up all night AND getting up at 5.45 a.m. to go into BBC Radio Ulster. ( Q: Was my journey really necessary? Don't ask.)  A few initial thoughts on the election.

1. The Alliance's capture of East Belfast and Peter Robinson's loss of same was, yes, jaw-dropping, seismic, the-earth-moved, etc.  But while it couldn't happen to a nicer guy,  I don't think that the loss of an already-wounded leader is going to send the DUP down the plug-hole just yet. I mean, any party strong enough to get Willie McCrea elected ....  Likewise,  Naomi Long's election, while an excellent achievement, doesn't mean there's going to be a resurgence of the Alliance Party and that we're all going to start looking for taigs/prods to hug. The event hasn't strengthened the DUP and it has done the Alliance Party loadsagood, but in the end it's one senior personality, not a party transformation. The Alliance Party still have only one MP, the DUP still have eight.

2.  Nationalism had a good outing - but again not something to be flinging greasy caps over the moon about (with the possible exception of Fermanagh/South Tyrone, about which more anon).  The SDLP kept their three seats, Sinn Fein kept their five. The notable things tended to be relatively minor although still important, on the nationalist side:

* Margaret Ritchie's talk about avoiding sectarian pacts is self-serving waffle. Under that definition, the pan-nationalist front that led to the signing of the Good Friday Agreement was a sectarian pact. Has she told John Hume yet?   Maggie refused to give Sinn Fein a clear field in Fermanagh/South Tyrone (i) because she dislikes Sinn Fein more than any unionist she knows; (ii) because she knew it would alienate all those unionist votes she needed to win in South Down. Nothing wrong with that but she should admit as much and stifle the flannel.
*  Ed Moloney and his pals in the northern and southern media did their best to declare Gerry Adams a liar, a murderer,  a cover-upper of child sexual abuse.  He was returned with a majority of over 17,000.  Either the people of West Belfast are singularly devoid of ethical stature or they know a shower of anti-republican fanatics when they see them.
* Gerry Kelly did a good job of slicing Nigel Dodds's 5,000 majority in North Belfast - down this time to 2,200.  It's a bit like having your bum tied to a conveyor belt and a bacon slicer whirring up ahead. It may not be time to start yelling yet, but it shouldn't be long.  Tiochfaidh ar bacon-slicer...
*  Sinn Fein's victory in Fermanagh/South Tyrone was invigorating,  full of suspense and an achievement that ranked alongside Naomi Long's. But Sinn Fein need to keep it in perspective. They're where they were before the election - marking time, essentially, if you don't count their topping the overall percentage poll by half a per cent.  That's good, but until they find a way to tap into the educated, professional nationalist class and run some of these people as their candidates (as well as used them to plan their strategy/write their policies), they're not going to make the major leap they need to really shake things up in this tormented little corner.

That said, it was a so-much-better-than-expected election, both in process and in product. Isn't it lovely to think we'll have another one inside the next six months or so? Yipeee!

The truth? Do tell...

Interesting article in yesterday's Guardian newspaper, titled 'Heads demand fines for false complaints by parents'.  It's about the annual conference of head teachers in Britain, where they're fed up with some parents who have what they call a 'lottery mentality' - they chance their luck that they'll be awarded compensation for accusations they've dreamed up. The heads' union and other teaching associations want fines imposed for this kind of thing. The latest British figures show over 4,000 accusations were made against teachers in 2006/7, mostly claiming assault. One in 20 proved to be true.

Two things worth noting here, I think. One,  who was the idiot who said that teaching was a cushy job with short hours and long holidays? Just coping with youngsters in the classroom today, not to mention the mountain of paperwork every teacher is buried under, makes teaching demanding beyond the understanding of those outside the classroom. Add to that  the lying little creeps and their lying big mas and das who don't mind smearing innocent teachers if they think they can squeeze a bit of money out of it, and you have a job that only the brave can face day after day.  The second thing worth noting is this question: if some children  - 19 out of 20 if we go by the figures -  lie about being physically (or sexually) abused by their teachers,  isn't it equally possible that a lot of children (or ex-children) lie about being physically or sexually abused by Catholic priests?  Or is that one of those things that everyone is afraid to even suggest, in the present witch-hunt atmosphere?

Bums on benches

It's a wonder some of our politicians and a fair number of public commentators have any hands left, they've been wringing them so hard in recent days. The latest occasion for exasperation has been Sinn Fein's commitment to abstentionism. The politicians down Fermanagh/South Tyrone way insist that it's important to oust Michelle Gildernew  because she doesn't represent the people of the constituency, since she's an abstentionist MP. Read that last sentence again, would you? You'll see the sub-text: I detest the woman because she's an abstentionist, not because she's a Shinner. Pardon me a minute while I put the cat in the recovery position - he's just passed out from laughing...


_{That's better. So is Gerry Kelly telling the truth when he says Sinn Fein serve the people of their constituencies fully and that they go to Downing Street when the need arises to press the necessary British buttons? Well, part-truth at least. Sinn Fein do rather well when it comes to squeezing the Brits, especially when they've the DUP by their side. To turn them away would be like saying you hate integrated education. But the reason Sinn Fein abstain from Westminster is not because they've found a better way of negotiating for the North. They do it because they want to send a loud, non-verbal message: we're Irish republicans and we don't believe we should be trucking across to England to take an oath of loyalty to their queen and to sit in their parliament. Every time a Sinn Fein MP is elected, tens of thousands of people are reminded that Ireland should be allowed to govern itself. It's a simple message and goes straight to the heart of what is wrong here. The SDLP, which still claims to be a nationalist party, blurs its message every time one of its MPs swears fealty and becomes a small lost face in a sea of British politicians. Unionist voters know this, which is why they will do all they can not just to elect their agreed unionist in Fermanagh /South Tyrone, but will give their vote to the SDLP in South Down. Paper tigers are much easier to tame.  And if you want a succinct, visual version of what I've stumblingly said here,  check out  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-62fOs2eWw&feature=player_embedded}  

Brown study

If I had a kennel, it would be filled with underdogs.  I'm not sure why, but when I see power being wielded,  I find myself tugged to the side of the person on the receiving end. So while I know it's none of my business who gets elected in Britain, I can't help but feel sympathy for Gordon Brown.  In the  by-now-famous Bigotgate encounter,  Brown is cast as the hypocritical, other-blaming oaf against the defenceless, rough-but-loveable-diamond  Gillian Duffy. The media have raised their sticks and laid into him with a will - what a bully, what a fraud, what contempt for ordinary people, what erratic emotional behaviour!  Well I'm sure the cudgel-swinging critics are faultless rational beings, but I've frequently emerged from encounters, sometimes personal and sometimes professional,  muttering 'What a bastard!' or 'I can't STAND that prat!' or 'I didn't want to talk to that berk in the first place!'  - all this seconds after having smiled and maybe shaken hands with the object of my wrath.  You can't always afford to tell people to their face what you think of them - and anyway, didn't someone say if you knew what your best friends really think of you, you'd cut your throat?  What amazes me is Gordon's restraint. In similar circumstances I'm sure I'd have taken my Anglo-Saxon vocabulary for an exercise run.  So enough of the 'What a ghastly man!' huffing and puffing from the right wing.  You think old Etonians like Cameron or old Westminister boys like Clegg are asking their aides to get the number of that nice council-house person they were speaking to last, so they can call him/her up and arrange to spend an evening together?  Between the toffs who run Britain and the working-class British people a great gulf exists. It's a necessary gulf, otherwise the underdogs would start swarming about and having daily contact with the overdogs,   and all the things that make Britain Britain would be at risk.