It was announced last night SDLP leader Mark Durkan is to step down as leader of the party after the Westminster election. Part of the reasons given for his departure is the MP for Foyle's belief in the need to represent his constiuents at Westminster, especially in light of expected cuts to Northern Ireland's bloc grant should (as most pundits predict) a Tory government take power after June.
Mr Durkan's decision comes after much discussion about dual mandates during the expenses scandal earlier in the year and as former party collegue Brid Rodgers commented, shows Mr Durkan has 'put his money where his mouth is,' in regard to this issue of double jobbing.
Whilst I am sad to hear this nationalist leader is standing down from our regional parliament, I admire the decision to honour his opposition to the existence of multiple jobs for politicians.
It was and is one of many issues that the wider public, most of whom are not normally concerned about politics, are rightly incensed about.
It is obvious the expenses scandal has stoked an interest in the way we are governed to a greater degree than ever before and has brought local and national governance to the fore of the wider public's thinking.
I hope this engagement in political issues will continue. It was with this in mind that I was happy to hear of the 'East Belfast Speaks Out,' event to be staged on the Holywood Road on the 30th September.
Taking example from the highly successful 'West Belfast Talks Back,' events, it is one of the first community/panellist events I have heard of in the east of the city and in a predominantly unionist community.
As followers of this blog will know, I am very much a champion of community dialogue and am excited at the prospect of hearing the issues voiced at this event.
It seems to me the time is ripe for community activists to really start to have an effect on local politicians and not only in the vacuous way that so often appears to be the case in the run up to election time where polticians promise the world and when elected suffer from memory loss on promises made to constituents.
The prospect of a change of national government, changing of local council structure, prospective changes to government in Stormont (even if it is only on Peter Robinson's wish list at the minute), party link-ups of the UUP and the Conservative party and potentially SDLP and Fianna Fail, and the obvious party political shifts which will accompany an end to dual mandates (as Mark Durkan's resignation shows), prove it is very much a fluid time in politics in Northern Ireland.
With the economic climate sharpening our focus like never before, community dialogue like this event in East Belfast can only be a good thing.
For the cynics out there who would refer to this event as merely a 'talking shop,' I need not remind you of the importance of 'talking shops,' in the peace process that have got us this far.
With the dissident republican threat seemingly on the increase it is discussion of common grounds that is necessary for social cohesion and collective actions to address certian issues rather than the headlining making antics of some of our more ruthless local representatives.
It seems this message has filtered through to the folks on the hill with a Northern Ireland Assembly roadshow due to start tomorrow and continue to various locations throughout the province.
Billed as a chance to 'talk about the working of the Assembly and the issues that matter to you,' it is yet again a chance for the great and the good in Northern Ireland to put the politicians to the test or as is more likely the case - have a good rant.
Even if it is just giving your local councillor a ear-bashing, or even commending them on good work they have done in your area, it is the feedback that is essential and the creation of a climate of on-going and constructive dialogue the ultimate goal.
There is nothing that I hate more than people complaining about certain circumstances yet not having the guile to engage properly with the people who can change things. So be part of the heard.
Monday, 21 September 2009
Monday, 7 September 2009
Panel beating
It has been revealed that the BBC is to invite a member of the British National Party (BNP) to be a panel member in the upcoming edition of 'Question Time.'
According to various sources Labour politcians may stage a campaign of protest at the decision, based on their belief that having a BNP member on a show such as 'Question Time' may give the BNP's views an appearance of legitmacy and give the right wing nationalist party unnecessary and dangerous publicity.
The BBC must be congratulated for taking it's public service role seriously and taking the step of reflecting all strands of society. I have to say however, that if reports of this proposed protest are true it is both patronising and more than smacks of Labour control freakery.
The fact is that at last June's European election the BNP won 2 seats in England and 6% of the popular vote. Regardless of what the party's views are, such a result means they have a mandate - their views, while not to everyone's taste, have been shown to represent a section of British society and as such are legitimate.
Viewed in this light it seems absurd that some refuse to acknowledge this.
Unpalatable mandates are no strangers to Northern Ireland with the post Hunger-strike electoral success of Sinn Fein posing many difficult questions, both for Northern Irish politicians and media who had to deal with this new legitimate electoral force.
Section 31 in the Republic of Ireland which banned the broadcasting of republican's voices (but not their words) was one measure taken to deal with electoral republicanism. Although the meaure was dropped in 1993, to this day there are still members of some political party's who refuse to sit next to Sinn Fein representatives on certain discussion panel shows.
I am not for one minute suggesting that Sinn Fein policy is comparable to the rhetorical racist nonsense espoused by Nick Griffin and his fellow BNP'ers, but the principle has to be the same.
In a mature democracy where free and fair elections are the backbone of society, the choice of political representative made by the electorate must be respected, regardless of the difficulites this may create.
It was a problem faced in Northern Ireland many years ago, especially at a time when Sinn Fein where openly pursuing their policy of a ballot box in one hand and an armalite in the other. The tactical use of electoralism was irrelevant, it was the fact they had elected representatives that had to respected.
Such respect, however difficult, has to be afforded to the BNP as well even if the desired result in doing so is different.
No-one believes for one second that BNP policy should be allowed to expand more than it has. Their policies on immigration, employment and race are morally repugnant and dangerous to the intellectually vulnerable in our society. At a time of economic crisis, their base nationalism must not be allowed to penetrate the mainstream consciousness of the UK working classes anymore than it has, nor to pursuade a wider audience.
Banning them from prime time television is not the way to do this. We live in a world of 24/7 media and technology. If people want to read about the BNP, they'll find a way to, and not necessarily from responsible and objective sources.
The only way to tackle the BNP's growing popularity is to face them head on in a neutral environment and debate the issues.
If the government has any faith in the people it claims to the serve the interests of, it must trust them to make valued judgements on these issues. To do this, government ministers and opposition members must take the BNP members task in a televisual debate and expose their message for what it is.
Only in allowing the people to see the BNP's message being decisively dissected and beaten as part of the same panel can the growing tide of ring wing sentiment such as that of the BNP be stemmed and defeated.
According to various sources Labour politcians may stage a campaign of protest at the decision, based on their belief that having a BNP member on a show such as 'Question Time' may give the BNP's views an appearance of legitmacy and give the right wing nationalist party unnecessary and dangerous publicity.
The BBC must be congratulated for taking it's public service role seriously and taking the step of reflecting all strands of society. I have to say however, that if reports of this proposed protest are true it is both patronising and more than smacks of Labour control freakery.
The fact is that at last June's European election the BNP won 2 seats in England and 6% of the popular vote. Regardless of what the party's views are, such a result means they have a mandate - their views, while not to everyone's taste, have been shown to represent a section of British society and as such are legitimate.
Viewed in this light it seems absurd that some refuse to acknowledge this.
Unpalatable mandates are no strangers to Northern Ireland with the post Hunger-strike electoral success of Sinn Fein posing many difficult questions, both for Northern Irish politicians and media who had to deal with this new legitimate electoral force.
Section 31 in the Republic of Ireland which banned the broadcasting of republican's voices (but not their words) was one measure taken to deal with electoral republicanism. Although the meaure was dropped in 1993, to this day there are still members of some political party's who refuse to sit next to Sinn Fein representatives on certain discussion panel shows.
I am not for one minute suggesting that Sinn Fein policy is comparable to the rhetorical racist nonsense espoused by Nick Griffin and his fellow BNP'ers, but the principle has to be the same.
In a mature democracy where free and fair elections are the backbone of society, the choice of political representative made by the electorate must be respected, regardless of the difficulites this may create.
It was a problem faced in Northern Ireland many years ago, especially at a time when Sinn Fein where openly pursuing their policy of a ballot box in one hand and an armalite in the other. The tactical use of electoralism was irrelevant, it was the fact they had elected representatives that had to respected.
Such respect, however difficult, has to be afforded to the BNP as well even if the desired result in doing so is different.
No-one believes for one second that BNP policy should be allowed to expand more than it has. Their policies on immigration, employment and race are morally repugnant and dangerous to the intellectually vulnerable in our society. At a time of economic crisis, their base nationalism must not be allowed to penetrate the mainstream consciousness of the UK working classes anymore than it has, nor to pursuade a wider audience.
Banning them from prime time television is not the way to do this. We live in a world of 24/7 media and technology. If people want to read about the BNP, they'll find a way to, and not necessarily from responsible and objective sources.
The only way to tackle the BNP's growing popularity is to face them head on in a neutral environment and debate the issues.
If the government has any faith in the people it claims to the serve the interests of, it must trust them to make valued judgements on these issues. To do this, government ministers and opposition members must take the BNP members task in a televisual debate and expose their message for what it is.
Only in allowing the people to see the BNP's message being decisively dissected and beaten as part of the same panel can the growing tide of ring wing sentiment such as that of the BNP be stemmed and defeated.
Friday, 4 September 2009
A freudian slip?
So after much wrangling and debate a new Victims' Forum has been established by the Commission for Victims and Survivors.
The new forum will be made up of 30 members, most of whom have been directly affected by the Troubles.
It has been said that the choice of an hotel in Scotland was because none in Northern Ireland had enough wheelchair access to accommodate the group - a reminder of the physical scars of our past - however it will be the deeper emotional scars that will prove to be the biggest hurdle.
I have to say I have mixed feelings about this new forum.
On the one hand I wholeheartedly support the idea of discussion and dialogue between people affected most by the Troubles but their terms of reference give me a sense of deja vu.
According to reports the new forum is to discuss, among other things, the thorny issue of defining a 'victim,' and the wider issue of how to deal with the legacy of the Troubles more generally.
It was only a few months ago that the much anticipated Eames Bradley report was delivered to a tense audience in the Europa hotel. After much speculation over what their report would contain (and an unfortunate leak of some of it's proposals, an issue I have blogged on previously ) the report's recommendations have been silenced by the often louder voices of recrimination emanating from the victims sector.
The criticism centred around their proposals for a payment to victims which was always going to be controversial. However, the fact the Eames Bradley report has floundered significantly under the weight of criticism over this now defunct proposal was surprising, with the unfair result of diverting attention away from other proposals such as their own attempt at defining a 'victim.'
Recent revelations that one of the Victims' Commissioners made private overtures of support of the victims' payments, only to distance themselves from the proposal when the sea of public opinion had been tested unfavourably, is disheartening.
The politicisation of this area, failure of political leadership and lack of support from certain sections as the example above demonstrates, has blighted the Eames Bradley report. In failing to navigate their way through the politics of the situation, it seems to me various poison chalices have simply been passed from Eames Bradley to this new Forum. Same game, different players.
According to Freud the definition of stupidity is repeating the same action and expecting a different result. The questions aren't changing but are simply being passed to someone else to find a miracle answer acceptable to all.
I'm not arguing that the establishment of the Forum is stupid, but this has to be the last roll of the dice. The issues have to be tackled head on, it is not a clean slate being aimed for but the attainment of a wider understanding.
But there are differences this time around. Establishing a Forum to discuss these issues rather than a small (albeit well informed and consultative grouping) is prima facie the better route to go down to obtain a wider understanding.
In somes ways it is even the natural progression, with Eames and Bradley broaching the area and now those with first hand knowledge and experience of the issues in question working through the detail.
However as always, the devil is in such detail. For a constructive dialogue to take place, those involved will need to remove any stereotypes in their mind and thoroughly challenge their own interpretation of certain events and the Troubles generally. It will be without question the hardest part of discussions. It can also be the most rewarding.
Eames and Bradley knew this and often made the case for a Victims' Forum. The fact it has come to fruition shows their courageous and substantial report has not been lost in it's entirety, a fact I take solace from, despite any sense of repitition I feel there may be in the remit set for Eames and Bradley and this new Victims' Forum.
And so it is hoped this group at a Scottish hotel in the near future can begin a long road with the hope of arriving at some reciprocity and, in doing so set frameworks for wider society.
Realpolitik has blighted the Eames Bradley report and the many attempts to deal with incidents in the Troubles. In learning the still raw lessons from Eames Bradley and altering the handling of the wider issue by both the media and politicans, one can only hope different conditions will be created to allow a fluid discussion of ideals, experiences, and ongoing problems. This the only way the knots of our past can be untangled.
We need to take on board Freud's belief and alter the way we deal with the issue in order to at last obtain a successful result.
The new forum will be made up of 30 members, most of whom have been directly affected by the Troubles.
It has been said that the choice of an hotel in Scotland was because none in Northern Ireland had enough wheelchair access to accommodate the group - a reminder of the physical scars of our past - however it will be the deeper emotional scars that will prove to be the biggest hurdle.
I have to say I have mixed feelings about this new forum.
On the one hand I wholeheartedly support the idea of discussion and dialogue between people affected most by the Troubles but their terms of reference give me a sense of deja vu.
According to reports the new forum is to discuss, among other things, the thorny issue of defining a 'victim,' and the wider issue of how to deal with the legacy of the Troubles more generally.
It was only a few months ago that the much anticipated Eames Bradley report was delivered to a tense audience in the Europa hotel. After much speculation over what their report would contain (and an unfortunate leak of some of it's proposals, an issue I have blogged on previously ) the report's recommendations have been silenced by the often louder voices of recrimination emanating from the victims sector.
The criticism centred around their proposals for a payment to victims which was always going to be controversial. However, the fact the Eames Bradley report has floundered significantly under the weight of criticism over this now defunct proposal was surprising, with the unfair result of diverting attention away from other proposals such as their own attempt at defining a 'victim.'
Recent revelations that one of the Victims' Commissioners made private overtures of support of the victims' payments, only to distance themselves from the proposal when the sea of public opinion had been tested unfavourably, is disheartening.
The politicisation of this area, failure of political leadership and lack of support from certain sections as the example above demonstrates, has blighted the Eames Bradley report. In failing to navigate their way through the politics of the situation, it seems to me various poison chalices have simply been passed from Eames Bradley to this new Forum. Same game, different players.
According to Freud the definition of stupidity is repeating the same action and expecting a different result. The questions aren't changing but are simply being passed to someone else to find a miracle answer acceptable to all.
I'm not arguing that the establishment of the Forum is stupid, but this has to be the last roll of the dice. The issues have to be tackled head on, it is not a clean slate being aimed for but the attainment of a wider understanding.
But there are differences this time around. Establishing a Forum to discuss these issues rather than a small (albeit well informed and consultative grouping) is prima facie the better route to go down to obtain a wider understanding.
In somes ways it is even the natural progression, with Eames and Bradley broaching the area and now those with first hand knowledge and experience of the issues in question working through the detail.
However as always, the devil is in such detail. For a constructive dialogue to take place, those involved will need to remove any stereotypes in their mind and thoroughly challenge their own interpretation of certain events and the Troubles generally. It will be without question the hardest part of discussions. It can also be the most rewarding.
Eames and Bradley knew this and often made the case for a Victims' Forum. The fact it has come to fruition shows their courageous and substantial report has not been lost in it's entirety, a fact I take solace from, despite any sense of repitition I feel there may be in the remit set for Eames and Bradley and this new Victims' Forum.
And so it is hoped this group at a Scottish hotel in the near future can begin a long road with the hope of arriving at some reciprocity and, in doing so set frameworks for wider society.
Realpolitik has blighted the Eames Bradley report and the many attempts to deal with incidents in the Troubles. In learning the still raw lessons from Eames Bradley and altering the handling of the wider issue by both the media and politicans, one can only hope different conditions will be created to allow a fluid discussion of ideals, experiences, and ongoing problems. This the only way the knots of our past can be untangled.
We need to take on board Freud's belief and alter the way we deal with the issue in order to at last obtain a successful result.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)