sluggerotoole--2020-07-15--Some inside Fianna Fáil need a decent spell in the “total perspective vortex”…

I do wonder where Barry Cowen ’ s head was at when he released a long thread on Twitter attacking his own party leader over his sacking as Agriculture Minister .
Back in the day when Fianna Fáil had public runctions it was about big stuff , like the Arms Trial .
Now , it seems to have escaped their notice that most of their political opponents ( and no doubt large chunks of the media ) are just laughing at how the once might natural party of government has fallen .
A visit to the total perspective vortex is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his first Broadsheet column as an ex-member of the party thinks loyalty is the problem… As Jim O ’ Callaghan TD rightly said on a recent RTÉ Your Politics podcast , most people are well and truly sick of hearing about TDs who were hurt , offended or disappointed not to be made Ministers .
There is nothing new about people feeling let down .
An Taoiseach , Micheál Martin is correct when he observes that all new Taoisigh end up disappointing some people when the appointments are made .
But those Taoisigh @ @ @ @ @ @ @ showed political astuteness in managing the expectations of those expecting preferment .
There was precious little of this skill on show from Martin .
Cowen ’ s grumpy exit was good example of this lack of loyality , as Derek puts it in the local habit of the Liberties .
Without disagreeing , loyalty is far harder to count upon in the blush of success .
And the Fianna Fáil leader has hardly had that .
Last night , as Miriam Lord , Martin acted upon Cowen ’ s refusal to answer further @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caught drunk driving , but driving on a provisional licence , a bane of southern society ) : Micheál Martin knew he couldn ’ t keep defending a minister who wouldn ’ t defend himself in the Dáil .
He also knew , from his experience earlier in the day , that the tenacity of McDonald and Kelly would see them harrying him on the issue at a time he wanted to make his mark for entirely different and far more agreeable reasons .
Government parties lose elections , oppositions don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tiny window of opportunity to being to redeem its reputation as dullards and yesterday men , they will be skinned at the next election and the Republic will move on without them .
Too many of them forget what Martin knows only two well , they are one of three parties in government .
There was no fast track for FF TDs after the party ’ s dismal showing in February and that however bad things are now , they can still get much worse .
From a selfishly Northern Irish view , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the southern government since Bertie Ahern stepped down in 2008 .
And the institutions of the Belfast Agreement have been drifting since they were revived in 2007 .
Sad as it may be that Ian Marshall was let go off there ’ s no ignoring the fact that southern political strength in the Seanad had to come before keeping a northern unionist presence in the upper house .
What matters is can he do any actual business with NI .
That just means taking the institutions of the Belfast Agreement seriously… As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also means actually getting on and doing things in the here and now .
Idle talk about border polls puts off the obligation that public representatives might otherwise feel to use the institutions we already have .
Puts me in mind of my young Scots Tory friend who cited Zambia as a case where elected politicians in new democracies sometimes prefer , by far , to debate new constitutional arrangements and how they might be set , than doing any representing .
If Martin is the pluralist his record suggests he is , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inauspicious circumstances and light the way for others to follow .
From the raft of his interviews over the weekend , ‘ the shared island ’ narrative is taking root .
He has , at least , at his shoulder a Green party leader of at least the same pluralist instincts… “ Dáil Éireann – Election of Taoiseach – 27 June 2020 ” by Houses of the Oireachtas is licensed under CC BY

I do wonder where Barry Cowen’s head was at when he released a long thread on Twitter attacking his own party leader over his sacking as Agriculture Minister. Back in the day when Fianna Fáil had public runctions it was about big stuff, like the Arms Trial.
Now, it seems to have escaped their notice that most of their political opponents (and no doubt large chunks of the media) are just laughing at how the once might natural party of government has fallen. A visit to the total perspective vortex is long overdue.
Derek Mooney, in his first Broadsheet column as an ex-member of the party thinks loyalty is the problem…
As Jim O’Callaghan TD rightly said on a recent RTÉ Your Politics podcast, most people are well and truly sick of hearing about TDs who were hurt, offended or disappointed not to be made Ministers. There is nothing new about people feeling let down. An Taoiseach, Micheál Martin is correct when he observes that all new Taoisigh end up disappointing some people when the appointments are made. But those Taoisigh, well most of them, also showed political astuteness in managing the expectations of those expecting preferment. There was precious little of this skill on show from Martin.
Cowen’s grumpy exit was good example of this lack of loyality, as Derek puts it in the local habit of the Liberties. Without disagreeing, loyalty is far harder to count upon in the blush of success. And the Fianna Fáil leader has hardly had that.
Last night, as Miriam Lord, Martin acted upon Cowen’s refusal to answer further for his actions (not just being caught drunk driving, but driving on a provisional licence, a bane of southern society):
Micheál Martin knew he couldn’t keep defending a minister who wouldn’t defend himself in the Dáil. He also knew, from his experience earlier in the day, that the tenacity of McDonald and Kelly would see them harrying him on the issue at a time he wanted to make his mark for entirely different and far more agreeable reasons. He had to take a stand.
Government parties lose elections, oppositions don’t win them. If Martin’s tiny window of opportunity to being to redeem its reputation as dullards and yesterday men, they will be skinned at the next election and the Republic will move on without them.
Too many of them forget what Martin knows only two well, they are one of three parties in government. There was no fast track for FF TDs after the party’s dismal showing in February and that however bad things are now, they can still get much worse.
From a selfishly Northern Irish view, Martin is the first unashamedly pluralist leader of the southern government since Bertie Ahern stepped down in 2008. And the institutions of the Belfast Agreement have been drifting since they were revived in 2007.
Sad as it may be that Ian Marshall was let go off there’s no ignoring the fact that southern political strength in the Seanad had to come before keeping a northern unionist presence in the upper house. What matters is can he do any actual business with NI.
That just means taking the institutions of the Belfast Agreement seriously…
I think the islands-wide dimension (geo-political/transversal) has always been under valued as some kind of amelioration. Instead it is key to a restoration of our emergent complex agency inside and beyond NI. @mickfealty — peterdoran (@pfdoran) July 12, 2020
As Brendan Mulgrew noted on Nolan yesterday it also means actually getting on and doing things in the here and now. Idle talk about border polls puts off the obligation that public representatives might otherwise feel to use the institutions we already have.
Puts me in mind of my young Scots Tory friend who cited Zambia as a case where elected politicians in new democracies sometimes prefer, by far, to debate new constitutional arrangements and how they might be set, than doing any representing.
If Martin is the pluralist his record suggests he is, he needs to show leadership in these inauspicious circumstances and light the way for others to follow. From the raft of his interviews over the weekend, ‘the shared island’ narrative is taking root.
He has, at least, at his shoulder a Green party leader of at least the same pluralist instincts…
Eamon Ryan confirms that the party's NI leader Clare Bailey was behind the decision to change the name of the "united island" unit in the Dept of Taoiseach to a "shared island" unit. It might seem like a minor semantic issue but it was very important, he says — Aiden Corkery (@Aiden_Corkery) July 14, 2020
“Dáil Éireann – Election of Taoiseach – 27 June 2020” by Houses of the Oireachtas is licensed under CC BY


sluggerotoole--2020-07-15--Sex, drugs and the moral soul…

Sex, drugs and the moral soul…

The human desire to alter mood will always be with us and no amount of effort will eradicate it .
National experiments with drug liberalisation are mostly unsuccessful in the long-term in spite of the initial headline-grabbing claims of reduced harm .
Tobacco is a legal drug and where it does not greatly impact mental function it is highly addictive and causes over 2,000 deaths in N. Ireland each year mostly from cancers , heart disease and lung disease .
History gives us some insight into how a compromise 400 years ago awarding tobacco a legal status still brings a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ model for the legalisation of other recreational drugs especially cannabis .
Charles Mann in his excellent book 1493 : How Europe ’ s Discovery of America revolutionised trade , ecology and life , suggests the introduction of tobacco to the Jamestown colony set the template for our social dealings with drugs of addiction .
In October 1611 a resident of the English colony , John Rolf , found that tobacco farming offered commercial survival for his failing colony .
The Virginia Company formed in 1606 was incorporated to establish a viable colony in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ difficult .
The plan was that the Company would produce ; wine , olives and other commercial crops but all failed .
In 1609 a relief ship found Jamestown was almost a ruin .
Rolf , who later became the husband of Pocahontas , smuggled some seeds of Nicotiana tabacum from the island of Trinidad , planted the seeds and in doing so , more or less , started the tobacco industry .
Iain Gately in his equally excellent book La Diva Nicotina ; The story of how tobacco seduced the World , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s tobacco planting .
At that time the moral compass of society was firmly fixed by organised religion .
The religious view on tobacco is confusing as in the old Catholic witticism ; “ Yes , it ’ s a sin to smoke when praying but can it be wrong to say a prayer when smoking ?
” Up to the early 1600s tobacco was used in the medical systems of Europe , China and India and generally didn ’ t meet religious opposition possibly because the Talmud , the Bible and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exposed to tobacco in African settlements adopted it and the Catholic Church , opposed to smoking in church , had no view on smoking in secular life .
Enter King James 1st .
King James hated and loathed tobacco smoking ; his famous Counterblast much quoted to this day is perhaps the first official condemnation of tobacco and , in the modern context , it is understandable that anti-tobacco campaigners assume the king ’ s contempt stemmed from his insight that smoking was bad for health .
This is completely wrong .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ link with ill health and it would be another 350 years before this link was finally established by Richard Doll .
Rather , as Gately points out , James 1st was obsessed with witches and believed that the tobacco was part of witchcraft and therefore an abomination .
Belladonna and Henbane are members of the Solanaceae family of plants ; tobacco also .
James would have been aware that witches used the latter herbs in rituals .
Albert Hoffman of LSD fame , in a book he wrote with others , Plants of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ belladonna and henbane leaves to compound a paste that was then smeared onto the broomsticks shafts that they rode through their bedrooms in a hallucinating flight .
Drug absorption into the body has a long weird history .
A number of commentators support Hoffman ’ s view that witches were more sexually liberal than spiritually evil yet to the late medieval mind these were one and the same .
There is a suggestion that witches were outcast lesbians and their acts of sexual freedom certainly unnerved males who sought to suppress them .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ societies down the ages and individuals who upset this order were outcaste .
James 1st it is known was disgusted by , and perhaps with , the “ sexual act ” which seems to be central to his obsession with witches and his ultimate demonising of tobacco .
King James was , however , singularly unsuccessful in his efforts to stamp out tobacco use but since he was also pragmatic , he did the next best thing , he taxed it .
And here it stays to this day .
Unless we are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us down this road for other recreational drugs and which have the potential to become public health issues .
Photo by geralt is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA

The human desire to alter mood will always be with us and no amount of effort will eradicate it. National experiments with drug liberalisation are mostly unsuccessful in the long-term in spite of the initial headline-grabbing claims of reduced harm. Tobacco is a legal drug and where it does not greatly impact mental function it is highly addictive and causes over 2,000 deaths in N. Ireland each year mostly from cancers, heart disease and lung disease. History gives us some insight into how a compromise 400 years ago awarding tobacco a legal status still brings a heavy price yet it might become the model for the legalisation of other recreational drugs especially cannabis.
Charles Mann in his excellent book 1493: How Europe’s Discovery of America revolutionised trade, ecology and life, suggests the introduction of tobacco to the Jamestown colony set the template for our social dealings with drugs of addiction. In October 1611 a resident of the English colony, John Rolf, found that tobacco farming offered commercial survival for his failing colony. The Virginia Company formed in 1606 was incorporated to establish a viable colony in America something that had previously proved too difficult. The plan was that the Company would produce; wine, olives and other commercial crops but all failed. In 1609 a relief ship found Jamestown was almost a ruin.
Rolf, who later became the husband of Pocahontas, smuggled some seeds of Nicotiana tabacum from the island of Trinidad, planted the seeds and in doing so, more or less, started the tobacco industry.
Iain Gately in his equally excellent book La Diva Nicotina; The story of how tobacco seduced the World, discusses the social meaning of Rolf’s tobacco planting. At that time the moral compass of society was firmly fixed by organised religion. The religious view on tobacco is confusing as in the old Catholic witticism; “Yes, it’s a sin to smoke when praying but can it be wrong to say a prayer when smoking?”
Up to the early 1600s tobacco was used in the medical systems of Europe, China and India and generally didn’t meet religious opposition possibly because the Talmud, the Bible and the Koran omitted to deal it. Muslims exposed to tobacco in African settlements adopted it and the Catholic Church, opposed to smoking in church, had no view on smoking in secular life. Enter King James 1st.
King James hated and loathed tobacco smoking; his famous Counterblast much quoted to this day is perhaps the first official condemnation of tobacco and, in the modern context, it is understandable that anti-tobacco campaigners assume the king’s contempt stemmed from his insight that smoking was bad for health. This is completely wrong. In the early 1600s, there was no link with ill health and it would be another 350 years before this link was finally established by Richard Doll. Rather, as Gately points out, James 1st was obsessed with witches and believed that the tobacco was part of witchcraft and therefore an abomination. Belladonna and Henbane are members of the Solanaceae family of plants; tobacco also. James would have been aware that witches used the latter herbs in rituals. Albert Hoffman of LSD fame, in a book he wrote with others, Plants of the Gods, reports that witches used belladonna and henbane leaves to compound a paste that was then smeared onto the broomsticks shafts that they rode through their bedrooms in a hallucinating flight. Drug absorption into the body has a long weird history.
A number of commentators support Hoffman’s view that witches were more sexually liberal than spiritually evil yet to the late medieval mind these were one and the same. There is a suggestion that witches were outcast lesbians and their acts of sexual freedom certainly unnerved males who sought to suppress them. Male domination is a feature of most societies down the ages and individuals who upset this order were outcaste. James 1st it is known was disgusted by, and perhaps with, the “sexual act” which seems to be central to his obsession with witches and his ultimate demonising of tobacco.
King James was, however, singularly unsuccessful in his efforts to stamp out tobacco use but since he was also pragmatic, he did the next best thing, he taxed it. And here it stays to this day. Unless we are careful the libertarians are likely to lead us down this road for other recreational drugs and which have the potential to become public health issues.
Photo by geralt is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA


sluggerotoole--2020-07-15--#CargoOfBricks 8: Ruth Dudley Edwards on life in Lockdown London and getting “kettled” outside Downi

#CargoOfBricks 8: Ruth Dudley Edwards on life in Lockdown London and getting “kettled” outside Downing Street

Episode Eight of # CargoOfBricks is with the Dublin born , London based commentator on both Irish and British politics , and crime writer .
Initially , Ruth started as a lockdown sceptic , so I asked how she had managed what was probably the oddest period of disruption in our post-war lives , and what changed during the lockdown , for her and for the rest of us… • Although she began defiantly anti lockdown , ‘ when the orders came ’ she quickly complied .
Then , it seemed to her , the world expanded with people who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Covid was , in contrast to her own growing sense of ‘ not knowing ’ and which quickly enveloped most European governments , including the UK and Ireland .
• On her daily walk , she began to learn poetry , starting with Davies ’ classic lines .
Slowing down was the main theme .
In St James ’ Park she became engrossed in the antics of the wildfowl .
In an otherwise empty London , people smiled and became locals often for the first time .
It was a reemergence of community @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ stop and stare ’ .
• The shrillness of the media commentary and her normal life , “ filled with politics , and ‘ now ’ and urgency and rush ” began to drop away .
Newsflows ground their gears in neutral .
Confronted with genuine complexity and not actually knowing , she watched the media get more hysterical and gotcha journalism .
She was drawn to podcasts on bigger and unexpected themes .
She tells us about bumping into the first Black Lives Matter protest in London and the sheer joy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a just cause and reflects on how the lockdown has been stealing our quality of life and storing up mental health .
issues .
So that ’ s that .
See you next week when I will be talking to retired publisher and gentleman of leisure , Barry McIlheney when we ’ ll be talking about his journey from Belfast ’ s punk scene to the centre of London ’ s pop culture .
You can subscribe to Cargo of Bricks , Slugger TV , and our other podcasts on Apple Podcasts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you can also catch up on previous Covid related episodes with the likes of Ian Parsley , Graham Brownlow and Tina McKenzie .

Episode Eight of #CargoOfBricks is with the Dublin born, London based commentator on both Irish and British politics, and crime writer. Initially, Ruth started as a lockdown sceptic, so I asked how she had managed what was probably the oddest period of disruption in our post-war lives, and what changed during the lockdown, for her and for the rest of us…
Powered by RedCircle
In a free-flowing conversation, she talks about…
Although she began defiantly anti lockdown, ‘when the orders came’ she quickly complied. Then, it seemed to her, the world expanded with people who knew exactly what the right answer to Covid was, in contrast to her own growing sense of ‘not knowing’ and which quickly enveloped most European governments, including the UK and Ireland.
On her daily walk, she began to learn poetry, starting with Davies’ classic lines. Slowing down was the main theme. In St James’ Park she became engrossed in the antics of the wildfowl. In an otherwise empty London, people smiled and became locals often for the first time. It was a reemergence of community where life had been too busy to ‘stop and stare’.
The shrillness of the media commentary and her normal life, “filled with politics, and ‘now’ and urgency and rush” began to drop away. Newsflows ground their gears in neutral. Confronted with genuine complexity and not actually knowing, she watched the media get more hysterical and gotcha journalism. She was drawn to podcasts on bigger and unexpected themes.
She tells us about bumping into the first Black Lives Matter protest in London and the sheer joy in the young protestors at being together in a just cause and reflects on how the lockdown has been stealing our quality of life and storing up mental health. issues.
So that’s that. See you next week when I will be talking to retired publisher and gentleman of leisure, Barry McIlheney when we’ll be talking about his journey from Belfast’s punk scene to the centre of London’s pop culture.
You can subscribe to Cargo of Bricks, Slugger TV, and our other podcasts on Apple Podcasts | Google Podcasts or Spotify, where you can also catch up on previous Covid related episodes with the likes of Ian Parsley, Graham Brownlow and Tina McKenzie.


sluggerotoole--2020-07-16--#Angrynomics or how mainstream democracy can take back control by writing Capitalism a brand new scr

#Angrynomics or how mainstream democracy can take back control by writing Capitalism a brand new script…

One of the many details in the long crisis in democracy what I think people persistently miss through all the rows about fake news and the rise of populism is how global Capital is failing in its part of the bargain with Labour to create and fairly distribute wealth .
If those terms seem quaint and old fashioned terms which reek of smoky stacks of northern England of the 1940s and 1950s , you need to get yourself a copy of Eric Lonergan and Mark Blyth ’ s great wee tome , Angrynomics .
In their definition of Labour , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who actually have to work in order to create the wealth we need to live on .
To some extent , this can even include folks who may already own their own houses , when it comes to finding a solution .
That ’ s because taxing wealthy wage earners can never yield the sort of resources needed to rebalance the way assets are heavily stacked in favour of a wealth rich elite who have long since been able to retire from work to retain their money .
The core argument rests on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needs upgrading .
Why ?
Because Mark Blyth explains elsewhere , after 2008 we made big companies solvent , but what they did with the public money was buy back their own shares .
Some 90 % of all stock market activity is comprised of big companies making themselves more valuable through such buyback activity to the extent that it has barely registered the collapse of the real global economy .
This he and Eric Lonergan , argue through a compelling dialogue , that after the Milton Friedman upgrade to Capitalism 3.0 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the next one , which will address the growing asset poverty in a majority of the population… This profound in some sections of the community .
Last month Blyth quoted the quite shockingly uneven differential of wealth between two race groups in Liberal Boston… So where does this fit in with anger ?
Instead of looking for the whole , liberal elites have comforted themselves with the idea that globalisation was making everyone richer , on average .
What they neglected to account for is that no one lives an average life .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ longer cared what happened to those on lower wages ( Gordon Brown ’ s effective privatisation of the Bank of England being an example ) , centre-left politics resiled to virtue signalling over concrete action .
Enter populism .
The book defines this as almost any political philosophy that sites the blame for present misery with some ‘ other ’ .
Its primate virtue is that it listens and gives voice to the otherwise unheard , but it turns out they are poor software scripters too .
What they do have is great @ @ @ @ @ @ @ starts with the Parable of the Angry Folk Singer in the heart of the Irish capital in a bar not far from Stephen ’ s Green ( I think I know which one , but Eric didn ’ t tell in my podcast with him ) : Populists have prospered either because they ignore the mass anger created by the misery and distress of the asset poor .
Mainstream politicians have tended to ignore it feeling there is nothing they can do to change the way the system delivers .
But Lonergan and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a final chapter called ‘ Calming the Anger ‘ they outline a number of fixes which allow governments to start tapping the huge sump of interest-free ( but otherwise useless ) cash , without putting up taxes .
Putting up taxes right now would be as daft as austerity ( a word carefully chosen by the British conservatives because it echoes the housewifely virtues of Mrs Thatcher ’ s shopping basket that heralded the serious arrival Capitalism 2.0 ) has been .
And yet attacking ‘ austerity ’ without offering a practical alternative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crisis proved disastrous for Labour in both England and in Scotland where it got crushed by two mutually contemptuous nationalisms .
As Blyth points out elsewhere some of the most heavily Brexit voting areas in northern England had up to 60 % of their local government budgets cut .
Just when the poorest communities needed resilience most , austerity was removing it by stealth .
This for me is the core value of the book .
It offers itself as a competitor for as Eric puts it as “ fundamentally new ideas about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ returns to assets ” .
This big idea puts sustainability at the base of all its thinking .
It ’ s devoid of the blame/revenge rhetoric of the populists .
Refloating the banks had to be done , but what went missing was an understanding that states also need to refund their communities as communities of citizens , not just consumers .
Large scale tools already exist for the job , but , beyond Norway and a few others , they are not getting used .
Angrynomics focuses on redistribution of assets , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are gone before you know you ’ ve had it ) .
Politicians with any decently sharp instinct for the furtherance of democracy and/or their own survival would be well advised to get a copy of this book and sleep with it under your pillow .
“ What has been lacking ” says Eric , “ is a simple zero-sum solution ” .
And , I would add , a zero-sum solution capable of delivering on the sort of transformative scale our institutions need to be able to match the far-reaching ambitions of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into the future than we will .
So if you have had enough of the gesture politics ( if black lives really do matter to us all , let ’ s sort the asset deficit problem now ? )
, getaway on out , preferably to your nearest local independent bookseller , and get yourself a copy of # Angrynomics right now .

One of the many details in the long crisis in democracy what I think people persistently miss through all the rows about fake news and the rise of populism is how global Capital is failing in its part of the bargain with Labour to create and fairly distribute wealth.
If those terms seem quaint and old fashioned terms which reek of smoky stacks of northern England of the 1940s and 1950s, you need to get yourself a copy of Eric Lonergan and Mark Blyth’s great wee tome, Angrynomics.
In their definition of Labour, they pretty much include most of us who actually have to work in order to create the wealth we need to live on. To some extent, this can even include folks who may already own their own houses, when it comes to finding a solution.
That’s because taxing wealthy wage earners can never yield the sort of resources needed to rebalance the way assets are heavily stacked in favour of a wealth rich elite who have long since been able to retire from work to retain their money.
The core argument rests on the idea that capitalism as software which needs upgrading. Why? Because Mark Blyth explains elsewhere, after 2008 we made big companies solvent, but what they did with the public money was buy back their own shares.
Some 90% of all stock market activity is comprised of big companies making themselves more valuable through such buyback activity to the extent that it has barely registered the collapse of the real global economy.
This he and Eric Lonergan, argue through a compelling dialogue, that after the Milton Friedman upgrade to Capitalism 3.0, we are at least ten years behind the next one, which will address the growing asset poverty in a majority of the population…
This profound in some sections of the community. Last month Blyth quoted the quite shockingly uneven differential of wealth between two race groups in Liberal Boston…
H/T to @platzmania – just in case anyone wants the race and economic outcomes link reaffirmed beyond any question, try this: https://t.co/QtMYMkcwio Median net worth Boston White households: $247k
Median Net Wealth Boston Black Households: Eight Bucks Not a typo… — Mark Blyth (@MkBlyth) June 9, 2020
So where does this fit in with anger? Instead of looking for the whole, liberal elites have comforted themselves with the idea that globalisation was making everyone richer, on average. What they neglected to account for is that no one lives an average life.
Having abandoned braking a market that no longer cared what happened to those on lower wages (Gordon Brown’s effective privatisation of the Bank of England being an example), centre-left politics resiled to virtue signalling over concrete action.
Enter populism. The book defines this as almost any political philosophy that sites the blame for present misery with some ‘other’. Its primate virtue is that it listens and gives voice to the otherwise unheard, but it turns out they are poor software scripters too.
What they do have is great tunes. Indeed, the book proper starts with the Parable of the Angry Folk Singer in the heart of the Irish capital in a bar not far from Stephen’s Green (I think I know which one, but Eric didn’t tell in my podcast with him):
Powered by RedCircle
Populists have prospered either because they ignore the mass anger created by the misery and distress of the asset poor. Mainstream politicians have tended to ignore it feeling there is nothing they can do to change the way the system delivers.
But Lonergan and Blyth have done their homework. In a final chapter called ‘Calming the Anger‘ they outline a number of fixes which allow governments to start tapping the huge sump of interest-free (but otherwise useless) cash, without putting up taxes.
Putting up taxes right now would be as daft as austerity (a word carefully chosen by the British conservatives because it echoes the housewifely virtues of Mrs Thatcher’s shopping basket that heralded the serious arrival Capitalism 2.0) has been.
And yet attacking ‘austerity’ without offering a practical alternative approach fix for the extent of the crisis proved disastrous for Labour in both England and in Scotland where it got crushed by two mutually contemptuous nationalisms.
As Blyth points out elsewhere some of the most heavily Brexit voting areas in northern England had up to 60% of their local government budgets cut. Just when the poorest communities needed resilience most, austerity was removing it by stealth.
This for me is the core value of the book. It offers itself as a competitor for as Eric puts it as “fundamentally new ideas about who owns what and who gets the returns to assets”. This big idea puts sustainability at the base of all its thinking.
It’s devoid of the blame/revenge rhetoric of the populists. Refloating the banks had to be done, but what went missing was an understanding that states also need to refund their communities as communities of citizens, not just consumers.
Large scale tools already exist for the job, but, beyond Norway and a few others, they are not getting used. Angrynomics focuses on redistribution of assets, not helicopter money (which like windfalls are gone before you know you’ve had it).
Politicians with any decently sharp instinct for the furtherance of democracy and/or their own survival would be well advised to get a copy of this book and sleep with it under your pillow. “What has been lacking” says Eric, “is a simple zero-sum solution”.
And, I would add, a zero-sum solution capable of delivering on the sort of transformative scale our institutions need to be able to match the far-reaching ambitions of our young who will see far further into the future than we will.
So if you have had enough of the gesture politics (if black lives really do matter to us all, let’s sort the asset deficit problem now?), getaway on out, preferably to your nearest local independent bookseller, and get yourself a copy of #Angrynomics right now.


sluggerotoole--2020-07-16--Shared or united island? The Greens called it right.

The new banter coalition in the Republic has got off to a dramatic start .
Ministerial sackings !
A tax ruling from the ECJ !
Infighting !
It ’ s everything we could have hoped for .
Among the chaos of this week came an interesting titbit from Green Party leader Eamon Ryan .
According to Ryan our own Clare Bailey , the party leader in Northern Ireland , was behind the decision to rename the ‘ united island ’ unit in the Department of the Taoiseach to the ‘ shared island ’ unit .
Clare Bailey hasn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ correct or not .
If it ’ s true and she suggested the name ‘ shared island ’ because it would be more acceptable to unionists , she was right .
On Sunday Politics last week Arlene Foster stated that she didn ’ t see the unit as a threat and distinguished it from a unit focused on constitutional change .
Is the Department of the Taoiseach a top priority for unionists and loyalists ?
Probably not .
Whether the unit will have any practical impact to be seen .
As we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ communities and activists are the drivers of change ; our politicians follow .
The change from ‘ united island ’ to ‘ shared island ’ is still welcome .
To talk about a shared island is to acknowledge different traditions , identities and the fact that the island has two different jurisdictions .
A shared island is realistic .
A shared island is the present and the future , no matter what happens constitutionally .
If Bailey did suggest the name change , it isn ’ t surprising .
The south Belfast MLA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ understands the complexities and difficulties that would come with a united Ireland .
Speaking at the Beyond Brexit : Ireland ’ s Future conference in the Waterfront Hall last year , Bailey talked about the need to tackle homelessness and inter-generational trauma if a united Ireland ever happens .
She said she would not “ swap one abusive system for another.
” It was Bailey that pointed out that an image of British passport should have appeared on the conference ’ s programme .
In asking for the unit to be renamed the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bailey was reflecting on her own party ’ s engagement with loyalism and unionism .
In 2018 , the Green party signed up to a flag protocol on the Ormeau Road .
That protocol supported the flying of union flags and Ulster flags being flown from lampposts from June to September .
The Greens were both criticised and praised for their actions .
The protocol is a debate for another day but it ’ s a clear example of the party trying to grapple with an issue that ’ s important to some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Northern Ireland , so we must share .
At least , that ’ s what we try and often fail to do .
No doubt , every party in the Executive would argue that the ‘ sharing ’ in ‘ power sharing ’ is sarcastic .
A united Ireland is not inevitable .
If it never happens , a shared island is what lies ahead of us .
If a majority of people in Northern Ireland do vote to join the south , we still won ’ t be united .
Anyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ border will lead to hands across the barricades is naive .
No matter what the vote count is , there will be a sizeable minority of people on this island who identify as British and are British .
We have our own national anthem , identity , culture and traditions .
Northern Ireland has a growing middle ground that doesn ’ t align itself with orange and green .
If north and south ever become one , we will have to share .
Whatever happens in the future , focusing on on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ together towards common goals and purpose .
Sharing is all we will ever have .

The new banter coalition in the Republic has got off to a dramatic start. Ministerial sackings! A tax ruling from the ECJ! Infighting! It’s everything we could have hoped for.
Among the chaos of this week came an interesting titbit from Green Party leader Eamon Ryan. According to Ryan our own Clare Bailey, the party leader in Northern Ireland, was behind the decision to rename the ‘united island’ unit in the Department of the Taoiseach to the ‘shared island’ unit.
Clare Bailey hasn’t confirmed whether Ryan’s comments are correct or not. If it’s true and she suggested the name ‘shared island’ because it would be more acceptable to unionists, she was right. On Sunday Politics last week Arlene Foster stated that she didn’t see the unit as a threat and distinguished it from a unit focused on constitutional change.
Is the Department of the Taoiseach a top priority for unionists and loyalists? Probably not. Whether the unit will have any practical impact to be seen. As we’ve seen in Northern Ireland, local communities and activists are the drivers of change; our politicians follow. The change from ‘united island’ to ‘shared island’ is still welcome. To talk about a shared island is to acknowledge different traditions, identities and the fact that the island has two different jurisdictions. A shared island is realistic. A shared island is the present and the future, no matter what happens constitutionally.
If Bailey did suggest the name change, it isn’t surprising. The south Belfast MLA has shown in the past that she understands the complexities and difficulties that would come with a united Ireland. Speaking at the Beyond Brexit: Ireland’s Future conference in the Waterfront Hall last year, Bailey talked about the need to tackle homelessness and inter-generational trauma if a united Ireland ever happens. She said she would not “swap one abusive system for another.” It was Bailey that pointed out that an image of British passport should have appeared on the conference’s programme.
In asking for the unit to be renamed the ‘shared island unit’, perhaps Bailey was reflecting on her own party’s engagement with loyalism and unionism. In 2018, the Green party signed up to a flag protocol on the Ormeau Road. That protocol supported the flying of union flags and Ulster flags being flown from lampposts from June to September. The Greens were both criticised and praised for their actions. The protocol is a debate for another day but it’s a clear example of the party trying to grapple with an issue that’s important to some unionists.
We aren’t united in Northern Ireland, so we must share. At least, that’s what we try and often fail to do. No doubt, every party in the Executive would argue that the ‘sharing’ in ‘power sharing’ is sarcastic.
A united Ireland is not inevitable. If it never happens, a shared island is what lies ahead of us. If a majority of people in Northern Ireland do vote to join the south, we still won’t be united. Anyone who believes that the removal of the border will lead to hands across the barricades is naive. No matter what the vote count is, there will be a sizeable minority of people on this island who identify as British and are British. We have our own national anthem, identity, culture and traditions. Northern Ireland has a growing middle ground that doesn’t align itself with orange and green. If north and south ever become one, we will have to share.
Whatever happens in the future, focusing on on the here and now allows everybody to work together towards common goals and purpose. Sharing is all we will ever have.


sluggerotoole--2020-07-17--#InConversation Podcast with Dr John Moriarty from Queen’s about changes to work patterns during Cov

#InConversation Podcast with Dr John Moriarty from Queen’s about changes to work patterns during Covid-19…

John is a fellow in the Centre for evidence and social innovation and a sociology lecturer School of Social Sciences @ @ @ @ @ at Queens University Belfast In this podcast we chat about the changes to the workplace @ @ @ @ @ well as the obvious downsides , there have also been some positive to the lockdown @ @ @ @ @ , meetings now take place on video saving time and money etc We also talk @ @ @ @ @ from home , such as work encroaching ever more into your personal life and the @ @ @ @ @ .
Have a listen and let me know what you think in the comments .
@ @ @ @ @ Podcasts on Apple Podcasts | Google Podcasts or Spotify

John is a fellow in the Centre for evidence and social innovation and a sociology lecturer School of Social Sciences, Education and Social Work at Queens University Belfast
In this podcast we chat about the changes to the workplace from Covid 19.
As well as the obvious downsides, there have also been some positive to the lockdown. People are commuting less, meetings now take place on video saving time and money etc
We also talk about the challenges of working from home, such as work encroaching ever more into your personal life and the mental health implications of isolation.
Have a listen and let me know what you think in the comments.
Powered by RedCircle
You can subscribe to Slugger Podcasts on Apple Podcasts | Google Podcasts or Spotify


sluggerotoole--2020-07-17--Occasionally political decisions give observers a glimpse into the heart of a political party…

George Osborne ’ s decision to cut the higher rate of tax while cutting welfare benefits in a time of austerity betrayed a heartlessness that the Tory party has struggled to disown .
Sinn Fein ’ s decision to turn Bobby Storey ’ s funeral into a mass celebration of Republicanism in a time of global pandemic lockdown was very revealing .
The party which lead the way in calling for lockdown and was most opposed to relaxing restrictions ; the party which opposed the opening of cemeteries to allow families to visit graves became the party which en masse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ orchestrated a paramilitary celebration for one of its sons in Milltown cemetery .
In so doing it disregarded the guidelines and protocol which it had both created and , with almost daily frequency , championed .
We had been warned by Sinn Fein ’ s spokespersons that lives are more important than profits and the capitalist push to open up the economy prematurely risked lives , something they would not tolerate .
But it seems there is something more important than the economy or people ’ s lives .
The events in West @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party ’ s values , culture , priorities and practice loyalty to the Republican cause comes before anything else .
That includes the law of the land and therein lies the problem .
Can a political party choose to break the law of the country which it governs with impunity ?
Sinn Fein , peerless in virtue signalling , almost permanent dwellers on the moral high ground , demonstrated clearly that the common good , the health of the elderly and vulnerable and the integrity of the political institutions come behind fealty to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ membership of secret organisations because of their potential to corrupt the normal processes of government and the judicial system .
In Sinn Fein we have a political party in whose inner sanctums decisions are made which appear to require compliance by politicians whether or not they are compliant with the law .
This is a serious problem for a political party responsible for good governance and social order , and a problem for every other political party and the electorate .
The Nolan Principles of Public Life are accepted as the standards by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the ethical standards they are expected to adhere to .
Indeed every elected representative , including members of Sinn Fein , has signed up to them .
Let ’ s take principle one , selflessness ; ‘ Holders of public office should take decisions solely in terms of the public interest .
They should not do so in order to gain benefits for themselves , their family or friends.
’ In other words decisions should be taken , not in the interests of the Republican movement but in the interests of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case of a Republican funeral .
Or principle two , integrity ; ‘ Holders of public office should not place themselves under any obligation to outside organisations that might influence them in the performance of their official duties.
’ Memories spring to mind of Mairtin O Muilleoir seeking permission from individuals in Sinn Fein ’ s headquarters at Connolly House before signing off on a business plan .
Or principle five , openness ; ‘ Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.
’ The activities in Connolly House are a masterclass in opacity and obfuscation .
All political parties play their cards close to their chest seeking to out-manoeuvre and defeat their opponents but they do so operating within a set of principles which lay out the ground rules , in our case the Nolan Principles .
If Sinn Fein are seen to be , or behave as if they are above these principles and above the law that makes democratic government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must be represented politically but likewise Sinn Fein must play by the rules that everyone else observes otherwise they are not fit to hold elected office in either jurisdiction on this island .
They can choose whether they are a party committed to democratic principles or run by a small clique of ‘ shadowy unelected back-room figures ’ .
The future wellbeing of the island , north and south , depends on robust and healthy political institutions .
If Sinn Fein are to contribute constructively they will have to reform .
They will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; a Party committed to openness , where healthy debate is normal , dissent can be expressed , and disagreement tolerated without bullying .
As regards the past , they alone , of all the participants , have shown not a scintilla of contrition and continue to defend the indefensible .
Their refusal to accept any responsibility for atrocities of the past is a major impediment to progress .
They will need to publically and unambiguously commit to upholding the Nolan Principles in word and deed .
The credibility and legitimacy of our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ importantly the future peace and prosperity of the country depends on these institutions .
If Sinn Fein is to be a credible participant they will need to change .

George Osborne’s decision to cut the higher rate of tax while cutting welfare benefits in a time of austerity betrayed a heartlessness that the Tory party has struggled to disown.
Sinn Fein’s decision to turn Bobby Storey’s funeral into a mass celebration of Republicanism in a time of global pandemic lockdown was very revealing. The party which lead the way in calling for lockdown and was most opposed to relaxing restrictions; the party which opposed the opening of cemeteries to allow families to visit graves became the party which en masse threw social distancing to the wind and orchestrated a paramilitary celebration for one of its sons in Milltown cemetery. In so doing it disregarded the guidelines and protocol which it had both created and, with almost daily frequency, championed.
We had been warned by Sinn Fein’s spokespersons that lives are more important than profits and the capitalist push to open up the economy prematurely risked lives, something they would not tolerate.
But it seems there is something more important than the economy or people’s lives. The events in West Belfast demonstrated that in terms of the party’s values, culture, priorities and practice loyalty to the Republican cause comes before anything else. That includes the law of the land and therein lies the problem. Can a political party choose to break the law of the country which it governs with impunity?
Sinn Fein, peerless in virtue signalling, almost permanent dwellers on the moral high ground, demonstrated clearly that the common good, the health of the elderly and vulnerable and the integrity of the political institutions come behind fealty to the Republican Movement.
We rightly oppose membership of secret organisations because of their potential to corrupt the normal processes of government and the judicial system. In Sinn Fein we have a political party in whose inner sanctums decisions are made which appear to require compliance by politicians whether or not they are compliant with the law. This is a serious problem for a political party responsible for good governance and social order, and a problem for every other political party and the electorate.
The Nolan Principles of Public Life are accepted as the standards by which all public servants should conduct themselves, the ethical standards they are expected to adhere to. Indeed every elected representative, including members of Sinn Fein, has signed up to them.
Let’s take principle one, selflessness; ‘Holders of public office should take decisions solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain benefits for themselves, their family or friends.’ In other words decisions should be taken, not in the interests of the Republican movement but in the interests of the public, except it seems in the case of a Republican funeral.
Or principle two, integrity; ‘Holders of public office should not place themselves under any obligation to outside organisations that might influence them in the performance of their official duties.’ Memories spring to mind of Mairtin O Muilleoir seeking permission from individuals in Sinn Fein’s headquarters at Connolly House before signing off on a business plan.
Or principle five, openness; ‘Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.’ The activities in Connolly House are a masterclass in opacity and obfuscation.
All political parties play their cards close to their chest seeking to out-manoeuvre and defeat their opponents but they do so operating within a set of principles which lay out the ground rules, in our case the Nolan Principles. If Sinn Fein are seen to be, or behave as if they are above these principles and above the law that makes democratic government difficult if not ultimately impossible.
Republicans must be represented politically but likewise Sinn Fein must play by the rules that everyone else observes otherwise they are not fit to hold elected office in either jurisdiction on this island. They can choose whether they are a party committed to democratic principles or run by a small clique of ‘shadowy unelected back-room figures’. The future wellbeing of the island, north and south, depends on robust and healthy political institutions. If Sinn Fein are to contribute constructively they will have to reform. They will need to demonstrate that they operate democratically; a Party committed to openness, where healthy debate is normal, dissent can be expressed, and disagreement tolerated without bullying. As regards the past, they alone, of all the participants, have shown not a scintilla of contrition and continue to defend the indefensible. Their refusal to accept any responsibility for atrocities of the past is a major impediment to progress. They will need to publically and unambiguously commit to upholding the Nolan Principles in word and deed.
The credibility and legitimacy of our political institutions is at stake but more importantly the future peace and prosperity of the country depends on these institutions. If Sinn Fein is to be a credible participant they will need to change.


sluggerotoole--2020-07-17--Why is the UK sleepwalking into final Brexit chaos and towards breakup?

As the notional deadline of October for final Brexit negotiations draws ever closer , the clouds if anything are growing darker .
The UK ’ s statements on their withdrawal position and the NI protocol have clarified very little .
Johnson and co seem like General de Gaulle in 1940 , holding out for an impossible position of victory against the odds .
But at least de Gaulle had allies .
A City University webinar I linked up with yesterday confirmed growing pessimism over Northern Ireland prospects .
( video available later ) .
Forget about “ frictionless.
” There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for movement of goods GB to NI in a type of arrangement that doesn ’ t exist anywhere in the world , said customs expert Anna Jerewska .
Most of the formalities relate to sorting out where goods and parts are coming from and where they ’ re going to – across the land border or staying in the province ; in other words much of it is about assuring that the open border doesn ’ t become an illegal back door into the EU .
With less than 170 days to go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ handle this .
Under the circumstances the UK government is keen to ensure the uniformity of standards within its own single market from which Northern Ireland will be partly and complicatedly exempt .
But the way they ’ re dealing with this clashes with devolution prerogatives and is therefore a gift to the SNP who are accusing London of making “ a land grab.
” On Northern Ireland our own Katy Hayward writes : The EU single market had provided the glue for the UK ’ s internal market even as devolution became @ @ @ @ @ @ @ distinctions .
The question now is how much divergence can the UK manage ?
This is an economic/markets question , but also a political one.. .. some other policy areas were seen as vital and in need of legislative frameworks to ensure commonality across the UK .
There were 21 such areas that related to Northern Ireland , and 17 of these areas are now covered by the NI Protocol .
.. And so , the future UK-EU relationship becomes key to the future UK internal market .
Because the more distant the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the UK internal market because NI will follow EU anyway ( and thus by definition diverge from GB ) .
Worse still , a ‘ no deal ’ outcome at the end of the transition period will turn a choppy Irish Sea into a very stormy one indeed .
At the City University webinar Katy registered a change of tone among NI and cross border business folk , from the mantras “ we can handle it ” and “ the best of both worlds , ” to “ Northern Ireland is between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ observed that , as the prospects for foreign inward investment , why should anyone locate in NI when by going a few miles down the road they have free entry for continental EU workers and no complex customs arrangements into the EU ?
Most striking was how four experts , an English and an Irish lawyer , a customs expert , a City University London and a Queen ’ s academic agreed that the Irish/ NI Protocol was a political project of the first order and not only about trade .
“ About @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vincent Power .
The outworking of the Protocol would not be a rapid adjustment but “ an interminable process ” .
It took over seventy years to achieve free trade between Britain and Ireland .
The Protocol might not work and peace ( meaning continuing good UK-RoI relations ) was not guaranteed .
The experts noted that Protocol arrangements are avowedly temporary .
The Assembly will be consulted on any proposed changes and will be able to vote on withdrawing from it .
Here the ideology of “ consent ” raises it head @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote on whether to consent to the continued operation of the protocol for as long as it remains in force .
The frequency of the vote will depend on how the decision is made .
If a decision is made on the basis of a simple majority in the Assembly , the Assembly will have the opportunity to vote again four years later .
If a decision is made on a cross-community basis – then the Assembly will not vote again for eight years .
If consent is withheld at any point , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years later .
There could be a crisis waiting to happen here .
The DUP are biding their time .
David Trimble believes the consent principle in the GFA has been honoured where it had been breached by Theresa May ’ s preceding backstop .
Others are doubtful .
As external trade is a matter reserved to Westminster , the UK government will decide whether the Assembly vote will be by simple majority of a cross community vote .
This by no means guarantees a unionist veto and is surely intentional .
Is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allow the fragile house of cards so painstakingly erected to be blown over by Stormont ?
Katy Hayward and her colleague David Phinnemore are correct in holding that legally , the consent principle in the GFA doesn ’ t apply .
But the GFA specifically envisaged continuing EU membership .
The position has radically changed .
And so emphatically has the politics .
The potential constitutional implications are obvious .
Is Westminster deliberately lying doggo or genuinely in mental lockdown ?
Exhaustion due to Covid v and the bitterness of the abortive second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Leaver , the right wing Scottish columnist Iain Martin sounds the alarm for the future of the Union greatly weakened by Brexit .
He forecasts what everyone interested knows : that an impending constitutional crunch over Scottish independence that , if mishandled , will mean the break-up of the nation .
But he blames it more on the poor handling of the Coivid crisis .
For the first time the default assumption in Scotland among depressed unionists appears to be that independence will happen when the pandemic dies down..
It will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ refuse demands for a second vote if there is a strong Nationalist majority built on a manifesto pledge to hold a referendum .
If 75 per cent or more of MSPs are for independence , the potential for the Nationalists to mount a campaign of peaceful but messy civil disobedience — to fire up opinion on the perfectly reasonable basis that Scots should be allowed to settle this soon in a referendum — is obvious… The tide is already with the SNP .
A poll published this month suggested that 54 per cent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Professor Sir John Curtice says that the future of the Union has never been so uncertain .
In England , too , the ties may be fraying .
A Panelbase poll this week recorded 49 per cent of English voters favouring English independence .
On the economics , Scotland leaving the UK would clearly be much more difficult even than Brexit .
Scotland is entwined via currency , pensions , welfare and a large public spending shortfall .
But the Brexiteers know from 2016 that many voters value emotional appeal above dry-as-dust economics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be extremely tough to win .
Alan Wager , research associate at the UK in a Changing Europe has just reported on a survey of MPs on the likelihood of UK breakup The ritual has begun to look something like this : an opinion poll , reported as a shock to the system , shows the real possibility of independence .
Westminster is , supposedly , awakened from its stupor .
A serious but temporary discussion about the existential threat to the union takes place .
Then , normality resumes… We saw @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of weekends ago , as a Panelbase poll for The Sunday Times saw the campaign for independence register its highest ever support with the pollster at 54 % .
At the core of this ritual is the idea that the break-up of the United Kingdom is overlooked and under-priced by politicians in Westminster .
Yet , in truth , the opposite may well be the case : many MPs could well be aware that a second IndyRef and Scottish independence is increasingly likely .
They are just not sure what it exactly they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this and wider attitudes to the union in Westminster , back in January – in a pre-Covid-19 age – at the UK in a Changing Europe we worked with Ipsos Mori to ask a representative survey of MPs in the new Parliament some questions about the future of the union .
As a fantastic Institute for Government graph here shows , at the start of the year independence had polling consistently on a knife-edge , between 49 % and 51 % , for the best part of a year .
We asked three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or Wales would vote to become an independent country within the next decade , and whether it is likely that Northern Ireland will vote to join the Republic by 2030 .
The results demonstrate a clear party split : the Conservative Party in Parliament , at least at the start of the year , remained confident in its ability to keep the union intact .
Just 10 % of Conservative MPs thought Scottish independence was likely in the next decade .
This was a clear disjunction between the expectations of the party that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that support for independence had been precipitously on the rise since 2017 .
The question is whether the sharp further increase following the handling of this crisis has woken any more Conservative MPs up .
The recent creation of a new Union Policy Implementation cabinet committee suggests the party may be increasingly alive to the fact that the implementation of Brexit – and the enforcement of a UK-wide internal market – is likely to bring a new set of political opportunities for an emboldened Nicola Sturgeon .
In contrast , by more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % to 32 % – Labour MPs thought the independence movement was more likely than not to win a referendum by 2030 .
The Scottish question within the Labour party is beginning to take on an air of weary resignation .
Where there as slightly greater cross-party agreement was on expectations around Irish unification .
Over a quarter of Conservative MPs see this as likely , and just over half of Labour MPs .
The simple fact that the possibility of a unification referendum in the near future in Northern Ireland is taken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ main parties in Westminster would have been difficult to imagine prior to Brexit .
And certainly , analysis by Katy Hayward and Ben Rosher of the latest Northern Ireland Life and Times survey – fieldwork conducted between September 2019 and the start of February 2020 – shows that the expectation of Irish unification has risen among the Republican community in Northern Ireland .
What our survey also shows is that the possibility of a unification referendum in the near future in Northern Ireland – a legal obligation under the Good Friday Agreement , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appears likely – is taken seriously by a significant proportion of both main parties in Westminster .
Indeed , a key takeaway from our survey is that a substantial minority of MPs , and a majority of Labour MPs , are alive to the real possibility of further constitutional rupture over the next decade .
Meanwhile , the vast majority of Conservative MPs may be sleepwalking into a decade marked by major constitutional ruptures .
Perhaps the key lesson from the referendums of 2014 and 2016 – if you are about to enter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insurgent with their tails up , you had better come prepared with a plan – does not appear to have been learned by the Conservative ( and don ’ t forget Unionist ) Party .
The results may show that MPs are in more denial about Scottish secession than a united Ireland because they care more about the former .
For Northern Ireland , if higher prices and slower growth at a cost of greater divergence from Great Britain are the prospects , is it any wonder that people will become more interested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Provided that this too is about more than empty rhetoric .

As the notional deadline of October for final Brexit negotiations draws ever closer, the clouds if anything are growing darker. The UK’s statements on their withdrawal position and the NI protocol have clarified very little. Johnson and co seem like General de Gaulle in 1940, holding out for an impossible position of victory against the odds. But at least de Gaulle had allies. A City University webinar I linked up with yesterday confirmed growing pessimism over Northern Ireland prospects.( video available later).
Forget about “frictionless.” There will be six different types of formalities for movement of goods GB to NI in a type of arrangement that doesn’t exist anywhere in the world, said customs expert Anna Jerewska. Most of the formalities relate to sorting out where goods and parts are coming from and where they’re going to – across the land border or staying in the province ; in other words much of it is about assuring that the open border doesn’t become an illegal back door into the EU. With less than 170 days to go no one knows how the UK will handle this.
UK single market plans
Under the circumstances the UK government is keen to ensure the uniformity of standards within its own single market from which Northern Ireland will be partly and complicatedly exempt. But the way they’re dealing with this clashes with devolution prerogatives and is therefore a gift to the SNP who are accusing London of making “ a land grab.” On Northern Ireland our own Katy Hayward writes:
The EU single market had provided the glue for the UK’s internal market even as devolution became more established and led to increasing intra-UK distinctions. The question now is how much divergence can the UK manage? This is an economic/markets question, but also a political one..
.. some other policy areas were seen as vital and in need of legislative frameworks to ensure commonality across the UK. There were 21 such areas that related to Northern Ireland, and 17 of these areas are now covered by the NI Protocol. .. And so, the future UK-EU relationship becomes key to the future UK internal market. Because the more distant the UK-EU relationship, the greater the challenge for the UK internal market because NI will follow EU anyway (and thus by definition diverge from GB).
Worse still, a ‘no deal’ outcome at the end of the transition period will turn a choppy Irish Sea into a very stormy one indeed.
At the City University webinar Katy registered a change of tone among NI and cross border business folk, from the mantras “we can handle it” and “the best of both worlds,” to “Northern Ireland is between a rock and hard place.” She observed that, as the prospects for foreign inward investment, why should anyone locate in NI when by going a few miles down the road they have free entry for continental EU workers and no complex customs arrangements into the EU?
It’s not just trade, it’s politics stupid
Most striking was how four experts, an English and an Irish lawyer, a customs expert, a City University London and a Queen’s academic agreed that the Irish/ NI Protocol was a political project of the first order and not only about trade. “About peace” declared Dublin legal trade expert Vincent Power. The outworking of the Protocol would not be a rapid adjustment but “an interminable process”. It took over seventy years to achieve free trade between Britain and Ireland. The Protocol might not work and peace (meaning continuing good UK-RoI relations) was not guaranteed.
No Assembly veto
The experts noted that Protocol arrangements are avowedly temporary. The Assembly will be consulted on any proposed changes and will be able to vote on withdrawing from it. Here the ideology of “consent” raises it head.
The Northern Ireland Assembly will periodically vote on whether to consent to the continued operation of the protocol for as long as it remains in force. The frequency of the vote will depend on how the decision is made.
If a decision is made on the basis of a simple majority in the Assembly, the Assembly will have the opportunity to vote again four years later. If a decision is made on a cross-community basis – then the Assembly will not vote again for eight years.
If consent is withheld at any point, the arrangements will cease to apply two years later.
There could be a crisis waiting to happen here. The DUP are biding their time. David Trimble believes the consent principle in the GFA has been honoured where it had been breached by Theresa May’s preceding backstop. Others are doubtful. As external trade is a matter reserved to Westminster, the UK government will decide whether the Assembly vote will be by simple majority of a cross community vote. This by no means guarantees a unionist veto and is surely intentional. Is it conceivable that the UK government would allow the fragile house of cards so painstakingly erected to be blown over by Stormont? Katy Hayward and her colleague David Phinnemore are correct in holding that legally, the consent principle in the GFA doesn’t apply . But the GFA specifically envisaged continuing EU membership. The position has radically changed. And so emphatically has the politics. The potential constitutional implications are obvious.
Westminster asleep.
Is Westminster deliberately lying doggo or genuinely in mental lockdown? Exhaustion due to Covid v and the bitterness of the abortive second public vote on Brexit prevails. Although a Leaver, the right wing Scottish columnist Iain Martin sounds the alarm for the future of the Union greatly weakened by Brexit. He forecasts what everyone interested knows: that an impending constitutional crunch over Scottish independence that, if mishandled, will mean the break-up of the nation. But he blames it more on the poor handling of the Coivid crisis.
For the first time the default assumption in Scotland among depressed unionists appears to be that independence will happen when the pandemic dies down.. It will be all but impossible for the PM to refuse demands for a second vote if there is a strong Nationalist majority built on a manifesto pledge to hold a referendum. If 75 per cent or more of MSPs are for independence, the potential for the Nationalists to mount a campaign of peaceful but messy civil disobedience — to fire up opinion on the perfectly reasonable basis that Scots should be allowed to settle this soon in a referendum — is obvious… The tide is already with the SNP. A poll published this month suggested that 54 per cent of Scots favour independence. The pollster Professor Sir John Curtice says that the future of the Union has never been so uncertain. In England, too, the ties may be fraying. A Panelbase poll this week recorded 49 per cent of English voters favouring English independence.
On the economics, Scotland leaving the UK would clearly be much more difficult even than Brexit. Scotland is entwined via currency, pensions, welfare and a large public spending shortfall. But the Brexiteers know from 2016 that many voters value emotional appeal above dry-as-dust economics. This battle is coming and it will be extremely tough to win.
Alan Wager, research associate at the UK in a Changing Europe has just reported on a survey of MPs on the likelihood of UK breakup
The ritual has begun to look something like this: an opinion poll, reported as a shock to the system, shows the real possibility of independence. Westminster is, supposedly, awakened from its stupor. A serious but temporary discussion about the existential threat to the union takes place. Then, normality resumes…
We saw the latest example of this a couple of weekends ago, as a Panelbase poll for The Sunday Times saw the campaign for independence register its highest ever support with the pollster at 54%.
At the core of this ritual is the idea that the break-up of the United Kingdom is overlooked and under-priced by politicians in Westminster.
Yet, in truth, the opposite may well be the case: many MPs could well be aware that a second IndyRef and Scottish independence is increasingly likely. They are just not sure what it exactly they can do about it.
To test this and wider attitudes to the union in Westminster, back in January – in a pre-Covid-19 age – at the UK in a Changing Europe we worked with Ipsos Mori to ask a representative survey of MPs in the new Parliament some questions about the future of the union.
As a fantastic Institute for Government graph here shows, at the start of the year independence had polling consistently on a knife-edge, between 49% and 51%, for the best part of a year.
We asked three questions: whether it was likely Scotland or Wales would vote to become an independent country within the next decade, and whether it is likely that Northern Ireland will vote to join the Republic by 2030.
The results demonstrate a clear party split: the Conservative Party in Parliament, at least at the start of the year, remained confident in its ability to keep the union intact. Just 10% of Conservative MPs thought Scottish independence was likely in the next decade.
This was a clear disjunction between the expectations of the party that governs the UK, and the fact that support for independence had been precipitously on the rise since 2017.
The question is whether the sharp further increase following the handling of this crisis has woken any more Conservative MPs up.
The recent creation of a new Union Policy Implementation cabinet committee suggests the party may be increasingly alive to the fact that the implementation of Brexit – and the enforcement of a UK-wide internal market – is likely to bring a new set of political opportunities for an emboldened Nicola Sturgeon.
In contrast, by more than a two to one margin – 68% to 32% – Labour MPs thought the independence movement was more likely than not to win a referendum by 2030. The Scottish question within the Labour party is beginning to take on an air of weary resignation.
Where there as slightly greater cross-party agreement was on expectations around Irish unification. Over a quarter of Conservative MPs see this as likely, and just over half of Labour MPs.
The simple fact that the possibility of a unification referendum in the near future in Northern Ireland is taken seriously by a significant proportion of both main parties in Westminster would have been difficult to imagine prior to Brexit.
And certainly, analysis by Katy Hayward and Ben Rosher of the latest Northern Ireland Life and Times survey – fieldwork conducted between September 2019 and the start of February 2020 – shows that the expectation of Irish unification has risen among the Republican community in Northern Ireland.
What our survey also shows is that the possibility of a unification referendum in the near future in Northern Ireland – a legal obligation under the Good Friday Agreement, if a majority for a united Ireland appears likely – is taken seriously by a significant proportion of both main parties in Westminster.
Indeed, a key takeaway from our survey is that a substantial minority of MPs, and a majority of Labour MPs, are alive to the real possibility of further constitutional rupture over the next decade.
Meanwhile, the vast majority of Conservative MPs may be sleepwalking into a decade marked by major constitutional ruptures.
Perhaps the key lesson from the referendums of 2014 and 2016 – if you are about to enter into an existential constitutional referendum against an insurgent with their tails up, you had better come prepared with a plan – does not appear to have been learned by the Conservative (and don’t forget Unionist) Party.
The results may show that MPs are in more denial about Scottish secession than a united Ireland because they care more about the former.
For Northern Ireland, if higher prices and slower growth at a cost of greater divergence from Great Britain are the prospects, is it any wonder that people will become more interested in “ a shared island”?
Provided that this too is about more than empty rhetoric.


sluggerotoole--2020-07-18--Busting Myths and Making the case for extending the franchise for Presidential Elections.

With the formation of a new Irish government and as we look toward recovery , I wanted to put together @ @ @ @ @ rights for the diaspora .
My panel had Ben Kelly from the VICA Campaign and @ @ @ @ @ the Irish Times and the Irish Passport Podcast .
“ Áras an Uachtaráin ” by @ @ @ @ @ BY

Donate to keep Slugger lit!
For over 20 years, Slugger has been an independent place for debate and new ideas. We have published over 40,000 posts and over one and a half million comments on the site. Each month we have over 70,000 readers. All this we have accomplished with only volunteers we have never had any paid staff.
Slugger does not receive any funding, and we respect our readers, so we will never run intrusive ads or sponsored posts. Instead, we are reader-supported. Help us keep Slugger independent by becoming a friend of Slugger.
While we run a tight ship and no one gets paid to write, we need money to help us cover our costs.
If you like what we do, we are asking you to consider giving a monthly donation of any amount, or you can give a one-off donation. Any amount is appreciated.