sluggerotoole--2020-10-26--Lessons from the Troubles and the Unsettled Peace – invitation to an online book launch

A new book brings together ideas from political and civic leaders from across Northern Ireland and the island as a whole .
‘ Lessons from the Troubles and the Unsettled Peace ’ contains views included in blogs published over a long period on Slugger O ’ Toole , which were also podcasts from the Holywell Trust , a peace and reconciliation charity in Derry/Londonderry .
Holywell Trust is hosting an online book launch on Tuesday , 27th October .
The interviewees had considered , in particular , how we strengthen civic society ; how communities can live together in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the past , while improving reconciliation ; and how we can discuss the constitutional future in ways that are positive , respectful and not damaging or threatening .
Interviewees include justice minister Naomi Long , former deputy first minister Mark Durkan , Green Party leader Clare Bailey and former finance ministers Simon Hamilton and Mairtin O ’ Muilleoir .
Civic leaders who speak include Denis Bradley , former Archbishop Robin Eames , Peter Osborne , Linda Ervine and Alan McBride .
Writers Freya McClements , Jo Egan and Julieann Campbell provide their insights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can assist with healing and also in dealing with trauma .
Editor Paul Gosling said : “ I hope this will prove an important body of work .
We live in Northern Ireland today as if the Troubles are behind us , pretending we live in a society that has settled its divisions .
Yet in many ways what we have is peace that is unsettled .
Some of the causes of the Troubles remain outstanding – inequality , poverty , divisions that exist because people have very different lives as a result @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they were borne into .
Interviewees told us that peace and reconciliation is a long process – a 50 year journey that we are not even half way into .
It is time to take stock and have a serious discussion on how we make progress to embed the peace more fully into our society .
This book is an attempt to do this.
” Holywell Trust chief executive Gerard Deane added : “ The Holywell Trust is a long established peace and reconciliation charity that does not shrink from the tough questions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interviews and this book which compiles the views of people who have been at the heart of our society for many years can be an important contribution in helping us to move forward , together.
” “ We have failed to acknowledge the suffering and loss adequately of the people who have lost and who have suffered.
” Councillor John Kyle , former leader of the Progressive Unionist Party , The ‘ Lessons from the Troubles and the Unsettled Peace – Ideas from the Forward Together podcasts ’ book , edited by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ free online event on Tuesday 27th October at 2.00pm .
Places can be booked in advance via EventBrite.com – https : //forwardtogetherideasbook.eventbrite.co.uk .
Disclaimer : This project has received support from the Northern Ireland Community Relations Council which aims to promote a pluralist society characterised by equity , respect for diversity , and recognition of interdependence .
The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the Community Relations Council .

A new book brings together ideas from political and civic leaders from across Northern Ireland and the island as a whole. ‘Lessons from the Troubles and the Unsettled Peace’ contains views included in blogs published over a long period on Slugger O’Toole, which were also podcasts from the Holywell Trust, a peace and reconciliation charity in Derry/Londonderry. Holywell Trust is hosting an online book launch on Tuesday, 27th October. The interviewees had considered, in particular, how we strengthen civic society; how communities can live together in a shared society; how we deal with the past, while improving reconciliation; and how we can discuss the constitutional future in ways that are positive, respectful and not damaging or threatening.
Interviewees include justice minister Naomi Long, former deputy first minister Mark Durkan, Green Party leader Clare Bailey and former finance ministers Simon Hamilton and Mairtin O’Muilleoir. Civic leaders who speak include Denis Bradley, former Archbishop Robin Eames, Peter Osborne, Linda Ervine and Alan McBride. Writers Freya McClements, Jo Egan and Julieann Campbell provide their insights into how telling stories of the past can assist with healing and also in dealing with trauma.
Editor Paul Gosling said: “I hope this will prove an important body of work. We live in Northern Ireland today as if the Troubles are behind us, pretending we live in a society that has settled its divisions. Yet in many ways what we have is peace that is unsettled. Some of the causes of the Troubles remain outstanding – inequality, poverty, divisions that exist because people have very different lives as a result of where they live or the circumstances they were borne into. Interviewees told us that peace and reconciliation is a long process – a 50 year journey that we are not even half way into. It is time to take stock and have a serious discussion on how we make progress to embed the peace more fully into our society. This book is an attempt to do this.”
Holywell Trust chief executive Gerard Deane added: “The Holywell Trust is a long established peace and reconciliation charity that does not shrink from the tough questions. I believe that the Forward Together interviews and this book which compiles the views of people who have been at the heart of our society for many years can be an important contribution in helping us to move forward, together.”
Quotes from the book:
“Nobody wants to hear that it’s a 50 year job, but that’s maybe at the low end of the scale.” Simon Hamilton, former Stormont finance, health and economy minister.
“It almost feels like we’re taking the peace process for granted.” Claire Sugden MLA, former Stormont justice minister.
“There are so many people who have so much to hide on all sides.” Senator Mark Daly, the Oireachtas.
“We have failed to acknowledge the suffering and loss adequately of the people who have lost and who have suffered.” Councillor John Kyle, former leader of the Progressive Unionist Party,
“The trauma can be carried down the generations.” Senator Frances Black, the Oireachtas.
“There was more to the Troubles than just Catholic and Protestant.” Julieann Campbell, author.
“We have to change.” Maureen Hetherington, the Junction. community relations charity.
The ‘Lessons from the Troubles and the Unsettled Peace – Ideas from the Forward Together podcasts’ book, edited by @PaulGosling1, will be launched at a free online event on Tuesday 27th October at 2.00pm. Places can be booked in advance via EventBrite.com – https://forwardtogetherideasbook.eventbrite.co.uk.
The Forward Together podcasts were sponsored by the Community Relations Council and the book has been financed with a grant from the Department of Foreign Affairs, Ireland.
Disclaimer: This project has received support from the Northern Ireland Community Relations Council which aims to promote a pluralist society characterised by equity, respect for diversity, and recognition of interdependence. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the Community Relations Council.


sluggerotoole--2020-10-26--What was the sense of closing the schools only to put all the kids into every shopping centre?

I imagine most parents had that sinking feeling when they learned that they were closing the schools – here we go again .
Still , it was only one week extra so we had to suck it up and take one for the team .
It could have been worse , it seems Sinn Fein were pushing for a ludicrous 6 weeks off .
There has been lots of debate around the importance of school to children .
There are obvious things like the value of routine , socialising , learning but then you have the issue that for some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they get for a decent meal or a break from chaotic home lives .
Not to mention the key fact that if the kids are off parents can ’ t work .
My own personal observation is that with the kids being off we have just decanted them into shopping centres .
Kids are bored , parents are bored and the natural thing to to do is turn to the nations favourite leisure activity of shopping .
On Saturday there were massive traffic jams all along Boucher Road in Belfast , I witnessed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new Range store which now occupies the old B & Q store .
I don ’ t blame parents , with so many things being closed we are finding it hard ourselves to amuse our 5-year-old .
We are doing the usual parks and forests but when the weather is bad you do tend to default to a dander around your local shopping centre .
So we had a situation where all the kids were happy in their little bubbles in school and then we decide to send them all home to sit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ occasional shopping breaks where they can mix freely with all the pensioners and other vulnerable groups – what a fantastic idea .
I know there have been issues in some schools with staffing , but a lot of schools were managing .
My son ’ s school had been doing an excellent job of keeping everyone safe and he had not missed a day all year .
Where was the science or rationale for closing the schools ?
Apart from the Czech Republic , we are the only place in Europe to close @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they have moved into level 5 complete lockdown , the schools are still functioning .
My fear is we will start to hear calls to extend the lockdown further .
Our politicians need to ensure that schools should always be the last thing to close and the first thing to open .
It is a tragedy that the welfare of our children has been turned into yet another political football .
Photo by Victoria_Borodinova is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA

I imagine most parents had that sinking feeling when they learned that they were closing the schools – here we go again. Still, it was only one week extra so we had to suck it up and take one for the team. It could have been worse, it seems Sinn Fein were pushing for a ludicrous 6 weeks off. There has been lots of debate around the importance of school to children. There are obvious things like the value of routine, socialising, learning but then you have the issue that for some kids it might be the only chance they get for a decent meal or a break from chaotic home lives. Not to mention the key fact that if the kids are off parents can’t work.
My own personal observation is that with the kids being off we have just decanted them into shopping centres. Kids are bored, parents are bored and the natural thing to to do is turn to the nations favourite leisure activity of shopping. On Saturday there were massive traffic jams all along Boucher Road in Belfast, I witnessed over a hundred people queuing outside the new Range store which now occupies the old B&Q store. I don’t blame parents, with so many things being closed we are finding it hard ourselves to amuse our 5-year-old. We are doing the usual parks and forests but when the weather is bad you do tend to default to a dander around your local shopping centre.
So we had a situation where all the kids were happy in their little bubbles in school and then we decide to send them all home to sit in front of screens all day with occasional shopping breaks where they can mix freely with all the pensioners and other vulnerable groups – what a fantastic idea.
I know there have been issues in some schools with staffing, but a lot of schools were managing. My son’s school had been doing an excellent job of keeping everyone safe and he had not missed a day all year.
Where was the science or rationale for closing the schools? Apart from the Czech Republic, we are the only place in Europe to close schools. Even in the Republic where they have moved into level 5 complete lockdown, the schools are still functioning.
My fear is we will start to hear calls to extend the lockdown further. Our politicians need to ensure that schools should always be the last thing to close and the first thing to open. It is a tragedy that the welfare of our children has been turned into yet another political football.
Photo by Victoria_Borodinova is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA


Fergus on Monday

Click to share on Facebook ( Opens in new window )

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.


sluggerotoole--2020-10-26--Copper Fastening Stormont provides the smoothest path to an agreed Island

Michael Martin has a long record in politics and is undoubtedly part of the Good Friday generation in his understanding of North-South relations .
His shared Island Unit can only be the result of a thirst to implement the agreement in full without an obsession over the simplistic narrative of a border poll to fix all ills .
His re-focus on local projects to lift up long forgotten border communities should be applauded by all ( the detail of which has been sadly ignored by many quarters ) .
On structural commitments , Martin could signal his seriousness about sharing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s respect and recognition of Northern Institutions .
The Republic generously gave up its constitutional claim on all the lands , territories and Islands of Ireland in the long process of achieving peace .
Overnight this unionist ‘ trump card ’ was extinguished as it became clear that the NI polity was seen as a neutral space by Dublin and London .
To mark his seriousness Martin should pass legislation declaring that , as a legal default , Stormont as currently constituted will remain in any new Ireland .
To copper fasten @ @ @ @ @ @ @ added to Bunreacht na hÉireann .
Currently Stormont is governed by the three strands and every piece of law must be in line with the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ( ECHR ) .
By recognising this as a default in the Republic ’ s statute book it would provide a check and balance to both Northern communities .
It isn ’ t too dissimilar to the commitment made by the European Union to Ireland in the wake of Brexit .
The institutions of Brussels made a commitment that in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be no issues with Ireland ’ s EU membership and that Northern Ireland citizens would gain all the privileges of being European citizens .
This might sound straightforward , but it really isn ’ t , especially if the UK diverges significantly from the EU in law , policy and practice .
The declaration of support at least gives political and legal room for manoeuvre to budding united Irelanders that theirs is the side of Europe .
It would be a moral inconsistency to spend so much of Northern Ireland ’ s 100-year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ course when it suits nationalism .
It isn ’ t enough to cleave onto the ‘ whataboutist ’ argument that “ they did it for 50 years so now we will ” as this achieves nothing – the post GFA institutions are recognised as being for everyone so claiming that post unity , they would only serve unionist concerns is disingenuous .
Schools in Belfast will still fail thousands of kids and the hospital in Derry will still have years long waiting lists .
There is no secret sauce within the Dublin corridors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Martin recognises this by instead promoting a vision of unity which is about sharing resources , projects and capital ( financial and human ) .
De-blunting the edges of any unification plan can come through local democracy , Stormont does offer this .
It also offers the afore mentioned checks and balances which , although sometimes infuriating , keep our democracy within the bounds of civility .
If you want a united Ireland simply because of a wish to abolish Stormont , then I won ’ t be able to convince you .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , if you want a united Ireland for institutions you wish to break or suspended then how different are you from Cummings and the Brexiteers penny pitching English regions and rushing through demagogic legislation ?
If nationalism embrace such a plan , then it placates any scenario immediately after the border poll where unionism digs its heels in at local councils and at Dail Eireen .
The ensuing melodrama could be entirely avoided if Stormont still exists with powers devolved to it by Dublin instead of London .
It would put unionist and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defending local institutions instead of just smashing them down .
Mick often quotes Tim Snyder on a point which is as apt on this subject matter as any other : Defend institutions .
This is a time when people like you and me and my friends say the institutions are going to save us .
This is wrong : we have to save the institutions .
This is the moment of ask not what the institutions can do for me it ’ s ask what you can do for the institutions .
Fill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t expect them to be robots because they ’ re not .
“ Stormont ” by D-Stanley is licensed under CC BY

Michael Martin has a long record in politics and is undoubtedly part of the Good Friday generation in his understanding of North-South relations. His shared Island Unit can only be the result of a thirst to implement the agreement in full without an obsession over the simplistic narrative of a border poll to fix all ills. His re-focus on local projects to lift up long forgotten border communities should be applauded by all (the detail of which has been sadly ignored by many quarters).
On structural commitments, Martin could signal his seriousness about sharing this Island by further underpinning the Republic’s respect and recognition of Northern Institutions. The Republic generously gave up its constitutional claim on all the lands, territories and Islands of Ireland in the long process of achieving peace. Overnight this unionist ‘trump card’ was extinguished as it became clear that the NI polity was seen as a neutral space by Dublin and London.
To mark his seriousness Martin should pass legislation declaring that, as a legal default, Stormont as currently constituted will remain in any new Ireland. To copper fasten this, a constitutional amendment could be added to Bunreacht na hÉireann. Currently Stormont is governed by the three strands and every piece of law must be in line with the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR). By recognising this as a default in the Republic’s statute book it would provide a check and balance to both Northern communities.
It isn’t too dissimilar to the commitment made by the European Union to Ireland in the wake of Brexit. The institutions of Brussels made a commitment that in the event of unification, there would be no issues with Ireland’s EU membership and that Northern Ireland citizens would gain all the privileges of being European citizens. This might sound straightforward, but it really isn’t, especially if the UK diverges significantly from the EU in law, policy and practice. The declaration of support at least gives political and legal room for manoeuvre to budding united Irelanders that theirs is the side of Europe.
It would be a moral inconsistency to spend so much of Northern Ireland’s 100-year history arguing against majoritarianism only to switch course when it suits nationalism. It isn’t enough to cleave onto the ‘whataboutist’ argument that “they did it for 50 years so now we will” as this achieves nothing – the post GFA institutions are recognised as being for everyone so claiming that post unity, they would only serve unionist concerns is disingenuous. Schools in Belfast will still fail thousands of kids and the hospital in Derry will still have years long waiting lists. There is no secret sauce within the Dublin corridors of power to fix these issues and Martin recognises this by instead promoting a vision of unity which is about sharing resources, projects and capital (financial and human).
De-blunting the edges of any unification plan can come through local democracy, Stormont does offer this. It also offers the afore mentioned checks and balances which, although sometimes infuriating, keep our democracy within the bounds of civility. If you want a united Ireland simply because of a wish to abolish Stormont, then I won’t be able to convince you. I only pose you with one challenge, if you want a united Ireland for institutions you wish to break or suspended then how different are you from Cummings and the Brexiteers penny pitching English regions and rushing through demagogic legislation?
If nationalism embrace such a plan, then it placates any scenario immediately after the border poll where unionism digs its heels in at local councils and at Dail Eireen. The ensuing melodrama could be entirely avoided if Stormont still exists with powers devolved to it by Dublin instead of London. It would put unionist and nationalist political players in a place of defending local institutions instead of just smashing them down. Mick often quotes Tim Snyder on a point which is as apt on this subject matter as any other:
Defend institutions. This is a time when people like you and me and my friends say the institutions are going to save us. This is wrong: we have to save the institutions. This is the moment of ask not what the institutions can do for me it’s ask what you can do for the institutions. Fill them out, support them, don’t expect them to be robots because they’re not.
“Stormont” by D-Stanley is licensed under CC BY


sluggerotoole--2020-10-27--Jim O’Callaghan interviewed on Irish Unity, SDLP and Fianna Fail #video

Yesterday I sat down with Fianna Fail TD , Jim O ’ Callaghan to discuss the new Shared Island Unit announced by the Irish government , Irish Unity , the relationship with the SDLP and the performance of the government during the pandemic .
O ’ Callaghan takes a more forward line on the issues of unification and a border poll than many other TDs .
In the interview he was up front in his view that not just the conversation around a border poll is happening but that the day will come when a vote his held on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of his pitch here is to focus on planning for a vote , rather than setting a date .
He didn ’ t take up my questions about naming a date , but instead using Peter Robinsons recent words spoke more about the need for pro unity forces to plan .
Here he also noted was a role for the SDLP-Fianna Fail partnership with an idea for the two to have a joint platform on a new constitution for the island and going further he wants to see a deeper relationship between the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ angling for a more declarative view on the potential of a poll will take some heart from O ’ Callaghan ’ s comments , particularly his comments about the role that Fianna Fail as a party should play in this process .
Whether this call comes to anything substantive is another matter , but the conversation is continuing and gaining pace .
O ’ Callaghan is right to point out that whilst all of us on this island have a say in the final destination , we are not entirely in control of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be called .

Yesterday I sat down with Fianna Fail TD, Jim O’Callaghan to discuss the new Shared Island Unit announced by the Irish government, Irish Unity, the relationship with the SDLP and the performance of the government during the pandemic.
Analysis
O’Callaghan takes a more forward line on the issues of unification and a border poll than many other TDs. In the interview he was up front in his view that not just the conversation around a border poll is happening but that the day will come when a vote his held on the constitutional future of Northern Ireland. Part of his pitch here is to focus on planning for a vote, rather than setting a date. He didn’t take up my questions about naming a date, but instead using Peter Robinsons recent words spoke more about the need for pro unity forces to plan. Here he also noted was a role for the SDLP-Fianna Fail partnership with an idea for the two to have a joint platform on a new constitution for the island and going further he wants to see a deeper relationship between the two parties in the future.
Those angling for a more declarative view on the potential of a poll will take some heart from O’Callaghan’s comments, particularly his comments about the role that Fianna Fail as a party should play in this process. Whether this call comes to anything substantive is another matter, but the conversation is continuing and gaining pace. O’Callaghan is right to point out that whilst all of us on this island have a say in the final destination, we are not entirely in control of the circumstance in which a vote could be called.


sluggerotoole--2020-10-27--Final US Presidential Debate 2020: Trump v Biden…

The final presidential debate was a lot more moderate in tone and controlled than the previous one .
Both candidates were mostly respectful towards each other and largely adhered to the debating rules .
We actually got to hear them speaking without the other continually interrupting .
However , will their views on the issues make any difference to voting intention at this late stage in the 2020 presidential election ?
Below , I have covered the issues discussed that would be of interest to an international audience that both candidates gave a substantial response to .
Trump defended his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that a vaccine is “ going to be announced within weeks ” and that the “ military is going to distribute the vaccine.
” Trump was asked by the debate chair Kristen Welker if he could guarantee this and Trump clarified that he could not , but estimates that a vaccine should be available “ by the end of the year.
” Welker asked Trump if his vaccine timeline was realistic , citing that Trump officials have said “ it could take well into 2021 at the earliest for enough Americans to get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ US ] will be wearing masks and distancing into 2022.
” Trump insisted his timeline was “ more accurate ” and confirmed his military personnel are “ ready to go ” in terms of distribution whenever a vaccine is available .
Biden was critical of Trump ’ s handling of the coronavirus pandemic , citing that over 220,000 Americans have died from Covid-19 and that there are over 70,000 new cases per day , with about one thousand deaths being reported daily currently .
Biden confirmed if he were President , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was not as optimistic as Trump on the timeline of a vaccine being made widely available .
Trump disagreed with Biden ’ s pessimism , stating that the US will not have a “ dark winter ” as Biden believes the country will go into .
Trump insisted he moved quickly in the beginning stages of the coronavirus pandemic by imposing restrictions on travel from China , to which Biden refuted that the imposition of the travel restrictions could have come quicker .
Trump asserted that the US needs to learn to live @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the cure can not be worse than the problem itself ” in relation to the socioeconomic fallout of coronavirus restrictions , to which Biden responded that “ people are learning to die with it ” instead as he does not believe Trump is taking the virus seriously .
Trump insisted that the US needs to open up , while Biden emphasised the US can only open up with safety measures in place if the reproduction rate of the virus is at a safe level , refusing to rule out any tightening of coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been nobody tougher on Russia than Donald Trump ” in relation to the increase in NATO ’ s defence spending he claims he secured “ to guard against Russia.
” Biden asserted “ that any country , no matter who it is , that interferes in American elections will pay a price ” , seeing foreign interference in the US presidential election as interference with American sovereignty , claiming that Trump has been weak on dealing with alleged election interference from Russia .
Trump asserts “ nobody has done more for the black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he secured criminal justice reform .
Biden believes “ there is institutional racism in America ” , and would like to see more socioeconomic opportunities for minority communities in the US , urging the US electorate to examine the character of both candidates closely in regards to who they think would do more for minority communities in the US .
Trump wants to see the US have the “ cleanest crystal-clear water , the cleanest air ” and defended pulling the US out of the Paris Accord , claiming the US was “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dollars and we were treated very unfairly ” in relation to the impact the Paris Accord would have on American businesses and jobs .
Trump is sceptical on the benefits of the renewable-energy industry and would prefer to maintain existing US energy industries to protect existing jobs .
Trump also claims Biden is opposed to fracking .
Biden sees climate change as “ an existential threat to humanity ” and that the US has “ a moral obligation to deal with it.
” Biden believes the US has an economic opportunity in being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to create new jobs in the markets of energy efficiency and electric cars .
On fracking , Biden clarified that he would not ban fracking but instead he would invest into more efficient ways to reduce the emissions from fracking to help the US be more environmentally responsible “ Trump & Biden ” by ekaden is licensed under CC BY-SA

The final presidential debate was a lot more moderate in tone and controlled than the previous one. Both candidates were mostly respectful towards each other and largely adhered to the debating rules. We actually got to hear them speaking without the other continually interrupting. However, will their views on the issues make any difference to voting intention at this late stage in the 2020 presidential election? Below, I have covered the issues discussed that would be of interest to an international audience that both candidates gave a substantial response to.
Coronavirus Pandemic
Trump defended his handling of the coronavirus pandemic and revealed that a vaccine is “going to be announced within weeks” and that the “military is going to distribute the vaccine.” Trump was asked by the debate chair Kristen Welker if he could guarantee this and Trump clarified that he could not, but estimates that a vaccine should be available “by the end of the year.”
Welker asked Trump if his vaccine timeline was realistic, citing that Trump officials have said “it could take well into 2021 at the earliest for enough Americans to get vaccinated” and that “the country [US] will be wearing masks and distancing into 2022.” Trump insisted his timeline was “more accurate” and confirmed his military personnel are “ready to go” in terms of distribution whenever a vaccine is available.
Biden was critical of Trump’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic, citing that over 220,000 Americans have died from Covid-19 and that there are over 70,000 new cases per day, with about one thousand deaths being reported daily currently. Biden confirmed if he were President, he would encourage the wearing of masks and was not as optimistic as Trump on the timeline of a vaccine being made widely available.
Trump disagreed with Biden’s pessimism, stating that the US will not have a “dark winter” as Biden believes the country will go into. Trump insisted he moved quickly in the beginning stages of the coronavirus pandemic by imposing restrictions on travel from China, to which Biden refuted that the imposition of the travel restrictions could have come quicker.
Trump asserted that the US needs to learn to live with the virus, stating that “the cure cannot be worse than the problem itself” in relation to the socioeconomic fallout of coronavirus restrictions, to which Biden responded that “people are learning to die with it” instead as he does not believe Trump is taking the virus seriously. Trump insisted that the US needs to open up, while Biden emphasised the US can only open up with safety measures in place if the reproduction rate of the virus is at a safe level, refusing to rule out any tightening of coronavirus restrictions.
Foreign Interference of the Election (Russia)
Trump claims “there has been nobody tougher on Russia than Donald Trump” in relation to the increase in NATO’s defence spending he claims he secured “to guard against Russia.” Biden asserted “that any country, no matter who it is, that interferes in American elections will pay a price”, seeing foreign interference in the US presidential election as interference with American sovereignty, claiming that Trump has been weak on dealing with alleged election interference from Russia.
Race
Trump asserts “nobody has done more for the black community than Donald Trump”, claiming he secured criminal justice reform. Biden believes “there is institutional racism in America”, and would like to see more socioeconomic opportunities for minority communities in the US, urging the US electorate to examine the character of both candidates closely in regards to who they think would do more for minority communities in the US.
Climate Change
Trump wants to see the US have the “cleanest crystal-clear water, the cleanest air” and defended pulling the US out of the Paris Accord, claiming the US was “going to have to spend trillions of dollars and we were treated very unfairly” in relation to the impact the Paris Accord would have on American businesses and jobs. Trump is sceptical on the benefits of the renewable-energy industry and would prefer to maintain existing US energy industries to protect existing jobs. Trump also claims Biden is opposed to fracking.
Biden sees climate change as “an existential threat to humanity” and that the US has “a moral obligation to deal with it.” Biden believes the US has an economic opportunity in being more environmentally responsible, particularly in investment to create new jobs in the markets of energy efficiency and electric cars. On fracking, Biden clarified that he would not ban fracking but instead he would invest into more efficient ways to reduce the emissions from fracking to help the US be more environmentally responsible
“Trump & Biden” by ekaden is licensed under CC BY-SA


sluggerotoole--2020-10-27--Unionism’s journey into the future should be based on evidence, conviviality and conviction

Not renowned for public discourse on internal thinking or admitting to failings , it is a positive development that both Peter Robinson , former First Minister and key strategist within the DUP and Reverend Mervyn Gibson , Leader of the Orange Order are hinting at a need for fresh thinking within Unionism on the part of Peter Robinson and Orangeism in the case of Reverend Gibson .
Both however are tentative in their critique , especially so in the case of the Orange leader .
He refers in his interview in the Newsletter to the Orange Order as being like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that it is only able to embrace change slowly .
The point it could be more beneficial for him to note is that as a result of contributing events like Drumcree and Twaddell and the perceived narrow cultural , social and religious stance of the movement , many of the public in Northern Ireland are on a journey which has already started towards a rendezvous with a different future .
The Reverend Gibson may not be of the view but some of his remarks , perhaps unintentionally , seem to imply that there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ answer to every problem , a solution to every issue but that is no longer the case .
Stronger conviction rather than the inferred pragmatism would make the position clearer .
Mr Robinson , now a columnist in the Newsletter , in warning of a looming border poll , calls for a think tank for Unionism to aid politicians in making the case for the Union .
It begs the obvious question of political unionism : ‘ What have you been doing up to now ?
’ It also raises pivotal issues that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not first of all .
Since the Good Friday Agreement , we have had St Andrews , Hillsborough and A Fresh Start all of which were lauded as advancing the maintenance of the Union through mainly DUP electoral success .
Now it seems , it is less secure .
Were these just pyrrhic victories or false dawns ?
If so , there must be merit in a think tank looking at where the strategic or policy flaws lie .
No well-made case for the Union will work if the strategies and policies are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ goal .
It will be akin to building a house for an arsonist to burn it down .
A softer analogy maybe is to suggest that there is little point in plotting an evidence-based course for the vessel , if the crew , even when it is turned around , insist on sailing in the same direction propelled by bio-mass boilers , with curried yoghurt on the menu and heading for the red sky of the Maldives supplied with a good store of crocodile propellent .
At least if the ship goes down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of ‘ O God Our Help in Ages Past.
’ Put starkly , the case for the union relies not just on the message but the values , integrity and humility of those who advocate for the cause .
Arrogant disdain for diversity and emphasis on the dark world of blind party loyalty and cronyism needs to be consigned to the past .
The ‘ safe hands ’ to which the former leader refers are perhaps not as safe as is presumed .
Mr Robinson refers to those who are pro-union but who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do not vote .
It is not hard to work out why .
That they are already pro-Union points to the fact that they are well acquainted with and understand the evidence and the merits of the argument .
Perhaps this suggests the remedy to strengthening that case lies beyond the provision of a think-tank – albeit that the idea has merit ?
Underpinned by a strong sense of ethics and principles allied to putting aside rage politics to foster relationships would go some way to strengthening the case further .
The electorate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through fear-mongering and prejudice : to be led rather than commanded .
It is the latter which has produced a democratic deficit within unionism where ever-growing pro-union or civic unionist electors feel disenfranchised .
Young people , especially , have no interest or feel so inclined as to engage in the gender , religious and social status labelling which de-humanises those with whom they work , socialise and study .
Within communities , which are culturally hybrid and self-confident in their identity , pro-Union groups and individuals of all ages work inclusively on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relationships and transform society .
Mostly social-democrat in outlook and with a global perspective , they are interested in wealth creation and fair distribution rather than wealth accumulation , welfare , education , environment and employment .
It is living in this type of home and its sustainability , not proselytising slogans , that will make the case for the Union .
Politicians who rely on symbols , tub-thumping , and demonising the opposition , need to catch up .
At one level it beggars belief that gathering and using evidence-based research to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Union is not already in place .
This lends weight to the oft-cited charge that Unionism is more comfortable with what it is against than what it is for , in which case it will be difficult for a think-tank to augment what is built on a foundation of saying NO be it to political review or social reform .
Maybe it is that politicians have been , as suggested , mainly in crisis-mode .
This , however , seems a somewhat lame explanation especially when many of the crises , not least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and returns us to considering that it is not the fuel that is at fault but the dysfunctional engine it is expected to propel , to say nothing of the backfiring that results from conflicted relationships .
In the past , it was Peter Robinson who attempted to lead unionism into fresh thinking .
Speaking in October 2010 , as reported in the Belfast Telegraph , he called for an integrated schooling system .
In 2011 , buoyed by the result of a Life and Times survey showing a majority of Catholics in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leader spoke of the need to persuade Catholic voters to support his party .
Believing that electors no longer thought in terms of ‘ orange and green ’ the DUP would become ‘ a centre-right pro-business cross-community party.
’ As it turned out the bridge he was attempting to build never reached the other side .
The tangled thinking and limited expectations of political unionism remained largely within the traditional boundaries and pigeon-holes that Peter Robinson claimed were being abandoned .
Demographic change , Brexit and the erratic success of political unionism in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to find answers to pressing issues .
The conundrum to which Mr Robinson refers and the need to articulate more fully the case for maintenance of the Union can be addressed by a think tank but one that is geared to serving the community , not politicians .
As people change , the Union will change .
Brexit is testing loyalties and the regional and social inequality apparent in the Covid-pandemic crisis added to pressure on devolution is creating fluidity and openness in thinking to say the least .
Support for the Union @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There are challenges to be faced and not just in Northern Ireland .
It will come back to the lives of individuals and how the political arrangements deliver the quality of life and opportunities available .
Political Unionism needs to address this through fresh rather than re-cycled thinking now , more than ever before .
A good place to start is to consider what it can do , rather than can not ; to abandon the historical comfort zone of mediocrity and confines of narrow rituals and culture .
Act in the right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have an honest look at itself in the mirror .
The GFA was designed to build consensus for the common good but default political unionism has been too involved in power retention through a carved-up government which has not served the community well .
In his writing , Mr Robinson , not to put words into his mouth , seems to infer that unionism is ‘ sleepwalking into a future border poll.
’ If this is the case , it needs to wake up sooner rather than later .
A think tank can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mr Robinson seems to have experienced from 2010 onwards , too many prefer the traditional one .
Photo by MabelAmber is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA

Not renowned for public discourse on internal thinking or admitting to failings, it is a positive development that both Peter Robinson, former First Minister and key strategist within the DUP and Reverend Mervyn Gibson, Leader of the Orange Order are hinting at a need for fresh thinking within Unionism on the part of Peter Robinson and Orangeism in the case of Reverend Gibson.
Both however are tentative in their critique, especially so in the case of the Orange leader. He refers in his interview in the Newsletter to the Orange Order as being like an ‘oil tanker’, implying that it is only able to embrace change slowly.
The point it could be more beneficial for him to note is that as a result of contributing events like Drumcree and Twaddell and the perceived narrow cultural, social and religious stance of the movement, many of the public in Northern Ireland are on a journey which has already started towards a rendezvous with a different future.
The Reverend Gibson may not be of the view but some of his remarks, perhaps unintentionally, seem to imply that there has to be an Orange or unionist answer to every problem, a solution to every issue but that is no longer the case.
Stronger conviction rather than the inferred pragmatism would make the position clearer.
Mr Robinson, now a columnist in the Newsletter, in warning of a looming border poll, calls for a think tank for Unionism to aid politicians in making the case for the Union. It begs the obvious question of political unionism: ‘What have you been doing up to now?’ It also raises pivotal issues that should be addressed in tandem, if not first of all.
Since the Good Friday Agreement, we have had St Andrews, Hillsborough and A Fresh Start all of which were lauded as advancing the maintenance of the Union through mainly DUP electoral success. Now it seems, it is less secure. Were these just pyrrhic victories or false dawns? If so, there must be merit in a think tank looking at where the strategic or policy flaws lie.
No well-made case for the Union will work if the strategies and policies are not in place to deliver their end goal. It will be akin to building a house for an arsonist to burn it down. A softer analogy maybe is to suggest that there is little point in plotting an evidence-based course for the vessel, if the crew, even when it is turned around, insist on sailing in the same direction propelled by bio-mass boilers, with curried yoghurt on the menu and heading for the red sky of the Maldives supplied with a good store of crocodile propellent. At least if the ship goes down, they are familiar with the words of ‘O God Our Help in Ages Past.’
Put starkly, the case for the union relies not just on the message but the values, integrity and humility of those who advocate for the cause. Arrogant disdain for diversity and emphasis on the dark world of blind party loyalty and cronyism needs to be consigned to the past. The ‘safe hands’ to which the former leader refers are perhaps not as safe as is presumed.
Mr Robinson refers to those who are pro-union but who do not vote for Unionist parties or do not vote. It is not hard to work out why. That they are already pro-Union points to the fact that they are well acquainted with and understand the evidence and the merits of the argument. Perhaps this suggests the remedy to strengthening that case lies beyond the provision of a think-tank – albeit that the idea has merit?
Underpinned by a strong sense of ethics and principles allied to putting aside rage politics to foster relationships would go some way to strengthening the case further. The electorate prefers to be persuaded rather than coerced through fear-mongering and prejudice: to be led rather than commanded. It is the latter which has produced a democratic deficit within unionism where ever-growing pro-union or civic unionist electors feel disenfranchised.
Young people, especially, have no interest or feel so inclined as to engage in the gender, religious and social status labelling which de-humanises those with whom they work, socialise and study. Within communities, which are culturally hybrid and self-confident in their identity, pro-Union groups and individuals of all ages work inclusively on issues of common interest to build positive relationships and transform society.
Mostly social-democrat in outlook and with a global perspective, they are interested in wealth creation and fair distribution rather than wealth accumulation, welfare, education, environment and employment. It is living in this type of home and its sustainability, not proselytising slogans, that will make the case for the Union. Politicians who rely on symbols, tub-thumping, and demonising the opposition, need to catch up.
At one level it beggars belief that gathering and using evidence-based research to deliver in practice a case for the Union is not already in place. This lends weight to the oft-cited charge that Unionism is more comfortable with what it is against than what it is for, in which case it will be difficult for a think-tank to augment what is built on a foundation of saying NO be it to political review or social reform.
Maybe it is that politicians have been, as suggested, mainly in crisis-mode. This, however, seems a somewhat lame explanation especially when many of the crises, not least Brexit, have been instigated from within and returns us to considering that it is not the fuel that is at fault but the dysfunctional engine it is expected to propel, to say nothing of the backfiring that results from conflicted relationships.
In the past, it was Peter Robinson who attempted to lead unionism into fresh thinking. Speaking in October 2010, as reported in the Belfast Telegraph, he called for an integrated schooling system. In 2011, buoyed by the result of a Life and Times survey showing a majority of Catholics in support of the Union, the DUP leader spoke of the need to persuade Catholic voters to support his party.
Believing that electors no longer thought in terms of ‘orange and green’ the DUP would become ‘a centre-right pro-business cross-community party.’ As it turned out the bridge he was attempting to build never reached the other side. The tangled thinking and limited expectations of political unionism remained largely within the traditional boundaries and pigeon-holes that Peter Robinson claimed were being abandoned.
Demographic change, Brexit and the erratic success of political unionism in elections now point to a belated expedient to find answers to pressing issues. The conundrum to which Mr Robinson refers and the need to articulate more fully the case for maintenance of the Union can be addressed by a think tank but one that is geared to serving the community, not politicians.
As people change, the Union will change. Brexit is testing loyalties and the regional and social inequality apparent in the Covid-pandemic crisis added to pressure on devolution is creating fluidity and openness in thinking to say the least.
Support for the Union remains strong but this can alter. There are challenges to be faced and not just in Northern Ireland. It will come back to the lives of individuals and how the political arrangements deliver the quality of life and opportunities available. Political Unionism needs to address this through fresh rather than re-cycled thinking now, more than ever before.
A good place to start is to consider what it can do, rather than cannot; to abandon the historical comfort zone of mediocrity and confines of narrow rituals and culture. Act in the right way and with the right motives; have an honest look at itself in the mirror. The GFA was designed to build consensus for the common good but default political unionism has been too involved in power retention through a carved-up government which has not served the community well.
In his writing, Mr Robinson, not to put words into his mouth, seems to infer that unionism is ‘sleepwalking into a future border poll.’ If this is the case, it needs to wake up sooner rather than later. A think tank can plot a new route ahead but as Mr Robinson seems to have experienced from 2010 onwards, too many prefer the traditional one.
Photo by MabelAmber is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA


sluggerotoole--2020-10-27--We’ve All Been Infected With a Covid Side-Effect… And There Is No Cure

In The Comey Rule then-FBI Director James Comey , played by Jeff Daniels , remarks that the Bureau losing the trust of its public is nothing less than “ a bell that can never be unrung ” .
Similarly , the information vacuum created by the NI Executive ’ s confusion , frequent poor leadership at individual level and – in places – crude self-interest during the Covid crisis created a space now occupied permanently by cranks , conspiracy theorists , attention-clamouring ‘ influencers ’ and small government hyper-fanatics .
In particular , and this can not be emphasised enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ market the Covid response effort and its reasons as opposed to merely update on its latest chapter was met with a woefully ill-informed and ill-tempered response by some political reps meaning it , in turn , fed into a perfect storm of online chaos .
A side-effect of this cycle ?
As Daniels ’ James Comey would say “ a tiny hole ” has now drained the “ reservoir of trust ” in the Executive and has caused long-term damage to how the authorities in NI will be able to communicate with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ words : widespread distrust of NI government communications in a crisis .
A breakdown in the information flow during future emergencies .
A bell that can never be unrung .
The ‘ Long Covid ’ Facing NI Government Communications : How It Happened Early in 2020 we were all faced with a horrifyingly simple situation : a pandemic spreading our way required action from every one of us to reduce its impact in NI .
This also meant everyone , including political reps and newspapers too , being faced with the same choice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) either support a single , NI-wide , democratically decided course of action or ( B ) don ’ t .
Crucially , any option ( C ) damages the effectiveness of option ( A ) .
The Executive began , amid the usual wrangling and gallery-playing , to hold regular press conference-type events .
There ’ s little issue with these and the good work of Robin Swann throughout should be noted .
What the Executive didn ’ t apparently do , though , was launch a major and ongoing , rapidly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number of questions being asked online by those who didn ’ t understand the reasoning behind X restriction .
This created an information void we have seen being filled with University of YouTube gibberish and posturing by political and social media figures ever since .
Another sure sign of an information vacuum appearing ?
Political reps and even journalists openly asking the type of embarrassingly basic crowd-pleasing Covid questions of their social media audience a reasonable person would assume they are paid to be researching and answering .
Generally , the person asking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hear the answer .
This enabled a view , signalled by some community leaders in our society , that Covid is an issue where individual members of society have no responsibility to find out information or to go a step further to understand the ‘ why ’ but instead to throw their hands up in refusal if Robin Swann et al haven ’ t already landed a precise explanation for their precise permutation of enquiry at their feet .
Ultimately , it ’ s like political reps showing voters that its OK to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one – including the political rep – took the time to find out why it is there .
Should the reasons have been communicated better ?
Yes .
Does that negate an individual ’ s responsibility , or even the responsibility of a political rep or person with influence to find out more for themselves ?
No .
One of the finest observations of the Covid crisis has come from journalist Amanda Ferguson who pointed out that “ Covid reveals who you are ” .
And , oh boy , were we about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first cracks of dissent came from newspaper commentators who saw the opportunity for rapid clicks and the heady heights of personal infamy .
Some of the biggest names in local social media , also attracted like a moth to the spotlight of contrarianism-fuelled social engagement , weren ’ t far behind .
Then , the political figures who failed in the task of parking their ideology even briefly to join in a single , united community effort against a common foe began solo runs , griping from the sidelines , apparent party splits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much worse .
Attempts to sectarianise the issue – thoroughly debunked using data shared by Peter Donaghy on Twitter correctly identifying poverty as the headline factor behind the spread of Covid – were , even by our standards , a horrific political low .
This all means government information in an emergency is no longer seen as ‘ what we all need to do ’ but something to be mulled over as an individual choice for everyone to go in thousands of individual directions as the spirit and notion moves them .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government crisis decision to met online with zero-effort disbelief by a political rep play-acting like a barrister playing to their core vote in a pretend courtroom despite their – salaried – role being to act as a judge representing everyone and with a duty to inform , not enflame , their constituents .
Within the past few weeks we have lobby groups shouting down the Executive ’ s response – with their help of well-placed Stromont supporters – plus the surreal sight of local fashionistas , YouTube-addicts and the conspiracy-enthralled being given equal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ individual views .
The rise of the predominantly male , middle-aged ‘ amateur virologist ’ and their scientist-trolling replies being one of the more accursed online trends of this bizarre year .
The problem with this ?
As a Freemason known to me commented : “ Organise a conspiracy ?
We can ’ t even decide where to go for lunch ” .
But the credibility of the tinfoil hat brigade is growing as we speak .
This could have been avoided by constant , very blunt and very reactive marketing messaging not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a restriction but answering the questions everyone is asking .
After all , many of their political reps have failed to provide even the most simple answers as it is .
What should the marketing meeting behind this look like ?
A big , virtual whiteboard containing media , social media and political analysis to uncover easily-resolved questions like : • How come I can do X but can ’ t go to X ?
• Why haven ’ t masks stopped the virus and how do they work ?
• How can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 10pm ?
’ Etc etc etc .
Every single day .
And it needed to broadcast its message online , in print and in the community constantly .
Every single day .
After all , 80 % of the confusion seemed to come from a simple misunderstanding of 20 % of the messaging .
But the marketing never arrived .
The ‘ Long Covid ’ Facing NI Government Communications : What Next There ’ s no doubt that Covid , over time , revealed fanatical individualism in elements of politics , the media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three groups have empowered the other , creating an environment where the weakly-promoted message has collapsed in on itself .
Analysis would suggest that the UK stands alongside Trump ’ s US in the scale of its refusal to get behind government actions to combat Covid .
In the language of Donald ’ s faithful : “ …the companion of fools will suffer harm ” .
Alongside this lack of support , a failure to use creative , bold marketing to respond to the questions people needed answered , bearing in mind their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , has meant that the means to communicate government messages in an emergency has now collapsed in on itself too .
In fairness , the fact that some political reps themselves didn ’ t understand , or pretended not to understand , ‘ X ’ Covid-response meant they were barely in a position to support a marketing campaign covering basics they themselves struggled to communicate .
But with Brexit around the corner , Covid still at our door and the inevitability of United Ireland referendum sooner or later this means chaos will continue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needed most unless substantial , far-reaching enquires are carried out to establish how the consistently AWOL NI government marketing – as opposed to daily information – message got it so so badly wrong .
Why ?
We ’ ve seen the public sector marketing failure of lifetime .
Like Long Covid , it involves real , human lives and like Long Covid we ’ re going to be facing down the unknown side-effects for many years to come .
Right now , the failure looks like a bell that can never be unrung @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CC BY-NC-SA

In The Comey Rule then-FBI Director James Comey, played by Jeff Daniels, remarks that the Bureau losing the trust of its public is nothing less than “a bell that can never be unrung”. Similarly, the information vacuum created by the NI Executive’s confusion, frequent poor leadership at individual level and – in places – crude self-interest during the Covid crisis created a space now occupied permanently by cranks, conspiracy theorists, attention-clamouring ‘influencers’ and small government hyper-fanatics.
In particular, and this cannot be emphasised enough, a failure to aggressively and creatively market the Covid response effort and its reasons as opposed to merely update on its latest chapter was met with a woefully ill-informed and ill-tempered response by some political reps meaning it, in turn, fed into a perfect storm of online chaos.
A side-effect of this cycle? As Daniels’ James Comey would say “a tiny hole” has now drained the “reservoir of trust” in the Executive and has caused long-term damage to how the authorities in NI will be able to communicate with the population in the future.
In other words: widespread distrust of NI government communications in a crisis. A breakdown in the information flow during future emergencies.
A bell that can never be unrung.
The ‘Long Covid’ Facing NI Government Communications: How It Happened
Early in 2020 we were all faced with a horrifyingly simple situation: a pandemic spreading our way required action from every one of us to reduce its impact in NI. This also meant everyone, including political reps and newspapers too , being faced with the same choice. And that was to (A) either support a single, NI-wide, democratically decided course of action or (B) don’t. Crucially, any option (C) damages the effectiveness of option (A).
The Executive began, amid the usual wrangling and gallery-playing, to hold regular press conference-type events. There’s little issue with these and the good work of Robin Swann throughout should be noted.
What the Executive didn’t apparently do, though, was launch a major and ongoing, rapidly reactive marketing campaign to answer the vast number of questions being asked online by those who didn’t understand the reasoning behind X restriction.
This created an information void we have seen being filled with University of YouTube gibberish and posturing by political and social media figures ever since.
Another sure sign of an information vacuum appearing? Political reps and even journalists openly asking the type of embarrassingly basic crowd-pleasing Covid questions of their social media audience a reasonable person would assume they are paid to be researching and answering.
Generally, the person asking the question doesn’t want to hear the answer.
This enabled a view, signalled by some community leaders in our society, that Covid is an issue where individual members of society have no responsibility to find out information or to go a step further to understand the ‘why’ but instead to throw their hands up in refusal if Robin Swann et al haven’t already landed a precise explanation for their precise permutation of enquiry at their feet.
Ultimately, it’s like political reps showing voters that its OK to ignore a new speed limit because no one – including the political rep – took the time to find out why it is there.
Should the reasons have been communicated better? Yes. Does that negate an individual’s responsibility, or even the responsibility of a political rep or person with influence to find out more for themselves? No.
The ‘Long Covid’ Facing Government Communications: The Result
One of the finest observations of the Covid crisis has come from journalist Amanda Ferguson who pointed out that “Covid reveals who you are”. And, oh boy, were we about to find out.
Some of the first cracks of dissent came from newspaper commentators who saw the opportunity for rapid clicks and the heady heights of personal infamy. Some of the biggest names in local social media, also attracted like a moth to the spotlight of contrarianism-fuelled social engagement, weren’t far behind.
Then, the political figures who failed in the task of parking their ideology even briefly to join in a single, united community effort against a common foe began solo runs, griping from the sidelines, apparent party splits, needless special interest groups representations and much worse. Attempts to sectarianise the issue – thoroughly debunked using data shared by Peter Donaghy on Twitter correctly identifying poverty as the headline factor behind the spread of Covid – were, even by our standards, a horrific political low.
This all means government information in an emergency is no longer seen as ‘what we all need to do’ but something to be mulled over as an individual choice for everyone to go in thousands of individual directions as the spirit and notion moves them.
It is now also the norm for a government crisis decision to met online with zero-effort disbelief by a political rep play-acting like a barrister playing to their core vote in a pretend courtroom despite their – salaried – role being to act as a judge representing everyone and with a duty to inform, not enflame, their constituents.
The ‘Long Covid’ Facing Government Communications: What Should’ve Happened
Within the past few weeks we have lobby groups shouting down the Executive’s response – with their help of well-placed Stromont supporters – plus the surreal sight of local fashionistas, YouTube-addicts and the conspiracy-enthralled being given equal billing with experts to pontificate over their individual views. The rise of the predominantly male, middle-aged ‘amateur virologist’ and their scientist-trolling replies being one of the more accursed online trends of this bizarre year.
The problem with this? As a Freemason known to me commented: “Organise a conspiracy? We can’t even decide where to go for lunch”.
But the credibility of the tinfoil hat brigade is growing as we speak.
This could have been avoided by constant, very blunt and very reactive marketing messaging not just drilling down to the why of a restriction but answering the questions everyone is asking. After all, many of their political reps have failed to provide even the most simple answers as it is.
What should the marketing meeting behind this look like? A big, virtual whiteboard containing media, social media and political analysis to uncover easily-resolved questions like:
• How come I can do X but can’t go to X?
• Why haven’t masks stopped the virus and how do they work?
• How can a virus ‘only come out at 10pm?’
Etc etc etc. Every single day. And it needed to broadcast its message online, in print and in the community constantly. Every single day.
After all, 80% of the confusion seemed to come from a simple misunderstanding of 20% of the messaging.
But the marketing never arrived.
The ‘Long Covid’ Facing NI Government Communications: What Next
There’s no doubt that Covid, over time, revealed fanatical individualism in elements of politics, the media and in society across NI. The three groups have empowered the other, creating an environment where the weakly-promoted message has collapsed in on itself.
Analysis would suggest that the UK stands alongside Trump’s US in the scale of its refusal to get behind government actions to combat Covid. In the language of Donald’s faithful: “…the companion of fools will suffer harm”.
Alongside this lack of support, a failure to use creative, bold marketing to respond to the questions people needed answered, bearing in mind their politicians in places failed to show leadership, has meant that the means to communicate government messages in an emergency has now collapsed in on itself too.
In fairness, the fact that some political reps themselves didn’t understand, or pretended not to understand, ‘X’ Covid-response meant they were barely in a position to support a marketing campaign covering basics they themselves struggled to communicate.
But with Brexit around the corner, Covid still at our door and the inevitability of United Ireland referendum sooner or later this means chaos will continue to replace communications where the latter is needed most unless substantial, far-reaching enquires are carried out to establish how the consistently AWOL NI government marketing – as opposed to daily information – message got it so so badly wrong.
Why? We’ve seen the public sector marketing failure of lifetime. Like Long Covid, it involves real, human lives and like Long Covid we’re going to be facing down the unknown side-effects for many years to come.
Right now, the failure looks like a bell that can never be unrung.
Photo by LisaAttractLove is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA


sluggerotoole--2020-10-28--Book your free tickets for a 2020 ESRC Virtual Festival of Social Science…

This year , the Festival will be completely virtual so you can join in wherever you are .
Queen ’ @ @ @ @ @ University have come together to produce an exciting virtual programme of talks , screenings and @ @ @ @ @ and quality of social science-based research carried out by our academics – everything from fake @ @ @ @ @ to the Covid lockdown .
The annual Festival of Social Science offers a fascinating insight @ @ @ @ @ and how it influences our social , economic and political lives .
So , if @ @ @ @ @ , a policymaker , in business or simply passionate about a particular interest , then @ @ @ @ @ the debate !
All events are free to watch but we ask you to please @ @ @ @ @ numbers :

This year, the Festival will be completely virtual so you can join in wherever you are.
Queen’s University Belfast and Ulster University have come together to produce an exciting virtual programme of talks, screenings and workshops that showcase the range and quality of social science-based research carried out by our academics – everything from fake news to streaming and Brexit to the Covid lockdown. The annual Festival of Social Science offers a fascinating insight into our social science research and how it influences our social, economic and political lives. So, if you’re a student, a policymaker, in business or simply passionate about a particular interest, then log on and join in the debate!
All events are free to watch but we ask you to please register so we can manage numbers:
[wfea layout=”grid” limit=”50″ excerpt=”false” readmore=”false” booknow_text=”Book your free ticket »” ]


sluggerotoole--2020-10-28--#TheReset Podcast: “Why can’t government do things (anymore)”?

Ed Straw has been in and around government and state led projects for a large part of his later working life .
He has also been involved with the UK Labour Party using his trained engineer ’ s eye to look at how things work .
His new book throws new light on the problem of poor “ government agency ” .
In it we cover : • Governments are hooked on a systematic approach which assumes society remains as simple as it once was .
This results in what Ed calls an end-stage fallacy : ie , the assumption @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decay between conception and deployment .
Feedback is rarely sought .
• Ed says we need a systemic approach , which requires a more relaxed approach to problem-solving in which you wider the boundaries of the thing you ’ re trying to fix and the framework in order to the greater context in which it sits .
It can start by asking whether there is even a problem at all ?
• Finding wider and more resilient solutions fit for a future that is fast in both arrival and departure means bringing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ events .
It also means employing a disciplined pluralism to see what works and doesn ’ t before scaling up .
It ’ s a rich conversation which I think goes to the heart of the causes of the world wide epidemic of populism which is part of the wider governance problem , some of which I highlighted in this UCD webinar last week has been buregeoning over the last ten years or so : Knowing why you want to do something is a good basis for asking whether you should do it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing something .
You don ’ t have far to go in Northern Ireland to see a whole litany of projects that were lobbied for , then planned for and then dropped when the political will ran dry .
Northern Ireland has been beset with wicked problems which no one seems to have been able to approach never mind solve .
A new and more systems based evolutionary approach might get us a lot further with sticky issues like how we develop an economy fit for the rich culture of Derry and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do that , and no magic formula for getting there .
Infrastructure will get you some of the way , but there are other sticky problems for places like Foyle and West Belfast where big local employers are rare to non existent and a legacy of the Hume era ( see our Willie McCarter podcast ) .
We have seen that end stage fallacy phenomenon which often assumes the promise is the delivery , and in which the flash of the announcement is rarely followed up by an accompanying bang of delivery @ @ @ @ @ @ @ word for it , do give Ed listen and then let us know what you think ?
# TheReset project with Ulster Bank is slowly coming to a close .
If you want take part before we close , email me at [ email protected ] with an idea for inclusion in the next week .
In the meantime , you can catch up on Cargo of Bricks and In Conversation and subscribe on Apple Podcasts | Google Podcasts , Spotify , or wherever you get your quality podcasts .

Ed Straw has been in and around government and state led projects for a large part of his later working life. He has also been involved with the UK Labour Party using his trained engineer’s eye to look at how things work. His new book throws new light on the problem of poor “government agency”.
Powered by RedCircle
In it we cover:
Governments are hooked on a systematic approach which assumes society remains as simple as it once was. This results in what Ed calls an end-state fallacy: ie, the assumption that government does not suffer a long decay between conception and deployment. Feedback is rarely sought.
remains as simple as it once was. This results in what Ed calls an end-state fallacy: ie, the assumption that government does not suffer a long decay between conception and deployment. Feedback is rarely sought. Ed says we need a systemic approach, which requires a more relaxed approach to problem-solving in which you wider the boundaries of the thing you’re trying to fix and the framework in order to the greater context in which it sits. It can start by asking whether there is even a problem at all?
Finding wider and more resilient solutions fit for a future that is fast in both arrival and departure means bringing the electorate into the deal between major electoral events. It also means employing a disciplined pluralism to see what works and doesn’t before scaling up.
It’s a rich conversation which I think goes to the heart of the causes of the world wide epidemic of populism which is part of the wider governance problem, some of which I highlighted in this UCD webinar last week has been buregeoning over the last ten years or so:
Knowing why you want to do something is a good basis for asking whether you should do it, or find some better way of doing something. You don’t have far to go in Northern Ireland to see a whole litany of projects that were lobbied for, then planned for and then dropped when the political will ran dry.
Northern Ireland has been beset with wicked problems which no one seems to have been able to approach never mind solve. A new and more systems based evolutionary approach might get us a lot further with sticky issues like how we develop an economy fit for the rich culture of Derry and the NW.
There is no one way to do that, and no magic formula for getting there. Infrastructure will get you some of the way, but there are other sticky problems for places like Foyle and West Belfast where big local employers are rare to non existent and a legacy of the Hume era (see our Willie McCarter podcast).
We have seen that end stage fallacy phenomenon which often assumes the promise is the delivery, and in which the flash of the announcement is rarely followed up by an accompanying bang of delivery. But don’t take my word for it, do give Ed listen and then let us know what you think?
#TheReset project with Ulster Bank is slowly coming to a close. If you want take part before we close, email me at [email protected] with an idea for inclusion in the next week.
In the meantime, you can catch up on Cargo of Bricks and In Conversation and subscribe on Apple Podcasts | Google Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your quality podcasts.


sluggerotoole--2020-10-29--McCallion goes, but questions remain as to why Sinn Fein owned offices were considered ‘small busine

McCallion goes, but questions remain as to why Sinn Fein owned offices were considered ‘small businesses’

Confused ?
You will be .
The last few days have been like an episode of that famous old 80s soap , er , Soap .
I see from David ’ s thread earlier some folks are queuing up to blame the officials who run the scheme , but this ignores the fact that these payments were not part of any wider failure .
Were these offices registered as “ a small business ” ?
Only one other non-SF MLA has anything like a remotely similar issue .
An as-yet-unnamed DUP MLA is apparently trying to put some pressure on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) and is asking them to repay the monies concerned .
McCallion was probably considered politically indefensible because the monies paid under the Small Business Support Grant scheme was paid to her and her husband directly .
That and the fact there ’ s been a series of unwelcome stories about SF and expenses in the south recently : She ’ s the only real casualty here .
Perhaps they were all just hoping that no one would notice .
But that changed Tuesday when Nolan got a better grip on a story @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a light-hearted dig at windfarms who were getting a payment they clearly didn ’ t need .
Other than that , I can not see what was so different between Elisha and the two other cases .
In those cases , no representative is taking a fall .
And in fact , it is very doubtful whether any of those minor officials , including the chair of Upper Bann , are going to be leaving SF anytime soon .
West Tyrone MLA Maoliosa McHugh ’ s told Nolan on Tuesday that he had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pay the money back “ quite a while ago ” , adding that he received confirmation earlier this week that it had been repaid .
An office official has been sacked , but you have to ask why ?
That money was in a Sinn Féin account , not a personal one .
What motive would an official have had for sitting on a repayment of £10k ?
And what is it about all these offices that they seem to have been set up as a small business when to all intents and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cash ?
And that ’ s not even getting into the question of cultural societies , like the one at Guladuff that Spotlight ’ s Mandy McAuley covered a few years ago : It will cost Sinn Féin to lose a Senator .
Maybe David is right to suggest that this swift action could work in their favour .
However , it looks to me like an urgent damage limitation ( they sent Nolan a legal letter , which he read out this morning ) in the face of problematic expenses stories in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ goes away because of this action , really depends on what else there might be to come out .
The SDLP ’ s Matthew O ’ Toole is clearly not in a mood to let it lie there , and is asking questions of the Finance Minister Conor Murphy about what he knew about these payments , and when… Today ’ s resignations by Elisha McCallion and two junior Sinn Fein officers are overdue after two days of silence , but they raise further questions for senior Sinn Fein leadership including Finance Minister @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when his department was informed that his party colleagues were in receipt of this money , did his department or his party colleagues then contact Senator McCallion and the two junior officials about the payments to request repayment , and if the money was repaid on Monday & Tuesday , why has it taken until Thursday for action to be taken ?
‘ Why are junior staff being dismissed when the money was provided to the office of a Sinn Fein MLA who today remains in post but has confirmed that he knew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Nolan is saying on Twitter tonight he will have more in the morning… Photo by jma659 is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA

Confused? You will be. The last few days have been like an episode of that famous old 80s soap, er, Soap. I see from David’s thread earlier some folks are queuing up to blame the officials who run the scheme, but this ignores the fact that these payments were not part of any wider failure.
As Gerry Moriarty notes…
“People already in receipt of small business rates relief automatically received grants under a March 2020 scheme . Payments were made where bank details were held by the North’s Land and Property Services for ratings purposes.” [Emphasis added]
Were these offices registered as “a small business”? Only one other non-SF MLA has anything like a remotely similar issue. An as-yet-unnamed DUP MLA is apparently trying to put some pressure on their private landlord (who received it) and is asking them to repay the monies concerned.
McCallion was probably considered politically indefensible because the monies paid under the Small Business Support Grant scheme was paid to her and her husband directly. That and the fact there’s been a series of unwelcome stories about SF and expenses in the south recently:
Life comes at you fast when you're a Sinn Fein supporter. pic.twitter.com/14x0U8ta1z — Tull McAdoo (@Ballymagash_T) October 26, 2020
She’s the only real casualty here. Perhaps they were all just hoping that no one would notice. But that changed Tuesday when Nolan got a better grip on a story that had started the day before with a light-hearted dig at windfarm turbine owners who were getting a payment they clearly didn’t need.
Other than that, I cannot see what was so different between Elisha and the two other cases. In those cases, no representative is taking a fall. And in fact, it is very doubtful whether any of those minor officials, including the chair of Upper Bann, are going to be leaving SF anytime soon.
West Tyrone MLA Maoliosa McHugh’s told Nolan on Tuesday that he had contacted party officials to make arrangements to pay the money back “quite a while ago”, adding that he received confirmation earlier this week that it had been repaid. An office official has been sacked, but you have to ask why?
That money was in a Sinn Féin account, not a personal one. What motive would an official have had for sitting on a repayment of £10k? And what is it about all these offices that they seem to have been set up as a small business when to all intents and purposes it is all run on taxpayer cash?
And that’s not even getting into the question of cultural societies, like the one at Guladuff that Spotlight’s Mandy McAuley covered a few years ago:
It will cost Sinn Féin to lose a Senator. Maybe David is right to suggest that this swift action could work in their favour. However, it looks to me like an urgent damage limitation (they sent Nolan a legal letter, which he read out this morning) in the face of problematic expenses stories in the south recently…
Whether or not it goes away because of this action, really depends on what else there might be to come out. The SDLP’s Matthew O’Toole is clearly not in a mood to let it lie there, and is asking questions of the Finance Minister Conor Murphy about what he knew about these payments, and when…
Today’s resignations by Elisha McCallion and two junior Sinn Fein officers are overdue after two days of silence, but they raise further questions for senior Sinn Fein leadership including Finance Minister Conor Murphy. He needs to clarify when his department was informed that his party colleagues were in receipt of this money, did his department or his party colleagues then contact Senator McCallion and the two junior officials about the payments to request repayment, and if the money was repaid on Monday & Tuesday, why has it taken until Thursday for action to be taken? ‘Why are junior staff being dismissed when the money was provided to the office of a Sinn Fein MLA who today remains in post but has confirmed that he knew the money had been received in error?
Nolan is saying on Twitter tonight he will have more in the morning…
Photo by jma659 is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA


sluggerotoole--2020-10-29--“Spending serious southern money in the North is a signpost few will miss.”

It ’ s worth sharing some of the detail from this excellent piece from Newton Emerson in the Irish Times on why ( and how ) the Shared Island Fund is a muscular declaration of tangible politics , rather than more the ‘ painless waffle ’ of promises that never get delivered… The Shared Island initiative has been allocated €500 million over five years , an apparently trivial sum compared to Stormont ’ s £13.8 billion annual budget .
However , the funding is mainly for capital projects and is equivalent to 6 per cent of Stormont ’ s capital @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Nobody is expecting Dublin to contribute to Northern Ireland ’ s everyday running costs , yet .
That ’ s in total , and as Newton mentions , a lot of this will be spent in the border areas , but a lot won ’ t… High-speed rail ( or higher-speed rail , any rate ) is seen as the initiative ’ s infrastructure flagship .
It is unworkable without bypassing the Dart and commuter rail line through North Dublin , at astronomical expense and little benefit to the Republic alone .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Northern Ireland on the A5 dual carriageway , on the basis of connecting Dublin to Donegal .
It appears that Derry will get most of the bricks and mortar investment in third-level educational co-operation .
In total , perhaps half of the €500 million could end up north of the border , equivalent to 3 per cent of Stormont ’ s capital budget .
This is a great deal more than has ever been seen before .
Of course , there will be caution , particularly in Northern Ireland .
The News @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggest that unionists should not touch a penny .
Money has been promised for the A5 road before and not made it to the final phase when the recession bit and Fine Gael/Labour pulled it .
And to be effective it needs reciprocation from both London and Stormont .
However , the money shot [ Ahem – Ed ] is how it delineates a key difference between real actions and the familiar old hollow pointless gesture : And finally , it shows just how tedious and time-wasting most of this consideration of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Republic ( including Sinn Féin ) is willing to call… It is a sharp correction to the nonsense that has so far passed for debate on all-Ireland economics .
Some advocates for unification have claimed Northern Ireland requires little or no subsidy if mysterious British accounting tricks are disregarded , a denial so ignorant it feels disreputable even to engage with it .
Other advocates claim Northern Ireland only needs a subsidy because it is an inevitable failure , as if regional funding is a unionist vice rather than a feature of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ money pays for real work to get on with while waiting for the two monoliths of the constitutional argument to shift very slightly in any direction .
It is presumably the most effective pitch to Northern Ireland ’ s growing unaligned bloc , the decisive voters in any Border poll , who should prefer pragmatism to nationalism by definition .
Investing in infrastructure , education and other forms of cross-Border development could reduce the North ’ s need for regional funding , or change the terms in which it is viewed .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effect to such investment , which is partly why it insists on having its logo prominently displayed beside new roads and railways .
[ emphasis added ] Welcome back to the real world… Photo by jarmoluk is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA

It’s worth sharing some of the detail from this excellent piece from Newton Emerson in the Irish Times on why (and how) the Shared Island Fund is a muscular declaration of tangible politics, rather than more the ‘painless waffle’ of promises that never get delivered…
The Shared Island initiative has been allocated €500 million over five years, an apparently trivial sum compared to Stormont’s £13.8 billion annual budget. However, the funding is mainly for capital projects and is equivalent to 6 per cent of Stormont’s capital spending – a substantial and valid comparison. Nobody is expecting Dublin to contribute to Northern Ireland’s everyday running costs, yet.
That’s in total, and as Newton mentions, a lot of this will be spent in the border areas, but a lot won’t…
High-speed rail (or higher-speed rail, any rate) is seen as the initiative’s infrastructure flagship. It is unworkable without bypassing the Dart and commuter rail line through North Dublin, at astronomical expense and little benefit to the Republic alone. About €100 million should be spent directly in Northern Ireland on the A5 dual carriageway, on the basis of connecting Dublin to Donegal. It appears that Derry will get most of the bricks and mortar investment in third-level educational co-operation. In total, perhaps half of the €500 million could end up north of the border, equivalent to 3 per cent of Stormont’s capital budget. This is a great deal more than has ever been seen before.
Of course, there will be caution, particularly in Northern Ireland. The News Letter has already come out strongly to suggest that unionists should not touch a penny. Money has been promised for the A5 road before and not made it to the final phase when the recession bit and Fine Gael/Labour pulled it.
And to be effective it needs reciprocation from both London and Stormont. However, the money shot [Ahem – Ed] is how it delineates a key difference between real actions and the familiar old hollow pointless gesture:
This renewed first attempt at a major fiscal transfer could once again be seen as a political landmark. Money talks: it says the Republic’s aspiration to unity is more than painless waffle.
And finally, it shows just how tedious and time-wasting most of this consideration of a border poll that no main party in the Republic (including Sinn Féin) is willing to call…
It is a sharp correction to the nonsense that has so far passed for debate on all-Ireland economics. Some advocates for unification have claimed Northern Ireland requires little or no subsidy if mysterious British accounting tricks are disregarded, a denial so ignorant it feels disreputable even to engage with it. Other advocates claim Northern Ireland only needs a subsidy because it is an inevitable failure, as if regional funding is a unionist vice rather than a feature of every developed country. Above all, money pays for real work to get on with while waiting for the two monoliths of the constitutional argument to shift very slightly in any direction. It is presumably the most effective pitch to Northern Ireland’s growing unaligned bloc, the decisive voters in any Border poll, who should prefer pragmatism to nationalism by definition. Investing in infrastructure, education and other forms of cross-Border development could reduce the North’s need for regional funding, or change the terms in which it is viewed. The EU clearly believes there is an identity-building effect to such investment, which is partly why it insists on having its logo prominently displayed beside new roads and railways. [emphasis added]
Welcome back to the real world…
Photo by jarmoluk is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA