If the banks and building societies were giving crazy loans which could not be repayed, by how much should we penalise both their and their customers’ foolishness?

Before Ireland began the property scam the lending policy of building societies protected both the borrower and the building society from folly.

Some time ago I wrote here (http://colummccaffery.wordpress.com/2010/06/11/house-prices-available-mortgages/) about the “traditional” mathematical formula used by building societies to link the size of a loan to the borrower’s ability to pay. This formula [(Annual salary A X2.5) + Annual salary B = 75% of the value of the house.] was used in my piece to calculate the sensible price of housing as opposed to the market value of  housing. The latter is determined by whatever the purchaser is prepared to pay and was grossly inflated when banks and building societies abandoned the socially responsible and commercially viable formula and made crazy loans available.

This brings me to the point of this piece. The conventional formula could now be used to differentiate between sensible businesslike lending and foolish behaviour.

When a foolish loan was agreed, there were of course two parties to the foolishness: the lender and the borrower.  It is certainly true that borrowers behaved foolishly. They too could see that repayments – even if everything remained fine for them on the income front – were incompatible with comfortable living. They were, however, driven to excess by fear of rising prices and constant media and family advice to “get on the property ladder” at all costs. In short, they are responsible for their actions and they will pay for their foolishness for a very long time.

The lender is responsible too. The lender is responsible for knowingly and foolishly lending more than could be repaid while living reasonably well. The lender tempted and lured the foolish borrower.

Look at it this way. Reasonable living dictates that mortgage repayments do not constitute a crippling outflow of money each week or month. If a building society or bank lured a borrower to the extent that he/she abandoned common sense and borrowed far too much, the lender should be penalised by the amount of the excess. The excess can be calculated by reference to the pre-madness policy, i.e. by using the “traditional” formula.

Let’s turn to the question of money.  Let’s consider a well off couple both with good jobs seeking a mortgage at the height of the scam:  One has an income of, say, €40k p.a. and the other has an income of, say, €30k p.a. Let’s refer to the first as A and the second as B. Now remember that traditional formula: (Annual salary A X2.5) + Annual salary B = 75% of the value of the house.

Right let’s apply figures: (40k X 2.5) + 30 = 130k

What this indicates is that at the time the loan was agreed, any bank or building society which lent in excess of €130k to a couple with a combined income of €70k p.a. was behaving foolishly and could not possibly have expected the loan to be repaid. That they were aware of what they were doing is evidenced by the existence of the earlier prudent lending policy expressed in the “traditional” formula.

If we are talking about debt forgiveness or write-downs of mortgages, a sensible approach would be to go back to the loan application, look at the stated income/s and calculate the maximum loan that a sane, commercially minded lender would have advanced. It is now a matter of striking the value of the mortgage debt down to this figure. It could then be increased by, say, 10% in order to penalise the stupidity of the borrower.

None of this takes account of how the lenders will cope with the reduced value of the loans on their books. This, however, is true of any measure of debt reduction. What the proposal here does do is root a system of debt forgiveness/reduction in a clear and previously existing policy which worked for years and whose purpose was to protect the lender and the borrower from greedy madness.

An admirable apology: “To every child I struck when I was teacher … sorry.” However, it’s not that easy or simple.

Here is an article by Eileen O’Brien in The Irish Times of May 22^nd 2012. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/features/2012/0522/1224316501691.html

She is a teacher troubled by her past, “To every child I struck when I was teacher … sorry.” She invites victims to contact her so that she might offer individual apologies and “to open some sort of dialogue on the subject.” The intention here is not to make little of her public contrition. What she has done is brave and sadly unprecedented. There is, however, a problem with what she says.

The article could be naively accepted as a decent woman apologising for her participation in brutal behaviour which was permitted by the state. She is claiming not only that she regrets what she did but that what she did was permitted. The truth is that in this article she admits violating the rules governing her performance as a teacher and she should face sanction.

Firstly, she refers to her activities in the 70s and 80s. It needs to be established just how far into the 80s she went because corporal punishment has been prohibited in schools since 1982. Interestingly, teachers’ immunity from criminal prosecution was not removed until the passing  of the Offences Against the Person (Non-Fatal) Act in 1997, article 24 of which states: “The rule of law under which teachers are immune from criminal liability in respect of physical chastisement of pupils is hereby abolished.”

Secondly and on this there is certainty, she explicitly admits to breaching Department of Education rules. She describes keeping her stick available as a threat and for use on children. This despite a clear Department rule: “No teacher should carry about a cane or other instrument of punishment.” (The other rules re corporal punishment can be found here: http://colummccaffery.wordpress.com/2012/04/21/rewarding-guilty-teachers/)

It is usual for teachers who beat children to offer in their defence that it was common and approved at the time. It was certainly common but equally certainly it was highly regulated and those regulations were violated. It would be preposterous to accept by way of explanation that teachers weren’t aware of the rules; anyone in any job has an obligation to be aware of the regulations governing their post.

It is unacceptable that any public servant who flouted state rules should remain in employment or remain in receipt of any pension attaching to their job.

 

Anti-Catholicism is an attention-grabbing, minor part of a very serious problem with public controversy

The concept of “groupthink” appears as evasive psychobabble in the BAI report on the Primetime libel of Fr. Kevin Reynolds. It is proposed that the critical faculties of journalists and managers at RTE were overwhelmed or blunted by “groupthink”.  Both Breda O’Brien* and John Waters** make effective use of the notion by locating an endemic anti-Catholicism within the RTE “groupthink”.  They are not entirely wrong but they are being selective both in focussing on anti-Catholicism and on RTE.

With a few exceptions journalists reflect the dominant views in society and don’t see their role as fostering public controversy. When journalists hold anti-Catholic views as fact or common sense, it can result in great personal harm but tends not to have significant political effect. However, that is not true of all the hardened beliefs common to most journalists. One such belief is in what Philip Bobbitt termed the “market state”.***

Irish journalists day in, day out promote the belief that the function of the state is to promote choice by way of increasing financial competitiveness in all aspects of life. That may be a plausible argument and it certainly deserves to be heard but it does not enjoy anything remotely like universal acceptance. It is a highly controversial position. The public discourse which relies on journalism demands that this and a wide range of contestable assertions be presented as controversy rather than as a matter of fact.

*http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0512/1224315982407.html

**http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0511/1224315906809.html

*** Bobbitt, P. (2002) The Shield of Achilles: War, Peace and the Course of History (Alfred A. Knopf):  213-242.

Coverage of the BAI report on the Primetime libel

Think about the following. It’s from Noel Whelan’s piece in the Irish Times of Saturday, May 12^th.  He’s referring to the BAI report re Primetime Investigates but the added emphasis is mine.

“Among the report’s most important revelations is that, contrary to some media reports, the key decision to proceed with the broadcast was not made on the hoof.  A formal, although undocumented, meeting took place the previous Friday, including the producer and reporter of the programme, the executive producer of Prime Time Investigates, the editor of RTÉ current affairs and the director of RTÉ news, together with legal department representatives.

There was unanimous agreement to proceed among production and editorial staff despite awareness of Fr. Reynolds’s willingness to take a paternity test. They were convinced their story was accurate, and made a series of ‘highly subjective assumptions, which served to reinforce their certainty’”. (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0512/1224315982387.html )

I’ve already written (http://colummccaffery.wordpress.com/2012/05/06/the-prime-time-scandal-needs-plain-talk-and-a-realisation-that-management-practices-and-systems-are-seldom-unique/) about Irish journalism’s failure to call a spade a spade in commenting on this mess. There’s only so much refuge to be found in “groupthink”, “hubris” and ineffective management. Publishing an allegation of paternity about a man offering to take a paternity test was (Say the word!) stupid.  My piece also raises the question of utterly basic management and it is to this that I want to return.

Look again at the half dozen or so words to which I added emphasis: “A formal, although undocumented, meeting took place” .  The words sit there attracting not even their author’s comment, their significance lost. Those present at that meeting have many fine qualities, are high achievers and are people of ability but that they sat through a formal meeting without seeing the need to have a record of what transpired is alarming. Now, a meeting might have been called at which it was made clear that it was “unofficial”, that it was “just a chat among colleagues” and which didn’t seriously address the issue. This would attract a range of other criticism but it wouldn’t be quite so (Here comes the word again!) stupid or signal a complete absence of routine management.

The innocence of those present is as telling as the lack of subsequent comment. It suggests that slipshod practice is commonplace. Now that’s a depressing thought with implications beyond restoring trust in journalism.

Prioritising public spending and reducing income inequality in the public sector: A motion which failed to make the agenda for the Labour Party Conference 2012

Here’s a motion which twice failed to get the support of ordinary members of the Labour Party and so didn’t make it onto the agenda for Conference 2012.

As a first move in establishing a priority list for current public spending, Labour marks the maintenance of public sector incomes above 100k p.a. and public sector pensions above 50k p.a. as the lowest priority. That is to say, in the event of any further reductions in public spending, Labour identifies the first cut:  a 100k p.a. income ceiling for public sector workers and a 50k p.a. ceiling on public sector pensions.

Here’s the argument:

Let’s be clear

This proposal has nothing to do with taxation. If taxes were raised or if a new rate of tax were introduced and if the money so raised meant that there would be no need of further cuts in public spending, then this proposal would be redundant. The point here is this: if there are to be cuts, what area of public spending is least important, what should be cut first? This proposal answers: if there are to be cuts in public services and/or the incomes of relatively poor people who depend on the state, then those cuts should be considered only after the incomes of the rich who are on the public payroll have been capped at an affordable and sensible but generous level.

 

The immediate background

Leaving aside revolutionary and populist posing, the bulk of expressed opposition to cuts in state spending has involved particular pleading.  Then our media – in making no demand that something constructive be said – have compounded the problem. Journalists and presenters fail time and again to ask the most obvious question: “If there must be cuts and you feel that ‘X’ has to be maintained, which areas of spending do you think are less important than ‘X’ and should be cut first?” The lack of stated priorities has ensured that cuts are spread and this has tended to copper-fasten existing deprivation and inequalities.

I have been arguing on FaceBook and elsewhere that the rich among our public servants are the least of our concerns and that income (to include pay, bonus, overtime, allowances etc.) and pension ceilings should be introduced before any other cut. While there has been negative reaction, there has also been support and some of the support has been to the effect that the proposition should be put to a Labour Conference.

 

A fundamental question for Labour at this time

Because revolution and populist posing must not feature in Labour thinking, a major and significant question looms, and it demands an answer now: What remains of Labour values when state spending must be cut? Two very old and basic Labour tenets begin to harmonise and form at least part of the answer. Firstly, while equality is central to Labour’s ambitions, the Party has been slow to emphasise the most crucial and controversial aspect of equality: equality of income or – at least – reduced inequality of income. The time is ripe to put that right. Secondly, Labour has always sought to defend the meagre incomes of the poor. Never was this more urgent.

A pay ceiling on public service incomes and pensions would

• accept that money is tight and that we cannot have everything but that some spending is vastly more important than others, and lay down a marker that a start has been made to setting priorities for Irish public spending;
• make savings in public spending such that vital services and the pay of poor and middle income public servants could remain untouched;
• reduce the bizarre and shameful spectacle of rich people beside poor people on the public payroll;
• place inequality of income on the public agenda;
• make it clear that Labour in bad times and in good times is serious about reducing inequality.

 

Arguments against

There are of course arguments against. Actually there are basically just three arguments against:

i)             The fairness argument

ii)            The brain drain argument

iii)           The Croke Park argument

 

i) The fairness argument says that public servants should not be singled out and that nothing should be done unless all rich people are tackled. In a sense this is a “what about?” A “what about?” is very much a conservative position which hides opposition to a change by diverting attention to other – often larger – issues. In this case, limiting the income of rich public servants is opposed by diverting attention to the income of other rich people. In another sense it is a crazy distortion of the notion of equality because what it says is that it would be unfair to reduce the incomes of one set of rich people unless all rich people were similarly treated. That is to say, it is a demand that all RICH people be treated equally!

It needs to be emphasised that it is public money that is in short supply, that cuts are happening now and that clearly public sector pay can be cut. In other words, there is neither time nor compelling need to be concerned about other rich people.

ii) The brain drain argument takes two linked forms. It is said that a reduction in top pay among public servants would result in a flight of talent abroad or into the private sector. It is certain that some may flee. However, the idea of a mass flight is fanciful. There may – just may – have been a time when a dissatisfied public worker could walk and pick up a job in the private sector. That certainly is not the case today. Moreover, this is a familiar threat raised by the rich from time to time. Remember when bank bonuses had to be paid or there would be a flight of talent? It didn’t happen.

 

Another form of the argument suggests that a ceiling would prevent the recruitment of exceptional talent. This rests on an abuse of the word “exceptional”. A pay ceiling would not rule out exceptional pay for an exceptional talent in exceptional circumstances. It would control the income of numbers of ordinary, unexceptional, rich workers.

iii) It is pointed out that the Croke Park Agreement rules out a pay ceiling. This is true. However, it does not rule out talking about a pay ceiling. Moreover, the extent to which the CPA guarantees that a group of rich people stays rich needs to be discussed and addressed.

 

Summing up

• Let’s face it: 100k or a pension of 50k would appear a king’s ransom to the ordinary people who are made to pay these rich people or whose services are cut to maintain them. No one could seriously argue that these ceilings are not generous.
• A public servant or potential public servant so in thrall to money that they will not serve unless paid more than 100k is clearly “the wrong stuff”. Get someone who understands the meaning of public service!
• We live today in the kind of times so strange and fraught that a proposal once thought unimaginably daring becomes ordinary and feasible.
• While in government in a time of crisis and austerity, Labour desperately needs to rediscover its radical voice and fundamental tenets.
• It is possible without upsetting the troika too much to use what sovereignty we have left to make a start on a less unequal society.

The Prime Time scandal needs plain talk, and a realisation that management practices and systems are seldom unique

The Broadcasting Authority of Ireland (BAI) has found that an RTE * programme in the series Prime Time Investigates, “Mission to Prey”, was not fair in that it broadcast serious, damaging and untrue allegations about Fr. Kevin Reynolds.** The reality is more serious. A good man was cruelly injured. He was trampled in a bovine lust for a story.

Once the truth emerged, the response of the media industry generally – in failing to call a spade a spade – has been ridiculous. Leaving aside management structures, guidelines, “group think”, standards in journalism, “best practice”, legal advice etc., something quite brutal needs to be said: On the verge of publishing an allegation of paternity, it requires an enormous level of stupidity to refuse to defer publication when the man concerned is offering to take a paternity test. While there can be many determinants of stupidity, the word still needs to be said without professional prevarication.

Incidentally, we all do stupid things from time to time. We learn from them. The costs of stupidity can be viewed as an investment in the avoidance of similar mistakes. It is therefore silly to get rid of an employee whose stupid error has cost the organisation a great deal. Look at it this way: It can be said with enormous confidence that such a person will be very careful in future. Their replacement comes with no such guarantee and the person in whom so much has been “invested” goes off to work – carefully – for someone else. In short, the stupidity has been compounded for the sake of creating a tough image.

Publication of the BAI report prompted the familiar balm: comments by industry worthies processed in ritual seriousness. However, the BAI investigation and report turns out to be a veritable rescue package for standards of operation that any thinking person would regard as ordinary – indeed, as minimal. Absence of records and notes, and failure to perform checks do not constitute a problem specific to journalism; this would be maladministration in any industry or organisation. It is a description of inefficient, wasteful chaos.

It is impossible to believe that such chaos existed in one isolated area and that word of its existence never reached the outside world. It is more likely that it was learned and accepted in RTE, in the media industry and very probably in industry generally.

A long time before “managerialism”, management was in trouble. It was fluttering from fad to fad, guided by well-meaning people who thought they had found a career in promoting some fundamental truth. Routine, well-tested, ordinary – even boring – management was interrupted by or abandoned in favour of a series of fashions. Let’s put it this way: The study of management in order to make it better is desirable and necessary but like life in general, there is no blinding liberating truth and proposals for change have to be plausible. Moreover and much more importantly, there are basics which if removed, draw the enterprise into inflicting and incurring damage. The chaos that was Prime Time and which the BAI reveals is all too familiar: The triumph of a slipshod, bogus iconoclasm over planning, minutes, research, questioning etc. – all very likely dismissed as “bureaucracy”.

* I worked in RTE for more than three happy decades. I seldom criticise the organisation now for a few reasons. Firstly, there are fond ties of loyalty. Secondly, if tempted, it would be wrong to use insider information in argument. Thirdly, while RTE is subject to all of the fads which pass through industry generally and while RTE journalists are too like journalists generally, it remains an exceptionally good organisation which deserves to be spared overly harsh criticism.

** http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0504/baireport.pdf    http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0504/baireport1.pdf

From the cardinal to the chancers: It’s time to make integrity important

It’s difficult to imagine that anyone gets through life without occasionally having their integrity tested. (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/integrity/) There are rare situations where showing integrity might bring appalling consequences – even death – and in such a situation fear unto dishonesty is understandable and forgivable. In most other situations the risk is small. Indeed the most common motivation for failing to act or speak with integrity is an ambition for career advancement. Now, let’s be quite clear here. If someone feels compelled to dishonesty for fear of being sacked, then that may be forgivable if the matter is relatively minor. However, a person who abandons their integrity for the hope of career advancement reveals a paradox: They progress by being precisely the kind of person who is unsuited to a position of trust or of any importance.

It is true too that in our times a calculating, professional, strategic way of thinking tends to be lauded and this provides a ready cover for acting without reference to good or bad.

Today there are calls for the resignation of Cardinal Seán Brady who acted in a professional manner rather than doing what was right. (http://www.herald.ie/news/i-didnt-realise-impact-of-child-abuse-brady-3097772.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01h7m8r) As a mature man of 35 years, well into his career, his integrity was tested. He failed the test and is proven to be “the wrong stuff”, i.e. a person lacking in integrity and unsuited to a position of responsibility. The consequences of his failure were dire for a number of abused children. The risk to him of acting with integrity was slight. His life, his family, his livelihood were not on the line. All that was at risk for doing the right thing was a petty hope of promotion.

There are ordinary people who pass such tests. They are rarely dealing with matters so serious. They do however speak up and/or act according to what is right – either morally or for the good of the organisation that employs them. In the short term they accept that they will anger the boss and their career will stall. In the long-term they may never recover that impetus for promotion or they may come to be seen as having integrity, precisely what is required in a more senior position.

Integrity is at the core of another, older post on this blog. (http://colummccaffery.wordpress.com/2010/11/24/time-for-a-clear-out-who-misled-and-who-remained-silent-as-a-completely-irish-made-fiasco-developed/ ) As the Irish property bubble/scam was developed with deliberation, there were those in banking, management generally, media, politics, the professions, education, public service, consultancies etc. who knew that it could end only in tears. Few of them passed the test: They lacked the integrity to speak up time and again. They preferred to take their chances by pretending that they believed in nonsense.

It is true that chancers lacking in integrity often make career progress. However, when they are found out, it is right that they be identified as “the wrong stuff” and asked to go.

Some parasites are benign, some kill their host and some render their host listless and ineffective

There are two linked errors in Tom Garvin’s article in the Irish Times of Mayday.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/education/2012/0501/1224315400547.html

Firstly, managerialism is not exclusive to UCD or to universities generally. It had infected and depressed many other industries before it arrived quite late in education. Secondly, Tom links managerialism to business and argues that business approaches have no place in university management. Now, the latter may be true but the former does not support it.

To get a hold in an organisation, managerialism must first oust efficient managers; it is no friend of business. The bizarre language used cloaks futile activity in terms that give the impression of innovation, progress and effective decision making. It also creates a layer of employees who live off information processes that effective management would never tolerate. It is a very, very serious problem and dealing with will be difficult because its adherents now hold key positions and because doing away with it would result in many job losses.

Garda Ombudsman: Corrib comments and “The Wrong Stuff”

I shouldn’t have to preface my remarks here but I reckon that I do. I do not support the Rossport protesters and I’m far from impressed by the victims in this case. With that out of the way, let’s get down to the importance of what happened in that car and the inadequacy of the official response.*

I’m reminded of a case many years ago when a man was murdered in Shercock Garda station. As I recall, there were two trials but there was little evidence to support a conviction. There was another disturbing feature:  Witnesses – members of An Garda – heard screams but did nothing. What’s this got to do with the Corrib incident?

Well, there were five Gardaí in the car. There was joking banter on rape and not one voice was raised against. The problem is not that insufficient punishment will be meted out. The problem is that people of this sort are being recruited and then tolerated. There should be no place in An Garda for quiet types who will stay silent when faced with wrongdoing or for people with weird attitudes to crime.

In short, this incident points to the need to review recruitment procedures.

* Here’s a report on the issue itself:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0424/one-garda-should-face-corrib-action-ombudsman.html

Sunday Independent covers more than reveals: “Revealed: The whistleblower behind crash warnings”

Here’s the story: http://www.independent.ie/national-news/revealed-the-whistleblower-behind-crash-warnings-3088276.html

This story is ridiculous. What it states explicitly is that after the start of the debate about soft vs. hard landings at the end of Ireland’s property-bubble scam, a civil servant wanted to have Ministers warn of a possible collapse. However, the use of the word “whistleblower” misleads and it perpetuates one of the great fairy stories of recent Irish history.

A whistleblower reveals information which is vital to the public good. Without wishing to underestimate the courage of the civil servant at the centre of the story, there are two problems with this story and its framing. Firstly, the incidents related are far too late to have had an enormous bearing on avoiding the damage done to Ireland; once the “landing” appeared on the agenda, all that was in doubt was the scale of the damage.

Secondly and more importantly, what is needed is evidence of earlier civil service opposition to the virtually insane policies that created the bubble. Such evidence would tend to exonerate civil servants generally from the suspicion of utter stupidity or shameful lack of integrity. It is at this point that use of “whistleblower” perpetuates the lie.

You see, what happened in Ireland did not involve a secret and seeing it coming did not require expertise in economics. It happened in plain sight and only a complete fool could have failed to notice and failed to realise that it would end very badly. Very few of those in Ireland who are paid to think and speak (The group includes journalists, managers, teachers, politicians etc.) showed themselves competent. It is not credible that so many professionals are so wilfully ignorant or stupid that they were unaware of the approaching mess. It is more likely that they lacked the integrity to speak out again and again in opposition.

Should journalism want to redeem itself, some of its better practitioners would do well to focus on who stayed silent as the bubble was intentionally inflated before everyone’s eyes.

See here:  http://colummccaffery.wordpress.com/2010/11/24/time-for-a-clear-out-who-misled-and-who-remained-silent-as-a-completely-irish-made-fiasco-developed/

Rewarding guilty teachers

It is generally thought that indiscriminate beating of children was permitted in Irish schools until corporal punishment was banned. This was not the case.

The following are rules of the Irish Dept. of Education:

“Corporal punishment should be administered only for grave transgression.”

“In no circumstances should corporal punishment be administered for mere failure at lessons.”

“No teacher should carry about a cane or other instrument of punishment.”

“Teachers should keep a copy of these rules and regulations suspended in their schoolrooms in a conspicuous place.”

I find it unacceptable that any teacher who flouted these rules should now remain in employment or in receipt of a pension.

 

Journalists will decide if the EU Treaty debate is to be a farce

In an interesting coincidence two articles in Opinion and Analysis in the Irish Times of March 10th share a common failing. They fail to recognise that journalists have a responsibility to facilitate a citizen who is trying or even willing to reflect on a public controversy.

The articles by Stephen Collins* (“What this next referendum is really all about”) and John Gibbons** (Shadow of a doubt: how they fooled us about a killer habit”) correctly blame tricksters for debasing public controversy but they neglect to extend the blame to those who publish the lies, flak, scare stories, doubts – call them what you will. The bizarre claims of opponents of EU integration and the bogus science presented to fool people into doubting the dangers of first smoking and then global warming, depended on compliant journalism. Naomi Oreskes, whom John Gibbons mentions, describes how well-organised bodies use the existing conventions and rules of journalism to undermine public understanding. She is spot on and unless Irish journalists choose to elevate truth above balance, the upcoming treaty debate will become a familiar circus.

* http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0310/1224313107126.html

** http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0310/1224313107142.html

 

Missing the point of the Aonghus O’Snodaigh scandal

Yesterday I listened to a media debate on the Sinn Fein TD, Aonghus O’Snodaigh’s use of ink cartridges: €50k’s worth in two years. The media coverage was so limited as to border on completely daft. It was presented entirely as an issue of credibility. One side says basically that no one could possibly print and distribute that many leaflets and the TD must be up to something else. The other side says that the shifting of millions of leaflets is testimony to the service offered by this TD to his constituents.

The worst scenario and the one ignored by commentators is that Aonghus O’Snodaigh is telling the truth! Almost all of the leaflets that I receive are non-political. They market the idea that the candidate/TD is “active on the ground”, “serving the community”, “offering advice and information”. One TD of my acquaintance has never had a political thought in his life and he sees this as a virtue which enables him to support whatever constituents seem to want.

Perhaps we could do away with elections and decide who becomes a TD by weighing the total of non-political leaflets delivered by each candidate. Oh no, that wouldn’t be fair because it wouldn’t take into account other non-political activities “in the community” and “on the ground”!

Now, I’m well aware that if I became a candidate, I’d have to play this game of pretend because it’s become the norm. However, when a case emerges that illustrates quite how bizarre this “non-political” form of campaigning actually is, it might be expected that our media would shape public discourse to talk about a basic problem.

Media diversity: Hours of on-line searching or trawling obscure channels and journals is not mass participation

There’s a lot of talk these days about media diversity. (On Monday last I was at a useful conference on the subject hosted by Nessa Childers, MEP.)  A problem is that “media diversity”, like so many terms, is increasingly becoming drained of meaning. Indeed, on media training courses it can mean as little as knowing the full range of available media.

There are, however, two dominant meanings:  i) Diversity of ownership and ii) diversity of voices.  Their dominance means that a central issue for political communication is generally ignored. You see, there could be – generally there are – masses of material coming from all sorts of different people and they could all be saying the same thing or broadly similar things. Net optimists and activists can get very cross at the mention of a long dead philosopher but we really are back to J.S. Mill and the oppressive danger of the herd and its consensus. Even the apparent dissent is now a matter of consensus!

The problem for the citizen who wishes to take part in public discourse remains unchanged since the 19th century: how to have easy access to the complete debate. There is a democratic gulf between “access” and “easy access”.  To argue that the rich pickings of today’s diverse media offer all that any citizen could possibly need misunderstands both democracy and the real busy lives of engaged citizens. No, hours of on-line searching or trawling obscure channels and journals is not mass participation. Citizens need a thorough agenda and thorough debates brought to their attention, and when they are get a poor service, they need a mechanism to complain and put things right.

The first indication that the Presidency of Michael D. Higgins will be wasted by his supporters

It is plain stupid to admire Michael D. Higgins’ speech on university education* by putting it along with the man on the mantelpiece. This is the first in a series of speeches that will punctuate his presidency and already the danger of wasting his election, his time and our opportunity is all too obvious.

Let’s look at the aftermath of the speech. It attracted admiration but mostly silence. The silence was encouraging. There was neither explicit disagreement nor was there – and this is very, very important – any argument that MDH had strayed beyond the constitutional limits of the presidency.

And yet, . . ! And yet, this speech set down a fundamentally different approach to higher education than the one we’ve been following. So, is it to be the mantelpiece and periodic dusting until it’s safe to bin the work or is there another approach? I think there is and I think that socialists and other progressives had better get their thinking caps on because MDH will deliver presidential addresses for just seven short years and already it is clear that their potential may be wasted.

The Labour Party has one of its own in the Áras and another one of its own in charge of Marlborough Street. The Labour Minister for Education holds one key to admitting the thinking of the Labour President to official policy and strategy. Ruairi Quinn can instruct the HEA to examine the President’s speech, compare it to current HEA policy/strategy and make recommendations as to what needs to be done to change direction towards achieving the prospect described in the President’s speech.

*Here’s the speech: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0125/breaking67.html?via=rel

Paying Anglo’s Debts

There is a number of protests looming in Ireland which oppose the state making payments to speculators and chancers. The 99% Network is featuring the slogan, “We don’t owe, we can’t pay, not our debt”. Let’s take 1 and 3. There is – as far as I can see – COMPLETE (right to left) Irish agreement that there is no legal or moral obligation on Ireland to pay these debts. We are being compelled to pay them because we are in a weak position: we are supplied with money fortnightly to pay welfare and public servants and our paymasters want us to pay these chancers/speculators. The question now is should we give in to our paymasters? The answer depends on what the consequences of refusing to pay might be. No one knows for sure what the consequences of non-payment would be. The possibilities range from none (Our paymasters will simply say that non-payment is ok.) to catastrophic (Our paymasters will cut off money to pay welfare and public service wages.). Calls for non-payment – assuming they are serious and not just populist lies to attract support – are therefore either calls to gamble – and to gamble with the incomes of some very poor people – or to try to provoke the catastrophic and hope that revolution will follow which will usher in the kind of society in which our current predicament could not be repeated. This, however, is another gamble on the security and income of those same people because revolutions tend make things much worse before building something which might be better. No. 2 – “We can’t pay” – is quite different. It involves having or not having the money to give to the chancers. Right now, we clearly can pay but at enormous cost. Right now, the paymasters don’t much care about those costs and think that this can continue. This leads back to refusal to pay or to the only RELATIVELY safe and prudent course: We keep on paying until we can convince our tormentors and our international “friends” with influence that the cost is too high and amounts to “can’t pay” by anyone’s standards or until some unforeseen development affords the country an opportunity to act.

All this talk of betting, prudence, honesty and letting chancers away with it for fear of doing more harm is boring and inactive. Many leftists prefer the protest route which is familiar. It’s hard, you see, to face accusations that because you are fearful and want to play safe that you support the inegalitarian cuts in state spending. Moreover, trying to capitalise on the crisis by arguing/campaigning for the kinds of change which can be achieved while still paying the chancers is hard too, especially when the field has been vacated by so many leftists.

The Ceann Comhairle’s innocence

I was listening to an interview on RTE Radio 1 this morning with the Ceann Commhairle of the Dáil. He mentioned that he received many complaints from citizens about the boorish behaviour of some TDs. He worried about the impression that this behaviour gave to thoughtful citizens. He also said that he had taken aside some of the TDs who indulged in shouting and abuse, and told them that in terms of gathering support, what they were doing was counterproductive that people were not impresssed and were critical. He is wrong.

There are citizens who reject talk, debate, reasoned argument. Indeed they despise politics. They don’t want to change society. They want someone to stand up for them, to shout for them, to put the boot into all that they despise.

It is true that most of these people – though not all – are poor. It is also true that they are not working class but that’s an argument for another day. The point is that there is an appreciative audience for abuse and there are politicians who aspire to lead cynicism and opposition to discursive politics.

Irish sovereignty may be reduced but the power to prioritise remains

As a socialist and long-time member of the Labour Party I am very troubled by the Party’s present support for reducing the income of the poor and reducing public services. As I’ve said elsewhere, I don’t see much option to paying the chancers/bond holders as the troika ask us because I fear that failure to pay up might bring on greater misery. That leaves the state very, very short of money and moves one question to the top of the agenda: What are our priorities when it comes to reduced public spending?

I would prioritise the employment of teachers and SNAs, “free fees” at 3rd level, the maintenance of HSE services, the income of low paid public servants (not in that order and plus some others) way, way above maintaining the present income of those in the category, “wealthy” who are also in public service employment. If this priority is accepted, then we need to think at what level would a public service income ceiling need to be set in order to make the required cut without affecting the priorities listed above? I find it bizarre that while we can debate unpalatable cuts because we are in crisis, the question of solving or partly solving the problem by limiting ALL public service incomes to, say, 100k for workers and 50k for pensioners is – it would seem – out of the question. Jesus wept, 100k and 50k are generous. They would appear a king’s ransom to most of the people Labour has traditionally defended.

The Croke Park agreement will be cited against this proposal but it cannot be used to censor discussion. The problem with that agreement is that it defends equally the incomes of the rich as well as the poor among our public workers.

Right now we need to enlarge what we mean by “rich” beyond the 1% normally highlighted in leftist talk to at least the top 10% of income receivers. I think a problem for Labour and the left generally is that with a tradition of attacking just the 1% and a gut reaction of “let’s burn the bond holders”, they quite simply don’t have a plan B to make progress in the reduction of inequality when the 1% has us by the balls. What I’m saying is this: Ok, we may be forced to pay these international chancers but within the spending under our control, how can we move towards reduced inequality of income?

A newsworthy lie or a newsworthy partial truth?

Yesterday (Nov. 2^nd 2011) on RTE Radio 1, Pat Kenny interrupted his morning radio programme to bring us “breaking news”. The news was that SF had left the Dáil until the afternoon in protest at the lack of parliamentary debate on the payment of hundreds of millions of Euro to bondholders at the now defunct Anglo Irish Bank. The SF finance spokesperson, Pearse Doherty, was brought on air to protest that there was little on no debate on handing over so much money when there was no moral or legal obligation to pay.

So far, so true! Indeed it is so true that there couldn’t possibly be a debate in any conventional sense of the word because absolutely no one is arguing that there is a moral or legal obligation to pay. On this point An Taoiseach, An Tánaiste, Fine Gael, The Labour Party and Sinn Fein are in agreement. However, on radio Pearse Doherty was allowed to pretend that there was disagreement on this. Indeed he said that the Taoiseach had been forced to admit that this was the case, whereas the Taoiseach couldn’t possibly have said otherwise.

Where there is disagreement is over the likely consequences of refusing to pay. SF of course is well aware of this but the last thing they want to do is engage in the real controversy because that turns on debating and considering risks. You see, the European Central Bank want Ireland to pay up. One response might be, “How dare they?” Well, the difficulty is that they keep Ireland supplied with the money to pay welfare recipients and public service workers. Because of this the government and many others feel it is prudent to pay up. In short, though there is no obligation to pay, Ireland is forced to pay. Should Ireland refuse to pay in full or in part, it is possible but unlikely that there will be no negative consequences. However, it is also possible that the money to keep Irish society going would be stopped. Essentially the difference between the government and SF is that the former don’t want to risk the livelihoods of many Irish people, while the latter want to run that risk.

This difference certainly does need to be debated. A public service broadcaster has an obligation to bring public controversy to the citizens. In this case a newsworthy event – a dramatic parliamentary walkout – was covered at the expense of an obligation to inform citizens. Sure, they were informed of the walkout but from then on they were subjected to lies and not the slightest attempt was made to call attention to the real – the only – debate.

Perhaps those who switched from Seán Gallagher to Michael D. Higgins for president were more thoughtful than our media would have us believe?

You know, I’ve been listening to analysts all day twisting and turning as they try to find trivial reasons for the result of the Irish presidential election. Perhaps the explanation is quite simply encouraging for those who wish that people voted in support of arguments, ideas, political perspectives, ideologies rather than the gossipy nonsense that journalists go on with.

Look at it this way: By last weekend more people had opted to support Seán Gallagher’s liberal, business approach than Michael D. Higgins’s socialist approach but then during a televised political debate, a value deeper than a political perspective intruded.

Now that I think about it, this is how I, a socialist, decide my candidate preferences and why should someone who might be my polar opposite behave any differently? You see, there are issues which take precedence over voting either left or right. My first test is political murder; its apologists are least preferable of all. My next test is honesty and integrity and candidates who fail this test rate above apologists for murder but no higher. My next test places those too trivial to be considered in a real political choice. Finally, I choose the left candidate over the right wing candidate.

Think about a right-winger who accepts Seán Gallagher’s political argument. That person very likely values honesty and integrity more than the liberal business perspective. Now, he or she sees Seán Gallagher fail this test while polling suggests that the Christian Democrat, Gay Mitchell, has little support and will not figure in the outcome. There really is nothing to do but cross from right to left in order to vote for honesty and integrity.