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.

Thoughtful Irish conservatives and liberals may realise that a socialist president is a reasonably good outcome

Deciding for whom to vote in the Presidential election has been relatively easy for me. Candidates fill my list of preferences from the bottom up by failing a series of tests. My tests start with the elimination of apologists for murder, then move on to a demand that a candidate rise above the trivial, that a candidate be honest and have integrity, that a candidate be liberal on matters of sexuality etc. and that a candidate not be blind to policy outside of markets and liberal business orthodoxy. As the others fill up the bottom of the list, Michael D. Higgins remains to take my number one.

However, not everyone – probably not even a majority – would agree with my tests or the order of priority in which I put them.

Imagine that you are conservative on what might be called, personal morality, but you are liberal on business matters, that you demand honesty and integrity, that you despise the trivial in public discourse and that you are utterly opposed to political murder. Now, you come to vote in the presidential election and your views have to be prioritised because you can’t find a candidate with whom you identify. Here’s a probable hierarchy which you might erect: Test 1. A candidate must oppose political murder; Test 2. A candidate must be honest and have integrity; Test 3. A candidate must not trivialise politics; Test 4. A candidate must favour liberal markets; Test 5. A candidate must support “family” values. After tests 1, 2 and 3, just two or possibly three candidates remain. The two obvious survivors are Gay Mitchell and Michael D. Higgins. A possible third survivor is David Norris. * This is interesting because it suggests that you will vote for a Christian Democrat (Gay Mitchell) and express a preference for a socialist (Michael D. Higgins) over the others. Assuming that Gay Mitchell will be eliminated, you will have contributed to the election of a socialist!

Of course I accept that this is a presidential election and that routine tests of suitability do not appear above. I’ve assumed that all of the candidates know how to behave in public and either know or can learn the constitutional requirements.

* I find David Norris doubtful not because I question his honesty but because increasingly I fear that he is trivial. Now, it may be argued that we live in a post-ideological age and that he is a typical issues candidate. That’s not an argument that I want to address here. For now, consider me a dinosaur who still wants a clash of great ideas, contested notions of the good society etc., and I’m also a dinosaur who has grown weary of people claiming to be anti-establishment, while steering well clear of offering an overall perspective.

 

Whose side are you on? Really?? 30th amendment to Bunreacht na hÉireann

There are some socialists and other progressives arguing for a rejection of the 30th amendment * but their opposition is based on one and/or two rickety foundations.

Firstly, there has always been an affinity between socialism and the better parts of liberalism, especially those parts which defend and seek to expand personal freedom. However, an overly rigorous defence of negative liberty (freedom from intrusion, compulsion etc.) can be at odds with the public good. This is one of those situations. No one seriously believes that ordinary citizens will be hauled before a committee of the Oireachtas and unjustly treated. However, some opponents of the amendment argue that because they fear that it MIGHT be possible, the amendment should be voted down.

Secondly, there is among socialists and some other progressives a strong and healthy anti-establishment culture. It is so strong, however, as to be quite easily manipulated by the establishment. On this issue it is happening. The constant derision of parliamentary democracy and elected politicians – the aim of which is to paint pseudo-radicals, who are often journalists, in a good light and to convince the general public that there is no hope of real change – has been effective. In this instance some socialists have been duped into thinking that because the proposal comes from government it should be opposed or that giving more power to politicians (the “establishment”) is anti-progressive. There is an old socialist test: Which side are you on? In this instance one way to BEGIN to clarify a true anti-establishment stance is to look at who favours and who opposes. However,   while doing so remember the attractions of being seen as “anti-establishment” or the depth of true anti-establishment culture on the left which makes it likely that some socialists will mistakenly take the establishment side and favour a rejection.

* 30th Amendment to the Constitution – Oireachtas inquiries

Existing text of section 15.10:

1. Each House shall make its own rules and standing orders, and shall have power to attach penalties for their infringement, and shall have power to ensure freedom of debate, to protect its official documents and the private papers of its members, and to protect itself and its members against any person or persons interfering with, molesting or attempting to corrupt its members in the exercise of their duties.

It is proposed to renumber this as 15.10.1 and insert:

2. Each House shall have the power to conduct an inquiry, or an inquiry with another House, in a manner provided by law, into any matter or matters stated by the House or Houses concerned to be of general public importance.

3. In the course of any such inquiry the conduct of any person (whether or not a member of either House) may be investigated, and the House or Houses concerned may make findings in respect of the conduct of that person concerning the matter to which the inquiry relates.

4. It shall be for the House or Houses concerned to determine, with due regard to the principles of fair procedures, the appropriate balance between the rights of persons and the public interest for the purposes of ensuring an effective inquiry into any matter to which subsection 2 applies.

 

When did the nuclear family become a desirable end?

Sometimes I can’t resist a smile when I hear wistful talk about the nuclear family and its importance to a good society. You see, when I first became aware of the term, it was applied not to a desirable way to rear children but to the polar opposite.

When I married and bought a house in the early seventies, I moved from an urban village to a suburban town. I was part of a movement which was discussed as a cause for concern. Growing up, my extended family lived within one postal district; everyone was a bus trip or even a walk away. Many other families were closer still, with grandparents, aunts and uncles in their immediate vicinity. By the 70s young people were moving to suburban housing estates built on expensive, rezoned lands, where everyone was of an age and income, and lived very similar lives, disconnected from routine daily family contacts. Public transport and other infrastructure had not been a condition when approving housing estates. Visiting became a chore and the better off kept up wider family contact by buying a car. Concerned debate focussed on the role of planning in pulling communities and the extended family apart, and reducing society to, yes, nuclear families. Perhaps if “atomic family” had become the term, subsequent debate would have been clearer.

A memory prompted by discussion of street violence in England

I’m not offering this as an explanation for the recent English street violence. I’m setting it down now because some of the media comments reminded me. You see, the idea that different people and different age groups might not have a shared view of the police is hardly novel. Indeed it’s not an insight at all but it illustrates the need for policing that is close to impeccable. Here’s the story:

I was fortunate to have been reared in Inchicore. In my teens in the 60s we socialised in the city, or “town”, as we called it. Late at night we walked home (Dublin City centre to Inchicore isn’t a long walk but it takes time.) in groups, ate chips, talked into the early hours about music and putting the world to rights. Those walks are very happy memories to me.

There was, however, a problem. Not all of the groups on the streets at night were walking and talking. Some were involved in thuggery. We had to be careful to avoid certain gangs and to be prepared to run when necessary. One of the “gangs” to be given a wide berth was Gardaí who to us were normally antagonistic and occasionally violent. They certainly were a not a force that kept us safe on the streets at night.

Now, I guess they saw all groups on the street as potential trouble and they couldn’t tell the difference between one group on a street corner having a conversation and another group up to no good. However, we could tell the difference (I like to think I still can!) and they should have been able to tell the difference too. That is an essential skill for a police officer if the force is to enjoy popular support.

Why I’m supporting the government’s approach to the EU/IMF deal

There is a Labour Party members’ meeting tomorrow to consider “What way out of the Economic Crisis? Can the EU/IMF deal work?” I wish I could attend. Here are some basic thoughts that I would have liked to put to the meeting.

Two points are worth making at the outset. Firstly, I’ve no great expertise in economics and such expertise is not necessary to participation in the controversy. Secondly, I’m concerned that the Labour Party might tear itself apart, leaving no large coherent left voice.

Agreement

• Absolutely everyone agrees that Ireland is in an extraordinary mess and cannot pay off all of the debts.
• Absolutely everyone agrees that i) the domestic economy needs to be primed and ii) “industrial” development is urgently required.
• Absolutely everyone accepts that cuts to private income and services together with massive repayments are incompatible with i) and/or ii).
• Absolutely everyone thinks it wrong that as regards the banks, public money should be used to pay private debts.

Disagreement

• The government – aware that public service wages and welfare payments depend on the fortnightly delivery of European money – think it prudent to stay on very good terms with those who for now have the upper hand and to try to make progress slowly towards somewhat less of a mess which has a possibility of resolution in the long term.
• Leaving liars and poseurs aside, thoughtful opposition to this approach comes from essentially two quarters, one of which believes that failure to play ball with international capitalism will have no real consequences and the other which believes there would be welcome consequences with revolutionary potential.  These opposition approaches can be summarised as a) “We can default and nothing much will happen; we can be like Iceland.” And b) “We can default, there will be crisis leading to revolution and eventually a socialist society. “
• The FG part and very likely some of the Labour part of government, and the a) defaulters share an objective: the restoration of a prosperous, unequal society.
• The a) and b) defaulters share an unwillingness to face up to the risks of what they propose, i.e. they won’t talk about the chaos and suffering which would follow a crisis of capitalism.

Taking sides

I’m with the government because I fear crisis. I know damn well that it will be the poor who will suffer most if the crisis happens.

This does not mean acceptance of a grossly unequal society but this is an argument for another day: http://colummccaffery.wordpress.com/2011/12/01/irish-sovereignty-may-be-reduced-but-the-power-to-prioritise-remains/

Which has greater importance: balance or truth?

Yesterday on Pat Kenny’s radio programme David McWilliams painted a rosy picture of Argentina after default. Later in the programme a text was read out from someone painting a very different picture. Balance? Mmmm … ok, for now! However, does the Pat Kenny team now have a responsibility to sort out truth from lies or fantasy? I certainly think so. Otherwise lies and fantasy will continue under the cloak of “balance”. (Ok, I can see how both the positions just MIGHT be true depending on the different perspectives of the speakers but that simply increases the onus on the PK show to establish the truth.)

On the death at 85 0f Citizen Garret

I don’t want to say a word about Garret FitzGerald’s political career or his political perspective, his journalism or his other writing. I hardly knew him and became an acquaintance only after he retired. You see, I began bumping into him at all sorts of gatherings but what these gatherings had in common was political conversation. This was when I began to appreciate Citizen Garret.

Here was a former Taoiseach who turned up and stayed for hours. He didn’t need to be invited, didn’t need to be THE speaker. He was a far cry from a typical star political attraction who breezed in on time, delivered an anodyne speech, took polite applause and left. No, Garret took citizenship seriously.

He wanted to take a full part in national debates and “full” meant listening as well as speaking. He was looking for a persuasive argument and willing to change if he heard one. He disagreed and he required that you disagree with him.

Two little stories from the fairly recent past:

Tom Garvin was speaking in one of the large lecture theatres in UCD. Garret was in the audience. I heard a man in front of me whisper to his friend, “Poor Garret is lookin’ shook; he’s nodding off.” A couple of seconds later Garret looked up, “Tom, have you considered …?” Citizen Garret was very much on the ball!

On another occasion at a smaller gathering (It might have been the one at which I realised I was on nodding terms with Garret.) I was talking to two young women, students. They noticed Garret and one told me of a question she’d love to ask him. I advised her to go ask him but she was young and in awe, and anyway he was deep in conversation. Then he moved off in search of a seat. I gestured encouragement and over they went. They must have addressed him as Dr. because I heard him say “Garret”. All three sat and conversation began. They were still at it when I waved them goodnight.

Garret showed that Active Citizenship is the highest rank in society.

The Labour Party and a socialist precondition for entering coalition talks

Regardless of the number of seats won, coalition will mean negotiation.

By definition, a precondition would not strengthen Labour’s hand in negotiation as it would have to be conceded before negotiations could begin. Indeed, it might – if one were not skillful – weaken the negotiating position in that something would already have been given and one’s antagonists/future partners would try constantly to bend negotiations in their favour by referring to it.

I’m not arguing for preconditions as such; I’m arguing for a tiny number – even one – of socialist preconditions. (My suggestion can be found here: http://colummccaffery.wordpress.com/2011/01/04/labour-in-government-a-radical-but-modest-proposal-to-reduce-inequality/ )

There are a number of reasons for going down this path. Here are a few and in NO sense are they in order of importance:

i) The lie that the Labour Party is the same as every party or at least not particularly different to a humane liberal party, or – as even some of our own members allege – is not socialist at all, needs to be addressed. This can be done by laying down one or two fundamental demands/preconditions which a liberal party by virtue of its principles or ideology cannot concede without doing itself damage.

ii) It gives voters who are serious about changing the very direction of Irish development something for which to vote.

 iii) It puts a leftist demand right at the heart of public controversy in the run up to the election. (Without this the media will of necessity be attracted to liberal controversies like, say, abortion law.) 

iv) It delivers a basic return for coalition no matter how bad circumstances are or become.

v) It steals a march on the fantasists who need to injure Labour as the voice of Socialism. They know that they must undermine socialism as a contemporary hope and ambition so that their “religion” can be THE left. Their “project” necessarily is about defining socialism in terms of the unachievable or – similar, really – the 19th century.

Homeopathy: making choice meaningful

There’s just one thing on which homeopaths and their opponents agree: That a homoeopathic remedy contains no active ingredient.

Those who favour choice realise that the term is meaningless unless it is based on accurate information.

Right then, let’s make it a legal obligation that all homeopathc remedies carry a large label stating, “CONTAINS NO ACTIVE INGREDIENT”.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgHRWB6-k-Q

Labour in government: a radical but modest proposal to reduce inequality

Paula Clancey of Tasc in a recent talk ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q05VebLgHfc ) made reference to a statistic, which is both appalling and attractive. It is attractive because it provides a measurable route to greater equality.

She says that in Ireland the disposable income of the top decile = (The disposable income of the bottom decile) X 11!

How about this as we think about the fast approaching formation of the next Irish government ?

That the basic precondition for Labour Party participation in ANY coalition be a programme as follows:

End of year 1: The disposable income of the top decile = (The disposable income of the bottom decile) X 10

End of year 2: The disposable income of the top decile = (The disposable income of the bottom decile) X 9

End of year 3: The disposable income of the top decile = (The disposable income of the bottom decile) X 8

End of year 4: The disposable income of the top decile = (The disposable income of the bottom decile) X 7

I’d be more than happy if the Labour Party wanted to move further or faster but the proposal above has the attraction of being both radical and very modest.

Pedigree or pound? Perhaps certainty is a criterion when choosing a dog

I tend to have more serious pieces here but in the last couple of days I became involved in a discussion of Facebook and I realised that I had a reasonably serious and developed view on the importance of being able to predict the outcome of choosing to share a home with a dog.

I’m often accused of being a “dog snob” because for many years I’ve had well-bred Flatcoated Retrievers. They suit me, I admire them, they are fun and I like their company but I’m very aware that they could drive someone else to distraction. Now, that’s essentially the point: If you want a dog, you should get one that behaves and looks as you think your dog should. In that regard a pedigree dog is a better bet; it’s to do with knowing what you are getting into and I’ll explain.

ALL breeds are man-made, contrived for some human purpose. Their purpose determines not just their appearance but their temperaments and characters. Once you begin to think that you’d like to have a dog, you can research breeds and it’s very likely that you will find one that appeals in all or enough of these aspects. For example, gundogs are friendly BECAUSE their purpose is to work closely with lots of dogs and humans. Springers, however, appear crazy BECAUSE all that running around is what they’re bred to do in flushing game. They may be impossibly active as pets but a working springer doing what could appear crazy but under control is very effective.

However, most dogs are now kept as pets and if some day your pet reverts to type, there are different outcomes. Your pet Labrador might jump into a bush and retrieve a ball that you didn’t know was there. Your pet pitbull might revert to purpose by attacking another dog or worse! Your mixed breed from the pound is probably ok but you don’t know for certain and you’ve no idea if he/she will be active or quiet, will be destructive or not etc. etc. Pedigree dogs with some horrendous exceptions tend to be quite like their parents. In other words, if you purchase a particular breed, you are relatively certain of getting what you want or at least what you expect. Of course I’m not saying that your puppy will grow up without training to be like his beautifully behaved mammy. What I am saying is that with care, attention and training, he very likely will be.

Now, the alternative view is that rescue dogs are at least as good, are much cheaper, have a high success rate, have a million cute anecdotes to support them, and that rescue is a good in itself. Moreover, this view tends to be linked to an opposition to puppy farming. I don’t disagree with any of this but my point is quite different.

My son’s dog, Amy, is here now. She’s a collie/Labrador cross, she’s fabulous and possibly the best-trained dog I’ve ever seen. I like animals and dogs in particular. It would be great if homes could be found for all of the unwanted and greater still if they turned out like Amy. The difficulty is that breeds are very, very different and getting a dog is a big decision; you live WITH them and you better get it right. Now adopting a mature rescue dog might carry a degree of certainty as you’ve some idea what you’re getting but a pup of uncertain breeding is a gamble that I wouldn’t take.

A familiar line is, “A little bit of love, training and dog socialisation classes will do wonders for a rescue dog.” I wish that were true. However, if the line is changed to read, “… will do wonders for the vast majority of rescue dogs.”, I agree.

Two more points. Firstly, price isn’t an issue. The issue is degree of certainty that on having an animal literally share your home, it works out as you would like.

Secondly, I know that puppy farms exist for popular breeds but it would be very, very wrong to tar breeders generally with that brush. The few whom I know operate very differently: They produce very few pups and always for a particular purpose, and they subscribe to a code operated by their breed association

By the way, I’m certainly not recommending Flatcoats. They are friendly, excellent house dogs, beautiful, athletic, and marvelous as working gundogs but they are very playful, boisterous, confident, intelligent and physical; that’s why they are far less popular as pets than Labradors and Golden Retrievers. If you can endure the full-on American presentation, here’s a video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7vARLJkW6c

The real thing, my friend, Stevie, is watching me as I finish this. He’s so much better than the ones in the video and though young (He was two a couple of weeks ago.) he’s already a super working retriever.

Labour in coalition: It’s time to worry about too great a majority and to be realistic about SF

The website, Political Reform, has published figures based on the new poll: Fianna Fail 12, Fine Gael 67, Labour 48, Green Party 0, Sinn Fein 24, Independents/Others 15. (It is reckoned that the 15 include 10 who would be “left leaning”.)

 http://politicalreform.ie/2010/12/02/december-3-red-cirish-sun-poll-fianna-fail-facing-annihilation/comment-page-1/#comment-2561

Perhaps I’m the only one concerned that an overweening majority would threaten our democracy. On the basis of these figures, Lab/FG would have 115 seats. That’s not a safe majority. It’s downright dangerous and must not happen. The same could be said of FF/FG/SF having 103 seats.

Two combinations remain:

Lab/SF and 10 independents would have 82 seats.

FF/FG with 5 independents would have 84 seats.

The Left coalition depends on the belief that SF are socialist. However, it is implausible that a party which broke from Official SF partly to avoid contamination by socialist ideas and then supported the IRA murder of more Irish people than any other combatant group in N.I. has “found” socialism. It is true that the “socialist split” happened decades ago in very different circumstances but many of SF’s present leaders were around then or soon after. SF are “positioning” themselves to the left of Labour. It is a measure of desperation that many socialists are falling for it. SF are unchallenged at the ballot box for the “traditional” extreme right, nationalist vote. Their hope is that clientilism in poor areas and populist guff disguised by the terminology of socialism will deliver sizeable numbers of the poor and some naive socialists. A “left” coalition which included SF would destroy the credibility of Irish socialism. It would be crazy for Labour to be a part of that.

That leaves a Right coalition with a small majority, facing an energetic and ambitious Labour opposition, challenged on its left by a handful of “fantasy” socialists, with SF pursuing who knows what?

Delegate or trustee?: Labour’s new ambition will dictate a more pressing evaluation of Irish PRSTV

There are two reasons for having representative democracy rather than direct democracy. There’s the numbers reason and the deliberative reason. The former rests on the obvious; that in anything other than a tiny society, direct democracy is impractical and representatives are necessary. (Let’s leave to one side the decreasingly futuristic possibilities that ICTs offer for direct participation and their dangers.) The latter – the deliberative reason – refers to the requirement that decisions be made slowly, based on information, argument and thought. The idea is that a legislator needs to be “professional” in the sense that the deliberative role is a fulltime job.

Now, clearly parliaments and parliamentarians tend not to conform to the ideal and the Dáil is a particular example. There are many reasons for this but one is the people’s tendency to elect representatives who are not able for the role, never considered deliberation to be their role, or consider their role as one of “getting stuff” for their constituency. It is often argued that PRSTV should be abandoned as a reform aimed at ridding the Dáil of or reducing the numbers of “clientilist”, constituency workers.

This suggestion is met with two objections. Firstly, there is the inverted snobbery objection, that we don’t want the Dáil dominated by up-market, educated types with fancy notions. Secondly, there is the roots objection, that a TD who does not engage in enormous amounts of constituency work  and constituent contact will somehow become detached from reality and lose his or her true purpose: to represent “ordinary” people.

Leaving aside the argument that a low quota under PRSTV makes it easier for a well known, local constituency worker to be elected, let’s look at another but similar feature of PRSTV. It could be argued that the coming election will be the one in which Labour for the first time will have to face the full rigour of constituency competition in a Dáil election. Up to this, Labour’s ambition seldom extended beyond one seat in any constituency and so, intraparty competition was rare for Labour. From now on, Labour candidates will have to compete with other Labour candidates. They clearly will not compete on ideological grounds and will have increasingly to compete (like most FF and FG candidates) on the basis of constituency service, i.e. clientilism.

If it is accepted by Labour that clientilism is wrong in itself or that it produces TDs who are quite simply “the wrong stuff”, the conventional argument – that intraparty competition dictates that candidates must compete by offering constituency services – will have to be faced. Labour will then have to demonstrate that the conventional argument is erroneous or side with those who want to move away from PRSTV.

Mockery: “We are all in this together in the national interest.”

As Ireland settles into a very difficult debt-ridden future, media appeals to our Irishness become ever more common: we are asked to act “in the national interest” and told that, “We are all in this together”. It bears repeating time and time and time again that appeals to solidarity such as “WAAITT” mock the poor. Of course it is possible to have solidarity in an unequal society but it is utterly impossible in a grossly unequal society.

The problem is that EVERYONE is in favour of equality until someone spoils the sanctimony by talking about inequality of INCOME. Yes, that was “income” and not the familiar “wealth” which can be an evasion.

If you agree with any of the following equations, what value would you give to “X”?

Max. income = X(min. wage)

Max. income for a public servant = X(min. wage)

Max. income for an employee or director of a company in receipt of state aid, grant, contract etc. = X(min. wage)