The reason I've not been around for the last few days is that my wife Fay gave birth to a beautiful baby daughter - Eve Mary. For those of you sufficiently motivated, please feel free to wet the babies head!

The Letter in full.

The GAA should be honest about its political agenda
THERE has been some recent correspondence in the Irish News, including a letter from Caitriona Ruane MLA of Sinn Fein, about the GAA.

This follows a Talkback debate broadcast from Stormont.

At that debate I raised the question of the political dimension of the GAA and said that it was more than just a sporting organisation.

That is also the view of Archbishop Sean Brady, leader of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland.

He contributed a chapter to a book, Talking Gaelic, admitting: “The GAA is more than just a sporting organisation, it has played a part in the national identity and the association is very aware of this.”

That is an understatement... but the admission that the GAA is ‘more than just a sporting organisation’ is the important consideration.

In fact the GAA has a political agenda – that of Irish nationalism and Irish republicanism.

It is perfectly entitled to have that agenda but it should be open and honest about it and those who provide public funding for the GAA should acknowledge it too.

The body that is being funded is not an ordinary organisation but rather a sporting organisation with a political agenda.

During the debate I also referred to the practice of naming Gaelic grounds, clubs and competitions after republican terrorists and there are many examples.

Croke Park in Dublin was named after the first GAA patron, Archbishop Croke of Cashel.

But the Nally Stand, built in 1952, was named after Patrick William Nally, the first chairman of the Irish Republican Brotherhood, a secret oath-bound terrorist organisation.

One of the highlights of the GAA year is the All-Ireland Gaelic Football final in September when teams compete for the Sam Maguire Cup.

Maguire was a senior IRB member who supplied guns to republican terrorists in Ireland and tried to set up people in England as targets for republican murderers.

As the former head of the West Belfast Festival, Caitriona Ruane will also be familiar with the Mairead Farrell Camogie Tournament, which was part of the festival programme.

Farrell served a 10-year prison sentence for bombing in the Conway Hotel at Dunmurry and was eventually killed in Gibraltar in 1988 while she was on another terrorist mission.

These are two issues that need to be addressed by the GAA and other advocates of Gaelic games.

Whether or not the GAA retains its political goal of taking Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom is a matter for the GAA but the organisation should be open about the fact that they hold that political stance.

Moreover they should acknowledge that this is a bar against participation by unionists.

They are perfectly entitled to operate in that way but they should not attempt to conceal it.

As regards naming aspects of the Gaelic sport after republican terrorists, that is an altogether different matter. It is a practice that should be ended.

NELSON McCAUSLAND MLA, DUP Culture spokesman, Belfast

So are the governmental spinners spinning again to cover their backs, or do the media no longer even have to be fed the 'upbeat' line any more?

It wouldn't be fair to accuse all journalists of creating false expectations. Indeed, amongst the more experienced locals, there is quite a bit of weary resignation that failure is almost inevitable and that agreement is always just out of reach.

Certainly, at Leeds Castle, the journalists that did most of the enthusiastic running around with looks of cheery hope on their faces were the international reporters who had never been seen in Northern Ireland, or were last seen at Holy Cross.

Those journalists who had served time in Belfast, as at Hillsborough yesterday, looked either bored or tired with the ongoing tedium of these circular talks.

Perhaps it was the apparent progress on decommissioning that led some to believe a deal was possible. The DUP have believed for some months now that decommissioning could be resolved by the end of this year. That quietly confident hope was perhaps based on the understandings they may have been receiving from the British Government on the issue of photographic evidence of IRA decommissioning.

Cusack writes (on Dec 12): "All the media predictions were proved wrong, yet again, last Tuesday when Gerry Adams announced the IRA would not agree to terms set down for taking photographs of arms decommissioning.

"At least two weeks before that, republican sources said the IRA would not agree to the idea of decommissioning being photographed and also played down the chances of any deal with the DUP."

Yet the issue of photos was kept alive by someone, either by the IRA not completely ruling it out, or by the Government spinning to the DUP. Even Adams' announcement above is ambiguous - it is the terms of taking photos rather than the taking of photos that he says the IRA objected to.

To seasoned observers, this refusal to rule out the issue cleanly meant that there should have been wriggle room on the issue. If there was no chance of any photos being taken in any context, it should have been stated plainly and early that another avenue should be explored. The DUP was open to this at the time.

A plausible explanation might be that the British wanted to get a political deal completed and out of the way, and then muddle through decommissioning. The political aspects - very imperfect though they are - represented the real progress since Leeds Castle; for example, SF effectively signed up to policing and the DUP committed to power sharing.

Perhaps the British were concerned that the DUP - who were, up until very recently, quite flexible on how transparent decommissioning could occur - would walk away from the talks. The carrot of a Kodak moment may have been the British Government's 'hook' to keep the DUP engaged until all the detail was ironed out on the political aspects of the deal.

If correct (and it's only educated guesswork, as these talks have hardly been open), then the lesson for the DUP is clear - their refusal to talk to Sinn Fein directly is putting them at a distinct disadvantage in these talks. In fact, they may get more honesty or plain speaking out of often-ambiguous republicans in face-to-face talks than they ever did with the British Government.

If the DUP suspects British and SF 'collusion' in the negotiations, maybe it's time to cut out the monkey and go straight to the organ grinder. Heck, maybe it's even time for the DUP to privately confront the IRA leadership directly and get this thing sorted once and for all!

Dickson also effectively accuses the Government of institutionalising cover-ups through the Inquiries Bill, politicising rights issues that should be above politics, and neglecting the Commission, as well as using its powers (or lack thereof) as something to be negotiated in political talks.

1964 - The poet Philip Larkin famously wrote: "Sexual intercourse began/In 1963(which was rather late for me)/Between the end of the Chatterley ban/And the Beatles' first LP." Just as famously, the late Oliver J Flanagan TD claimed: "There was no sex in Ireland before television." Bonkers or not, it's possible to see where he was coming from.

Some favourites from the Archives :

Files containing thousands of letters to different Taoisigh over the decades throw up heavyweight affairs of state side-by-side with lightheaded states of mind. While most of the correspondents from the pre-computer era had some command (often a very rudimentary one) of joined-up writing, joined-up thinking is at a premium in the files. For instance, in 1965 the Bishops of Dromore and Achonry wrote to Taoiseach Sean Lemass warning him that the thousands of under-18s emigrating each year were "entirely unprepared for live (sic) in a pagan and amoral environment. Emigration in their case could almost be called a proximate occasion of mortal sin".

The bishops proposed that the government should ban all under-18s from leaving the country. Rather than explain to their Lordships that their scheme was bonkers, Lemass responded tactfully that he feared fencing young people onto this island would be unconstitutional. He added that criminalising individuals for the "mortal sin" of emigrating to pagan territories might simply ensure that they'd never return to Holy Ireland.

In 1973 another religious lobbyist, the Reverend Richard Mulcahy, wrote to Taoiseach Liam Cosgrave urging vigilance against the rising tide of contraception. Arguing that Ireland needed a population explosion, Mulcahy reasoned: "Dear Liam. Contraception is an evil which has beset mankind for as far back as history records... Those who try to frighten people with demographic arguments should take into account that the whole population of the world could fit into the smallest county in Ireland, the wee county of Louth."

As a piece of rational argument, this was well on a par with the letter to Lemass eight years earlier from Maud Sullivan of Los Angeles who'd spotted a causal link between mini-skirts and natural disasters. Taken aback at the amount of leg shown by some Aer Lingus hostesses marching in LA's St Patrick's Day parade, Maud wrote: "What I want to ask you, dear Premier, if the women and girls in Catholic Ireland are wearing minnie dresses and tight pants and minnie skirts? Ireland will not be Holy Ireland anymore unless they get back to decent dress at once and ask God for forgiveness. I myself have never wore a minnie dress and never intend to, not if you were to give me all the money in the world. Here in the USA our women and girls in their minnie dresses has brought God's displeasure down on us. We have had storms. Earthquakes."

No doubt many of our posters will find plenty to argue about in the article - party-political point-scoring does feature heavily - but I would like to draw your attention to what he has to say on the devolution of policing and justice powers -

On the issue of policing and justice we have won the argument and ensured that the powers will only be transferred when there is sufficient confidence in the community for this to happen. We hope that this can be achieved as soon as possible but we have won a double lock to make sure that it will not happen before people are satisfied.[my emphasis]

It's not quite the triple-lock that I seem to recall was their originally stated objective, but it does represent a considerable obstacle to the resolution of the issue of policing here, given that Sinn Féin will not hold an Ard Heis to make that final endorsement of policing until those powers are devolved.

It's an issue that was effectively sidelined in the 'comprehensive' agreement, despite the gloss that has been liberally applied to those proposals, and it remains the fundamental obstacle to progress.

The transcript is preceded by a brief disclaimer -

A transcript of Bertie Ahern's Monday afternoon phone call to Dr Ian Paisley has been released under the 30-minute rule by the popular espionage community website www.KevinFulton.com. In the absence of a comprehensive agreement between our Northern editor and our political correspondent, the board of The Irish Times has decided to publish this transcript in the interests of transparency and without intending to humiliate anyone.

© The Irish Times

The DUP is saying that the consequences are in terms of its level of support for the comprehensive agreement, but if the photos issue was killed off, the focus would be on paramilitary activity - what should have been regarded as the bigger prize anyway, to democrats.

In practical terms, I suspect that - if all this is even true - that it will mean the DUP insisting on a longer 'decontamination period' for the IRA to prove it has given up the gun. Looks like my prediction after the Assembly elections that we would have to wait until after the Westminster election for the restoration of the institutions will be proved right.

This is an important difference. Phil Noble told that seminar in Westminster I went to last Tuesday that political parties and politians in general are current only using about 20% of the capacity available now online.

Stephen Coleman, also pointed out that the age group most keyed into using the net for political information (in the US) is the 18-24 age group. This is the broadband generation. Given the current dynamic situation in politics here, this age group is also key to each of NI's poltical parties.

What do people look for from the sites they want to return to? Interactivity. The first political site on the net was Teddy Kennedy's back in 1994. It was what we regard today as a placeholder - a large graphic inviting the 'viewer' to vote for Kennedy.

The Hansard's Society's report on political blogging suggested that brochure sites that carry political messages were a first iteration of political sites. Today, they are clearly moving towards fast changing content, and higher interactivity.

If Phil Noble's to believed, it can also be a profit, rather than a cost centre for political parties. The Ogra site at least does have a link to the party's online shop.

Humour is almost entirely missing from any of the sites we've seen, this was an important driver of traffic to political sites in the recent US elections.

So where's the DUP site? Well, my suspicion is (and we've not heard anything from the party at this stage) that it's main site has already built with precisely this younger demographic in mind - think text messages/ election cartoons/ emailing list. I'm not really sure what they'd change from the main site to make it a youth site. Ironic, since their party leader is nearly twice the age of any of the others.

Herein may lie the problem for the other parties. The 18-24 age group is not marginal to your net presence - it's the key! If you can start talking to this age group, you will simply be making the medium sing in tune! And you won't necessarily loose your older readers.

The brochure on the net approach doesn't work. Young people want good information, a chance to participate online, and yes, be entertained. To paraphrase Kevin Costner's Field of Dreams line: "If you don't build it, they will not come!"

The message is clear - invest, think about who you want to talk to on the net and starting 'talking'. And above all, don't be dull!

Had his tay.

I know, it's awful...

It was a brave and imaginative step at a time when Belfast's first Irish speaking primary school at Shaws Road was in its 12th year of independent operation and still a year away from a sniff of state funding.

I read somewhere that in 1960 there were only about half a dozen active speakers of the language, and that by 1990 there were something in the region of two to three thousand. Much of that transformation was achieved without a single injection of public funding.

In recent years relatively small amounts of money have been stretched a long way to provide the kinds of discrete public spaces that allow a minority (and undoubtedly endangered) language to do much more than simply subsist in small and isolated pockets.

As many will no doubt have already read here on Slugger, Lá has recently been forced to cut print production from five days to four days each week ­although a Friday edition of the paper is still published on the internet. Cuts in funding have also led to two job losses.

A key public meeting in support of Lá organised by Irish language umbrella organisation Pobal will take place in An Chultúrlann tomorrow (Tuesday) night, starting at 7.30 pm.

Not forgetting Ed Hillan (from Randalstown!); Sheila O'Malley; Harry's Place; Malachi O'Doherty; Strange Attractor; Ganching; Young Fogey; Robert Corr (and a prize description of Slugger); Andrew Muir; Ciaran O'Kelly.

And many thanks to Scots Gaelic enthusiast Jordan McVay for naming Slugger as a joint winner of the group blog category of his very own Weblog Awards.

Most unlikely places: Pregnancy Magazine; and Divingshop.com.

Most are newish to us and there are some excellent reads amongst them!

Paisley has offered conditional pledges to work with Gerry Adams' Sinn Fein party and the government of the neighboring Republic of Ireland, which he used to denounce as a Catholic theocracy. Sinn Fein has offered its own conditional promises to deliver speedy, full IRA disarmament and to recognize the legitimacy of Northern Ireland's police force, which it used to revile as a tool of British oppression.

The notional separation of Sinn Fein from the IRA provided the party with a negotiating advantage which was not shared by its nationalist or unionist opponents. Sinn Fein, wearing its 'democratic' hat and relying on its electoral mandate, could claim political legitimacy enabling Adams, McGuinness, Doherty and co to posture as statesmen.

Showered with privilege, place, money, and media attention, they talked the talk of democrats, while the IRA acted as their political and social enforcers and criminal fund-raisers in the nationalist ghettoes.

The separation of Sinn Fein 'democrats' from IRA 'terrorists' became the key to ongoing benefits. It enabled Sinn Fein to accept the Mitchell Principles and gain entry to the negotiations which delivered the Belfast Agreement.

It secured the release of convicted republican terrorists; the destruction of the RUC, and the placing of Sinn Fein ministers in government. It permitted Sinn Fein to deny responsibility for the decommissioning of IRA weapons by accepting that Sinn Fein did not control the IRA's activities and should, therefore, suffer no greater political sanction than other 'democratic' parties should the IRA refuse to decommission.

The problem for Bertie is that such a 'solution' - no photos but a definitive statement on ending criminality - now requires a reversal, from their stated positions, by the DUP and Sinn Féin.

Gerry Adams has already issued his customary rapid response -

Sinn Féin President Mr Gerry Adams has said committments given by the IRA on ending its activities should be enough for the Taoiseach, Mr Ahern.

..

"You cannot be a criminal and a Republican activist. You cannot be involved in any criminality and involved in republican activism," Mr Adams said.[my emphasis]

Hmm.. and robbing post offices falls into which category, Gerry?

Of course, the DUP has not made any change to its previously stated position either.

Bertie may just be whistling in the wind with this one.. not that SF and the DUP will mind.. as the BBC's Mark Devenport noted previously, they're all too aware that all publicity is good publicity.

One additional point though, does Sinn Féin TD Aengus Ó Snodaigh calling the Taoiseach "a liar" not count as 'intemperate' language?

Update - It seems that RTE asked the Sinn Féin president the question I posed earlier, after his comment - "You cannot be a criminal and a Republican activist. You cannot be involved in any criminality and involved in republican activism," Mr Adams said.[my emphasis]. - namely which category robbing post offices fell into.

Asked where that[the above comment] left the killers of Garda Jerry McCabe, Mr Adams said that that should not be the current focus.[my emphasis]

No, Gerry, you probably think that shouldn't be the focus.. after all, it does make your comment seem more than a little hypocritical, doesn't it?

By Danny Morrison

There has been much argument over what was or was not agreed on the issue of IRA decommissioning being photographed.

Proof that republicans never subscribed to the idea of visual decommissioning is actually evident from a close reading of the two governments’ proposals for a 'Comprehensive Agreement'. When you read the statement in Annex C the governments proposed the IRA would issue there is absolutely no reference to photographs. What it says is that, "the IRA leadership has agreed with the IICD [the Decommissioning body] to complete this process in a way which further enhances public confidence and to conclude this by the end of December."

The way which enhances public confidence was the proposal to allow two independent clerics to witness decommissioning, which is what the IRA had agreed to.

Photographs are only mentioned in the statement in Annex D that the governments proposed that General John de Chastelain would make! According to paragraph 5 he would have said: "In addition, the IRA representative has told us that the IRA will have photographs of the weapons and materiel involved taken by the IICD, in the presence of the independent observers."

De Chastelain would have said that the photographs would be published when the Executive was formed next March.

The reference to photographs was obviously left out of the IRA statement because the British knew that the IRA had never agreed to that happening, though it appears that they were trying to bounce the IRA into accepting the unacceptable.

The British and Irish governments thus must bear a heavy responsibility for the impasse in political progress last week. It is now clear that they ignored Sinn Fein warnings that visual decommissioning from the IRA was a non-starter, yet they persisted in including such a possible prospect.

Furthermore, we now know that the British government convinced the DUP that the pictorial aspect was a probability – almost a given – in a separate document on the issue which was never shown to Sinn Fein’s chief negotiator Martin McGuinness.

That little bit of deceit was what put Paisley's ego over the top. Falsely assuming that the IRA had agreed to visual decommissioning, he made his infamous speech about humiliation, repentance, sackcloth and ashes (and, later, threw in a hair shirt for good measure).

Paisley must have known the reaction his speech would have caused among republicans. He may have calculated that it would cause major division in the IRA and ultimately force the IRA to 'renege' on what he assumed it had agreed to - filmed decommissioning.

That certainly would have got him off the hook of sharing power with Sinn Fein under the Belfast Agreement which is what he would have been signing up to. However, despite what commentators, observers and politicians assert about Paisley being prepared to share power with republicans, I still cannot ever see it happening, for it would represent such a reversal of character.

The publication of the document has also shown that the SDLP was lying when it said that Sinn Fein had agreed to a DUP veto over the nomination of specific ministers. In fact, the amended method of electing the Executive rather than easing things for the DUP has made it more embarrassing.

Under the former system it would have had to vote for only one member of Sinn Fein, Martin McGuinness as Deputy First Minister. But under the latest proposals the entire Executive would be nominated and then there would be a collective vote. This led to David Trimble jibing at Paisley: "That instead of voting for one, they will vote for four [Sinn Fein ministers]. I'm sure that's progress."

There is little doubt that, as Gerry Adams said last week, there would be a battle a day inside such an Executive, as the DUP resisted change and progress. Paisley confirmed just that on Radio Ulster’s 'Sunday Sequence' when it was clear that rather than promote the smooth functioning of government (to which the DUP would have to pledge itself, according to Annexe E) he would treat particular fellow ministers with hostility.

His objective would be to frustrate the work, find fault with Sinn Fein and have it driven out of the Executive. Under those gerrymandered circumstances he would be more than willing to sit with the SDLP, the DUP's master voice who joined the confederacy calling for IRA photographs.

The irony is that the DUP appear to prefer the sectarian satisfaction of keeping Sinn Fein out of government rather than relieving the unionist community of the negative consequences of direct rule.

All of which begs the question I have heard many republicans ask: why bother? Certainly, Sinn Fein being in power in the North and South and working the systems towards social and economic harmony, as a means of working towards unity, appears to be the most viable strategy available.

But can't it continue to consolidate its support and ready itself for power in the South (should it want to be in government; should the pretexts blocking it be removed)? Can't it lobby and press the British government to implement changes on a range of issues, including policing and a Bill of Rights, which the British have already conceded in principle?

Meantime, the IRA, presumably, will examine whether there is merit in doing a side deal with the two governments.

The nationalist community might be angry and temporarily frustrated. But it remains stoic, and morale is high because the IRA made the right decision. No photographs, no humiliation. Let’s move on.

First published in the Andersonstown News, Monday 13th December 2004

And Roddy Doyle would not disagree with these lines, either -

"Dublin's highly energetic tourism officials have milked the city's rich literary heritage for all it's worth - and good luck to them. The literary tour guides who take the crowds in the steps of Behan ("I'm a drinker with a writing problem") and Sean O'Casey ("I was born at a very young age") do a fine job filling their charges with amusing anecdotes and pints of porter.

But there's a price to pay: as the tourist numbers grow, standards decline. If the likes of Behan, O'Casey and Patrick Kavanagh were alive today they'd be hard put to find any bar fit for their alcoholic and literary indulgences amid the "super pubs" and wine bars of modern Dublin- and they'd be appalled at how their names are used and abused around the city."[my emphasis]

It should be a familar theme by now, but that shouldn't breed contempt for the argument. Celebrating great literary figures is the correct thing to do, but don't forget to celebrate the literature too. And if that celebration becomes veneration, it's time to ask ourselves what the purpose of the effort actually is.

One thing is almost certain, though, James Joyce wouldn't have sat down to lick his sticky bun fingers in a 'James Joyce' room.

A well designed site, easy to read and with an interesting manifesto for 2004. The suggestion that elections should be held at week-ends is sensible, however I'm not impressed with the idea that the state should provide third party insurance for young people. The reason their premiums are so high is because so many of them drive dangerously.

That aside the manifesto is well written and would, I suspect, be considered less difficult for Unionists than equivalent Sinn Féin documents in that it focuses on positive ways to change society rather than relying on criticism of the status quo and attacks on opponents. Augurs well for the future. Well done ÓSFBF. Added to my bookmarks.

And from Aengus O Snodaigh : "Yasser Arafat and his PLO were an inspiration to freedom fighters throughout the world. Gerry Adams? Throughout a lifetime in struggle President Yasser Arafat has not only been a father of the Palestinian people he has been an inspiration to people throughout the world

From Irish Voice December 8th

Leading New York immigration and human rights lawyer Brian O’Dwyer has accused Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) leader Reverend Ian Paisley of acting like the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat in refusing to reach a peace agreement.

Who is Brian O'Dwyer ?

Papal Knight, "chosen by “Irish America” magazine as a member of the “Top 100” Irish in the United States", a regular commentator on Fox TV and most impressive of all - "He was cited by both the National Law Journal and the Legal Times as having the highest personal injury award of $61 million in the United States".

Brian O'Dwyer, Esq., Chair: Partner, O'Dwyer and Bernstien; former U.N. Human Rights Commissioner.

WOW!

Lord Dubs was speaking in the context of his Succession to the Crown Bill. More here and here from the Fabian Society.

...the officials driving the process tend to view the people of Northern Ireland suspiciously, some believing that the people's base instincts could even throw the process off course. Officials worry that if Northern Ireland's politicians, currently being weaned off their desires for a single-identity solution, are allowed too much contact with the people, it might re-ignite their old political posturings, where they will attempt to win votes by appealing to the masses' presumed desires for old-fashioned solutions.

Who uses the net for politics?

Professor Stephen Coleman of the Oxford Internet Institute, drew from research he'd commissioned from YouGov. Days before the US poll, a sample of 3,500 Internet users, was asked to rank the importance of various sources using a Likert scale from 1-10.

Unsurprisingly 60% of the whole sample put television in the highest-ranking (i.e. between 8 and 10) source for information on the election. The Internet came in second at about 50%, just ahead of family and friends. Overall, men rate it higher than women.

The key group of 18-24 year olds, rate the Internet by far their most important source. Whilst this group is not demographically significant at present, their impact will increase, as they grow older. Older men favour the net to donate money to political parties.

Direct lessons from the US

The South Carolina based founder of Politics Online (URL), Phil Noble opened with a pitch to political parties, “Follow the money. If your website is not a profit centre, you’re doing something wrong".

In the 2004 campaign, Howard Dean led the way, not simply in raising money, but in galvanising support for a campaign that "began with three people in a pizza parlour in Vermont" and became a massive bottom up' campaign that "began through the Democratic base gradually taking in gay rights, anti war and peace groups" across the country.

After Dean's exit from the primary race, John Kerry was quick to learn the lesson. He went from having to re-mortgage his house at the beginning of the presidential campaign, to raising a total of $220 million by the end - easily out-doing the official Bush campaign. Of that total, $82 million was raised on the net: $5.7 million in the course of one day.

Noble also highlighted the fact that some of the most effective moves in the campaign came from outside the parties themselves. The ad hoc group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (URL), effectively neutralised Kerry’s attempt to capitalise on his war record in Vietnam. Its video with several veterans throwing doubt on the veracity of his medal honours, was only shown once on TV in Ohio, yet in West Virginia, where it was never shown, 65% said they’d seen it on the Internet.

Texans for Truth, organised by one man in Texas, raised enough money to get their own video, this time with veteran National Guardsmen testifying to the fact they’d never seen George Bush in the Unit he’d been supposed to be in during the Vietnam War.

Professor Coleman, reiterated the importance of third parties in driving online activity. He was particularly scathing of government and other officially sponsored attempts to engage online audiences with sites that often look as if "they'd been quickly thrown together by an unemployed gravedigger".

Coleman believes that even if "older monolithic news transmission of politics is failing", most political parties have been reluctant to embrace the more edgy dangerous world of the Internet. Here the communication mode is person to person: "Rather parties want something akin to the television production that they can control".

So why's the net important? It comes back to those 18 to 24 year olds who see the Internet as a key informational resource. If this group, as Coleman's research implies, are using the net in ways which are qualitatively significant, they may be less likely to come near 'one way only' party websites.

On blogging

According to Professor Coleman’s research, blogs still remain the outsider at the political feast. Amongst favoured points of reference they come a long way down the list. Even so, at the height of the election, the Drudge Report (URL) was drawing in something like 1 million unique visitors.

Bloggers have also helped cause some major shake-ups in the national media. The Dan Rather affair is widely believed signalled the end of the ‘Big Three’ broadcasters (CBS, ABC and NBC) ability to set the nation’s news agendas.

In general Coleman remains cool on the phenomenon of political blogging. Though he later qualified this with a reference to Slugger as a notable exception: suggesting that "It's a good example of a small site that has managed to become a household name, or if not that, a big name in many households".

It's networks not the 'net' that counts

Throughout the evening – which overran its allotted hour and a half by forty minutes - the primary speakers agreed that it’s not the net that counts in politics, it's the ability to drive growth through 'real world' personal networks. According to Noble, this includes things as simple as Dean’s use of Meet Up to bring supporters together and raise campaign cash.

But also the more focused and personalised technology of the Bush site. With personal precincts, for instance, you bang in your Postal Code and, as Noble puts it, "up comes a map of your local area with a list of 10 people that the party wants you to talk to. And if you're really good, maybe you'll come back to us and tell us what they said"

Noble finished with two important thoughts: "People want to act, just give them a way to do it online and they’ll do it. Remember it's the message and the campaign that counts. A great website and a bad campaign, is a bad campaign".

Coleman saw the development of politics online as part of a move towards a more conversational democracy. There's a need to move away from broadcast mode and tell people what it is they need to know as individuals.

Humour is important too. He saw a great irony in the fact that the Electoral commission and other government agencies are spending huge amounts of money to get young people to vote in elections when the same young people were prepared to spend huge amounts of money to vote for participants in Big Brother and I'm a Celebrity, get me out of here.

The one question that was neither asked nor alluded to was: if the Democrats were able to harness the power of the net so effectively in raising money, how come they lost?

Of course, campaigns are never likely to be solely won or lost online. But answering that hypothetical question should be something that exercises this year's losers, between now and the next election.

Other coverage: Cambridge man Bill Thompson - comprehensive, incisive and laconically scathing; Tom Steinberg, sharp and to the point; the BBC version from Brian Wheeler; and Tim Ireland noting where the all the net money was spent!

And a series of questions for further debate?

However, like one or two of my fellow bloggers, he's detected a number of interesting gaps in the grand narrative. Not least:

According to the former Sinn Fein publicity director Danny Morrison, this was when "Paisley blew it".

But he was not the first to talk about the photographs as "humiliation". That honour goes to Sinn Fein's Mitchel McLaughlin who accused the DUP of trying to humiliate the IRA over visual decommissioning on the BBC's Inside Politics programme back on 23 October.

Moreover, if as the IRA says, photos were never possible, would it have made any difference if Ian Paisley had gone on the TV every day in November to reiterate his long held view that the IRA are "bloodthirsty monsters"?

As for the PUP, it blames the IRA for IRA violence AND for UVF and UDA violence, since loyalist violence is a reaction and so not really as bad. That's also why republican decommissioning matters and loyalist decommissioning doesn't.

A quick glance through the press round-up in the same paper however, reveals that he should, perhaps, have taken into account more local journalists too, most of whom were also ready to accept "that the thing turns on Paisley's insult and the IRA's wounded pride".

But it’s not all bad news…

The report also showed that English was not the only language spreading, and the world, far from being dominated by English, was to become more multi-lingual. Mr Graddol said: "Chinese, Arabic and Spanish are all popular, and likely to be languages of the future."

“This delicately equivocal formulation comes from Stuart Christie, whose hugely engaging memoir includes an account of the Angry Brigade trial. Granny Made Me an Anarchist describes how, after a short flirtation with the flute band of his local Orange lodge in Glasgow, the teenage Christie quickly graduated to the militant wing of CND. “

From a review of Gordon Carr’s book, The Angry Brigade, THE ANGRY YEARS
“John Barker, one of those convicted of conspiracy in the Angry Brigade trial admits 'In my case the police framed a guilty man,' and implies that the police also more or less got it right in the cases of the other three alleged Angry Brigade members who were convicted. He also dismisses bombing as 'a 19th century tactic' and 'essentially gestural,' failing in its attempt to effect real change.”

Did bombing effect any real change here ? Ambrose thinks John Barker's words apply to events in Ireland.

Recent commentary has focused almost entirely on what proposals would be necessary to get the DUP and Sinn Féin into government. Few have considered the implications for increasing apartheid – on the ground and in the Assembly – that would result from this arranged shotgun marriage.

McCann considers the internal contradiction of the Agreement – that republicans see it as a stepping stone towards a united Ireland, while unionists see it as copper-fastening the union with Great Britain – the main weakness contributing to instability. Although it tries to be all things to all men, it cannot be both, he argues.

McCann writes: “The fact was rather obvious that these two propositions could not simultaneously be true and that the peace thus established must be inherently unstable.

“But it was considered at the time, and to some extent still is, the height of irresponsibility to draw attention to this obvious fact.”

Another perceptive ‘enemy of the peace process’ and opponent of political doublethink, Newton Emerson, argues today that Sinn Féin and the DUP depend upon each other for their power. He highlights the sectarian charade that takes place in those other seats of little power, local councils, in which the tribal parties don’t even attempt to represent all sections of the community, just their own. Unionism defines itself against nationalism/republicanism and vice versa.

Those who look for political leadership see the politics of separation dominant at present, so it’s little surprise that social segregation has actually increased since ‘peace’ arrived on Good Friday 1998. If unionism and nationalism cannot reach out to each other, it is less likely that individual unionists and nationalists will either. And those individuals who do not identify with unionism or nationalism are actively discriminated against in this new version of equality anyway, even though their numbers may be increasing. But poor leadership is par for the course here.

So how will the DUP and Sinn Féin govern Northern Ireland together from the extremes? Answer: they won’t. They don’t even talk, so how would they lead together? Each will look after their own, and never the twain shall meet.

Emerson writes: “As long as their openly ethnic agendas diverge all is well between them and because it is the aim of both parties that those agendas should diverge then all is well almost all of the time – so much so, in fact, that occasional set-piece battles must be fought as a distraction.

”Anyone who has ever witnessed these council chamber sham fights can attest to their ritual quality. Sinn Fein and the DUP know the real enemy is not those who stand across the divide but those who stand against the divide, for the divide is the source of their power. They know the other party knows this as well.”

Emerson believes that putting the DUP and Sinn Féin in charge of Northern Ireland will only lead to greater apartheid than that which already exists. He warns of a local version of Balkanisation:

“History has a word for how Sinn Fein and the DUP would rule us. That word is ‘apartheid’ – and a coming together to drive us apart would not make our version any less disgraceful.

”In every council in Northern Ireland Sinn Fein and DUP members have long referred openly to ‘Protestant’ parks, ‘Catholic’ bus routes, ‘Protestant’ streets, ‘Catholic’ shops.

”Do you think they aren’t itching to formalise those distinctions?

”Do you think they’d never give each other helpful little pushes over that slippery slope?

”Do you think the British and Irish governments would stop them? The British and Irish governments put just such formal distinctions at the heart of every Good Friday Agreement institution.

”They have demonstrated that they will humour any lie and ignore any crime to preserve them.”

His assessment is accurate, and the results can be seen even in yesterday’s proposals by the British Government, as it demonstrates its own complicity in preserving sectarian structures in a restored Assembly. In Annex B, the British proposals for changes to Strand One (internal) matters, we read:

“Community designation. An amendment to the 1998 Act would provide that an Assembly Member would not be able to change community designation for the whole of an Assembly term from that expressed at the time of nomination for election, except in the case of a change of membership of political party.”

This effectively means that 'community designations' - a euphemism for sectarian labels - are forced on candidates from the time they announce that they are standing for election to the Assembly. This pigeon hole becomes the candidates permanent political home, despite the fact that this system has failed before.

As someone else wrote, you might as well hand out Rangers and Celtic shirts to Assembly members as they walk into Parliament Buildings for the first time. Except now, you get it when you hand in your nomination papers and can't take it off until you're kicked out of office. Imagine MPs in Westminster or TDs in the Dail being asked to wear big badges with 'Black' or 'White' on them at all times in their respective parliaments, even if the member was Asian, Muslim or anything else.

You might think that as the Review of the Agreement is still officially ongoing, there would still be scope to challenge sectarian designations. Not so, says the Government, always ready to change the law in deference to tribalism, in a paragraph yet to be commented upon elsewhere:

“An amendment to the 1998 Act would provide for the Assembly to appoint a standing Institutional Review Committee, to examine the operational aspects of the Strand One institutions. Matters to be reviewed in this way would be agreed among the parties. The Committee’s reports would be considered by the Executive and Assembly, and, where agreed changes required legislative steps outside the scope of the devolved institutions, by the British Government in consultation as appropriate with the Irish Government.”

Since the DUP and Sinn Fein (and definitely the SDLP, which came up with sectarian labels in the first instance, and possibly the UUP) are content with the designations from which they derive their respective vetoes, republicans, nationalists and unionists will inevitably collude to protect them. Designations will therefore never make it onto an Institutional Review Committee agenda, and we have the precedent of a previous committee set up in the wake of the November 2002 debacle if anyone is in doubt about how they would kick ideas into touch.

The peace process is driven by an elite group of territorial politicians who don’t want to share power, but to take it and selfishly carve it up. If the politicians at the top don't want to integrate, that is their choice. But the Government is not helping a public disillusioned with politics to make a different choice at a grassroots level. Disgracefully, community relations - an area in which the UUP and SDLP could not agree a strategy while in OFMDFM - is not even mentioned in yesterday's proposals.

If there is another Assembly, it is fairly obvious that the Office of First and Deputy First Ministers will be joint in name only until greater trust exists – and the UUP and SDLP are in no position to lecture no-one about co-operation in OFMDFM. This would be a far from a perfect situation, but tolerable in the short term if that is what is required to bring about stability.

What is unacceptable is the joint effort by the two political tribes – backed by the British Government – to prevent sectarianism in a restored Government from even being challenged in a future Assembly.

The vested interests of various people will ensure that the politics of separation stay around for as long as possible. After all, they depend on it.

He begins with a crack at the 'privatised' carve up:

"What fun the Paisleyites and the Provos would have had, doling out strategic dosh, posing for pictures and pocketing plaudits as this or that shiny new development was unveiled, each alert to ensure (a) that the other side didn't get a wing they weren't entitled to, and (b) that other parties on their own side weren't given a wing or a prayer".

But in effect his argument is that the Agreement offers pretends two realities, and holds them to be true at the same time: ie that the Union with Britain is safe; and Northern Ireland is on a journey to island unity. As a result, he suggests, it can: "collapse all on its own. And as often as you like".

And just to be fair and balanced, what about one for Gerry too? Check out his antipodian cousin (sorry about the flag Gerry, we don't make the news - just report it).

A first time for Slugger, but considering the huge anti climax of recent days, we thought readers prefer to kick off their shoes and relax instead of reading yet another speculative piece of what might have gone wrong. So give us a strapline for the Doc, clearly returned to his oratorical best!

Ahern said: "The refusal of photographs wasn`t as explicit as is being indicated, in my view.

"It was always part of the discussions that photographs may be necessary in order to convince the DUP to bring them over the line.

"Always we knew the issue of photographs in themselves might not be the difficulty but the publication of the photographs in such a way as would be seen as being a humiliation or a victory for one side would not be countenanced."

This seems a little at odds with what the IRA stated: "For his part, Ian Paisley demanded that our contribution be photographed, and reduced to an act of humiliation. This was never possible."

Unless the IRA is saying that what was "never possible" was the reduction of the photos to "an act of humiliation" - rather than the actual taking of photos - then there is a contradiction between Ahern and the IRA's interpretation of their arms negotiations.

This wouldn't be the first time a comma led to confusion, of course.

The Irish have already backed the DUP's demand for photos to be taken, and now seem to be embarking on a drive to convince the IRA that this does not equate to humiliation and is in line with the Mitchell principles.

The Taoiseach could have a potential role here as a guarantor that publication of the photos would be presented in circumstances that would not be interpreted as surrender, but instead being seen as moving the process forward.

If the IRA's problem is with the context of publication of photographs rather than the taking of photos, then this is a solvable issue.

The DUP also seemed fairly flexible on how a 'visual aspect' of decommissioning could happen around the time of the Leeds Castle talks. They might still be, but attitudes can harden during periods of limbo. Nevertheless, there was no mention of photographs in Paisley's reaction to the IRA statement, so perhaps another method of verification might be found.

Edited highlights from the article -

People often compare the Northern political process to the film Groundhog Day, where the characters are condemned to relive the same day over and over. But they are wrong. The process is like Waiting for Godot.

Mr Ahern said this final issue of pictures could be resolved before Christmas. Later, though, he conceded that a pre-Christmas solution was perhaps "aspirational". But like Beckett's men, both the Taoiseach and Prime Minister hold to their duty of hope.

Nine days ago the question was asked here: would Gerry Adams see the chance of a deal wasted over a picture of a redundant AK47? Would Ian Paisley sacrifice all that the DUP gained for a photograph of a redundant rocket launcher? We got our answer yesterday: yes, and yes again.

As the article says

We are now into the blame game, a more popular past-time than PlayStation 2 up here. At the DUP press conference in east Belfast yesterday, the Rev Ian Paisley blamed republicans for the crash of this agreement.

Over in west Belfast, the Sinn Féin president, Mr Gerry Adams, said it was all the DUP's responsibility.

No surprises there. The tendency at such times is for culpability to break down along sectarian lines. It's simple: nationalists blame unionists and unionists blame nationalists. It's already shaping up for that pattern of fault-finding, but there could be some variations on that game this time.

Mr Adams and Mr Martin McGuinness in the negotiations during and since Leeds Castle in September didn't say yes to pictures, and they didn't say no[my emphasis again], we were told. The governments drew hope from this absence of a definitive response that the IRA might live with pictures being perhaps shown to Dr Paisley, and even possibly being published.

Towards the end of the article Gerry Moriarty attempts a, relatively, optimistic assessment -

So, like Vladimir and Estragon, will we be waiting forever for a deal? Mr Ahern and Mr Blair will meet on the margins of an EU meeting next week to see if there is a way forward. The Northern Secretary Paul Murphy and Minister for Foreign Affairs Dermot Ahern will meet the parties next week.

How long we must wait for that to happen is hard to call. But if Northern Ireland politicians have any competence, it shouldn't be as long as Vladimir and Estragon have to wait.

Ah.. IF Northern Ireland politicians have any competence.... that might just be the problem, Gerry.

After all, Vladimir and Estragon are always waiting.

Ahern writes:

"Sinn Fein and the DUP have sought to constructively face up to the responsibilities placed upon them by their enhanced leadership mandates. While the form and nature of engagement over the last year was slow and, at times, frustrating, the fact of the matter is that we are now on the brink of an accommodation that would have been regarded as impossible a few years ago. The earlier risk-taking of those in leadership positions in 1998, and afterwards, greatly contributed to the opportunity we have today to forge an irreversible accommodation between unionism and nationalism.

"A core recommendation of the Mitchell report on decommissioning in January, 1996 was that the process should "suggest neither victory nor defeat" and the modalities of decommissioning should not require any party to be seen to surrender.

"This wise counsel of Senator Mitchell remains equally valid today. It should be a guide to us all at this time. The forms of transparency that are proposed in the Governments' proposals have nothing to do with surrender or humiliation.

"Certainty and clarity are two-way streets. They apply equally to partnership politics as they do to the process of arms decommissioning. In the context of an agreement, I welcome the prospect of DUP commitment to constructive partnership in Northern Ireland and to meeting their commitments in each Strand of the Agreement, and in every other respect. I acknowledge too the support of Sinn Fein, which Gerry Adams has confirmed to me, for the political aspects of the Governments' proposals."

SDLP leader Mark Durkan has also welcomed the significant political progress made, although he had some criticisms.

Gerry Adams has revealed his recent letter to the Taoiseach confirming Sinn Fein accepted "the political package contained in the proposals of the two governments" (and blamed the DUP for the failure to reach agreement).

All the statements from the UUP on the breakdown have been attacks on or defensive reactions to statements from the DUP.

Alliance leader David Ford sees a lack of trust between the DUP and Sinn Fein as the problem, but welcomed the political progress made.

The two governments' eternal optimism for a deal remains undiminished, publicly at least.

However, given that the document presented yesterday had been in preparation since the results of the Assembly elections were announced last year - an election that was called after a lack of transparency on decommissioning resulted in the collapse of an agreement between SF and the UUP - the idea that the Irish and British Governments constructed a paragraph on how photographs were to be taken, who they would be taken by, who would see those photographs first, and when they would finally be shown to the public without so much as a nod and a wink from the Sinn Féin leadership to suggest that 'keep it going, we'll be able to sort something out' is, quite frankly, not believable at all.

"In part this is because the DUP leadership has coldly calculated that the only way to sell a deal to a sceptical Protestant community is if the Provisional IRA is humiliated. This may shock some but the DUP believes that David Trimble’s statesmanship in the past simply set him up for betrayal by the two governments last year.

"The DUP has also made this calculation because positive pro-agreement people-power, of the sort that helped to bring about the Good Friday agreement, is conspicuous by its absence. As these negotiations reached their climax the public reacted with polite boredom".

"It is quite clear that the IRA are not going to decommission. Nothing on decommissioning was agreed with them. Not only photographs, but nothing was discussed or settled about the independent witnesses, inventory and all the things that we were interested in."

The interesting quote comes from the DUP's Peter Robinson in response to that linkage -

"Mitchel McLaughlin's remarks would appear to be indicative of someone who is attempting to develop an exit strategy from the process and who is only interested in disengaging from making the commitment that Sinn Fein/IRA know must be made."

Hmmm... Given that, for some time, this has been the understanding of both parties of what was needed, and the view of SF of how they interpret visible decommissioning, the question is why was this left to the last minute - and allowed to derail the 'deal'?

It looks like SF stonewalled on the visibility aspect, gambling on the DUP caving in under media and government pressure, with the tried and tested blame game as a fall-back position.

"...the truth is that it is the teams with big money who will be contesting the finals for the next few years and that's something Celtic have to contend with. The fans' expectations are very high here and it is up to us to try and satisfy them".

That is, he explaned, one which leaves both parties feeling that they got something out of the transaction. He went on to suggest that both parties have had baggage. In the case of the DUP a tendency to walk away at crunch moments, and Sinn Fein and the IRA a consistent reputation for coming up short and offering 'post dated cheques'.

It will not be clear where any of this leaves the two parties until the Governments' documents are published - widely expected this afternoon. The various position papers delivered by the parties are also expected to be made public.

After months (yes it is that long since Leeds Castle kicked this phase off) of a phoney war, journalists will finally get to examiine the substance of the negotiations and what is or isn't actually in the the government's deal outline.

It should make a pleasant change from having to the interpret the increasing runic utterances of party press offices and public statements.

A noteable change in the last year has been the press's attitude towards him and his party. Last night Chris Thornton talked about a born again Paisley, but he could also be talking about markedly more respectful media establishment, now the big man finally has power of real constitutional moment.

The threat of Daily Ireland from the Andersonstown News Group has already resulted in the Irish News upping its Irish language content, and the row over funding for newspapers will simmer on. On the other side of the fence, it will be interesting to see if the News Letter’s new direction as an unapologetic, hardline, unionist paper with ethnic undertones will be able to fend off the threat from the tabloid Tele.

A political editorial line is important to the three regional dailies here, but the top selling newspapers in Northern Ireland are UK tabloids with a smattering of sensationalist local news. There seems to have been an understable downturn in political coverage of the talks over the past year. Do people really care much about a newspaper’s editorial stance on the political situation? Are people ‘loyal’ to particular papers? Do we want to be informed or entertained? And who reads leader columns anyway?

So three specific small companies, all Irish and all giving excellent service, and a Bookfinding site. One small point. Some US sites only ship within the USA and thus I have asked friends abroad to accept and forward. Even allowing for shipping costs, big savings can be made.
FetchBook
Excellent for tracking down copies of both old and new.

The following 3 sites are all tried and tested.

ReadIreland has an excellent service, sends out a newsletter and has some tempting offers.Most recent acquisition: The End of Irish Catholicism by D. Vincent Twomey, reduced from €15-00 to €6-00.

Books Ulster is a Bangor based company. Again excellent prices and great service.

Last but not least, and well worth a visit if ever in Galway, the excellent Kennys Book Shop and Art Galleries. Postage and Packing outside of the ROI is a little pricey.Carries a good selection of poetry in English and Irish.

In any case, we will know by tomorrow when Tony visits Northern Ireland for the thirty fourth time in his premiership whether it's a wrap, or this flexible deadline remains elastic. We've apparently been this close before and been disappointed!

By Alex Kane

Let us assume - and, at the time of writing, there is still room for doubt and a last minute collapse - that the DUP and Sinn Fein reach agreement and kickstart a process which leads to the Assembly back in action by early Spring. What should the UUP do?

There has been a great deal of speculation that it could choose to refuse ministerial office and, instead, recast itself (along with the SDLP, perhaps) as the official opposition. There are, of course, a number of problems with such a course of action. Office brings power, profile and photo-opportunity, and not to accept positions could, in the eyes of some UUP members and MLAs, diminish it further as a party. It could also be interpreted as nothing more than a sour grapes reaction to an election result which saw the DUP leapfrog to the top of the pile.

Again, it would be a mistake to believe that the DUP would be aghast at the prospect of being alone in an Executive Committee with Sinn Fein. If those parties do a deal which both believe they can sell to their respective electorates, then they will be quite happy to take every ministerial seat going. Worse, it is possible that their ministers might actually do a good job, leaving the UUP further marginalised.

Some UUP members also worry that a failure to take office would mean extra seats for Sinn Fein, a consequence which could be politically and psychologically damaging for the Ulster Unionists.

Yet having a four-party Executive Committee, with 99 of the 108 MLAs members of those four parties, doesn’t exactly encourage a climate of close scrutiny or potential revolt. We really do need to make the Assembly more like a "normal" legislature, with a viable and available opposition in waiting. There is nothing like the risk of defeat at the hands of an opposition - followed by the wider electorate---to keep a government on its toes.

Indeed, in Frank Millar’s new biography of David Trimble, Mr. Trimble speaks of his original idea for the UUP and SDLP to operate as a sort of “voluntary coalition” within the “enforced coalition” that is the Executive. It wouldn’t take much imagination to create a “voluntary opposition” to act as a counterbalance to the “enforced coalition” of Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness.

The strongest and most effective form of accountability is a substantive and substantial body of MLAs who are “free” to question and challenge proposed legislation. The previous Executive produced a Programme for Government, which amounted to little more than an anodyne set of options, proposals, targets and gameplans. It was never subjected to detailed scrutiny and large elements of it were simply cobbled together to keep the Executive parties happy.

The problem with the existing Agreement is that it doesn’t really make provision for a formal opposition, and I have seen no evidence which indicates that either Sinn Fein or the DUP have included such provision within their current negotiations. Indeed, I suspect that the DUP views the issue of accountability as nothing more than a means of stopping individual Sinn Fein ministers from pursuing their own particular agenda. I’m not even sure that the DUP would support a machinery for opposition which would cut across any plans they have for pursuing an entirely self-interested policy agenda.

Be that as it may, it strikes me as essential that the next Assembly has a formal, funded and effective voice of opposition. Much of what passed for government between 1999 and October 2002 was, in many ways, as unaccountable as the Direct Rule it was supposed to replace. Stability means more than an absence of terrorism. It means a form of government which is fully democratic and entirely accountable. The UUP and the SDLP should not be afraid to rise to that challenge.

First published in the Newsletter on Saturday 4th December 2004

On November 25, senior SDLP negotiator Sean Farren warned republicans that the “tide of concessions” to the DUP must stop. On November 28, policing spokesman Alex Attwood said that the “SDLP accepts General De Chastelain’s words and sees and no reason why the full details of decommissioning has to be a secret”.

Fair enough. But then to turn around and publicly support one of the “concessions” to the DUP – a photo of decommissioned IRA arms – which is more than a step beyond the General’s words or an IICD inventory, seems either opportunistic or desperate. It's also outside the Agreement, the framework which the SDLP claims to operate within.

Sinn Fein chairman Mitchel McLaughlin told the BBC that nationalists would be "puzzled, dismayed and angered" by the SDLP becoming an "amplifier for the demands of the DUP".

He said: "Not for the first time the SDLP have departed completely from the terms of Good Friday Agreement on a crucial issue."

Alliance Leader David Ford, who appeared alongside Attwood on Inside Politics at the weekend, also seemed somewhat concerned about the "fixation" on photos.

"If the issue is whether of not we are going to achieve decommissioning and an end to military activity, unionists need to hold their nerve and not demand more than is achievable," he said.

"I think that the fact that photos are clearly going to be taken and independent observers will be there with the general are major steps forward which can provide community confidence."

At the end of the day, well, tomorrow actually, it will be up to one man to determine how high he wants to set the bar - and he's in Downing Street today. Maybe P O'Neill will phone, but if a relatively trivial matter (in the bigger scheme of things) like the publication of photos turn out to be the deal breaker, it will further damage already-weak public confidence in the process.

I don't believe it is necessary to have a published photograph in the public domain - if only Paisley saw it, that would be enough to convince even the most hardline unionist that the event had occurred. Paisley should voice his support for the men of the cloth who will bear witness any disarmament and take their word as, excuse the pun, gospel.

For Paisley or the SDLP to insist on a photograph that really says nothing would be the equivalent of them jumping onto the 'Trimble hook', effectively handing Sinn Fein another few months to use non-decommissioned arms as a bargaining chip. Again, unionism would return to the table in a weaker negotiating position, even if the elections were over and the DUP had made gains in representation.

Some will find it hard to comprehend why the chance to effectively put the IRA out of the business of paramilitarism was not grasped and question the DUP's real intentions in the talks. The DUP core support however, will see it as Paisley standing up to the Government and Sinn Fein and refusing to accept a "bad deal".

Either way, with more limited opportunities for involved talks next year, the time to act decisively would seem to be now.

Sometimes a picture can be worth a thousand words, but if those words are cloaked in the ambiguity that led to to previous breakdowns in trust, they won't be worth much.

"A big issue greatly frustrating Sinn Fein is the DUP's refusal to agree to the transfer of policing and justice to the Assembly by 2006".

"...for the DUP, the date isn't the point. They insist the timing for achieving this major extension of devolution depends on "confidence in the way the powers would be exercised." Plainly that confidence just doesn't yet exist and how much time it will take to establish it, isn't agreed.

"Furthermore, it's all too easy to conjure up DUP fears of Sinn Fein challenging the PSNI's efforts to impose law and order in say, West Belfast; or going hell-bent for the north-south body to dwarf all others, an all-Ireland common law enforcement area throughout Ireland. Imagine too, republican fears that the DUP would try to pin the blame for every lorry heist on the IRA "old boys' association" to try to discredit Sinn Fein".

Farren:

"A peace dividend for Northern Ireland has to be a balanced package. It should focus on both economic regeneration and tackling deprivation. It also needs to provide encouragement to our businesses to invest in state of the art technologies. It needs to be used strategically so that it boosts growth and delivers long term benefits for all the community".

"The IRA is not going to sign on any dotted line until it is sure about the outcome of the political negotiations, and the DUP is not going to give its verdict on the British-Irish government paper until there is "certainty" about the IRA intentions".

Ominously, he also writes:

"There is nothing to suggest that the governments wrote their proposals based on firm promises from republicans. So were they written more out of hope than expectation?"

If this is the case, the two parties may decide they can each afford to let the deal break this time; and let the governments take the blame. If so, what odds for 2006?

There are some pertinent paragraphs though, including another 'deadline' -

The Taoiseach and British Prime Minister intend to travel to Northern Ireland on Wednesday either to endorse a comprehensive political agreement or to publish their proposals for restoring devolution if the deal is rejected.

"The parties had the weekend to reflect on our proposals. It's now up to them to make up their minds," said a British government spokesman.[my emphasis]

Worth noting is that despite Gerry Adams' claim that 'both governments are well aware of his party's position' they still don't appear to know whether that position is "Yes" or "No".

Dublin and London sources made it clear, however, that if the blueprint was rejected, the governments would publish the proposals or a summary of them. They appeared confident that the public would consider the proposals a fair deal.

If the proposals are rejected, Mr Blair will be faced with the option of whether to call Assembly elections. In such an eventuality the "blame game" would then kick in with whichever party - the DUP or Sinn Féin - was viewed as chiefly responsible for the collapse of the deal having to justify its stance to the electorate.

So we may, eventually, get to see the actual proposals being discussed behind closed doors.. or rather a summary of them - yeah, best not to confuse us with the actual details of the proposals. I mean, there's been far too much clarity already, hasn't there?

How exactly the two Governments see the political process progressing beyond that point is unclear.

Expect political posturing and sabre-rattling. Those positive words from Mr Paisley came only a few days after his claim that the IRA should be "made to wear sackcloth and ashes" as humiliation for their crimes. There will be more to come as the DUP leader seeks to reassure his grassroots that he has not lost his firebrand image and has not been seduced by the process of negotiation. Hence the latest spat over whether there will need to be photographs of the IRA weapons or not. Don’t be fooled - this is no more than a chance for Messrs Adams and Paisley to flex their political muscle. Those angry exchanges may seem destructive but in fact they are crucial.