"I don't think it will be clear until they announce the result."

The trust has gone between the people and those in authority who turned a blind eye to the continuing violence and the intimidation. Isn't it time that Tony and Bertie publicly acknowledged this? That never mind the fact that we have lost all trust in the "good intentions" of the (still) most heavily armed terrorist organisation in Western Europe. Our trust in those who were supposed to oversee the disarmament of that terrorist outfit, has also taken a hammering.

...if you want to book a hotel through SNCF over the web. Everything goes well until they ask you the address to which your credit card bills are sent. You insert your house number, your street name and the name of your city and then you are are asked to choose from a list of countries. This list includes Antarctica, the Faeroe Islands, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Fiji, Kiribati and Papua-New Guinea. As far as I could make out from my not unlimited knowledge of geography, the only countries missing from the list were the mythical "Bongo-Bongoland" that Tory MP Alan Clarke made infamous - and, of course, Ireland.

The response he got when he complained was less than sympathetic:

I rang SNCF, who informed me that Ireland was part of Grande Bretagne. I informed them that this arguably had been the case until 1922 and perhaps the train bringing this news to SNCF had been delayed by 83 years. At this stage and for some unexplained reason, I was cut off.

In defence of his criticism of French cook Ginette Mathiot, who having termed soda bread "pain d'Irlande" listed it under "Royaume Uni" (UK), I would have to say that the top ten soda breads I have ever tasted, have all been baked in Northern Ireland (which is in the UK, whether we like the idea or not)!

But Martin is making a serious point. In my own experience, the general view of Ireland in France is marked firstly by language and only secondly by the island's distinctive cultural and political features. In fairness, we either don't/won't speak French or we speak it badly with an English speaker's difficulty over the French nasals.

Whatever our feelings on the matter, in France we get dragged into the middle of an historical antipathy between the old enemies of England and France. And generally we are assumed to be on the side of the English.

Nevertheless, it must be about time for SNCF to cop on to partition 83 years after the fact! Maybe it's time to tip them the wink? If you do get a reply, let us know how you get on!!

The truth about lies

Leftwing radio talk show host Al Franken has won a 'breakthrough' award for his wisecracking war against the claims of the American right. James Silver reports

Monday June 27, 2005
The Guardian

His three-hour radio show over for another day, Al Franken - to many liberals, one of the Last Great Hopes of the American Left, and "an obnoxious prick" to his rightwing detractors - steps out into the blistering New York City heat and wilts. A sore back explains his painful-looking waddle to the coffee shop. The Al Franken Show, on fledging liberal talk radio network Air America, has just moved studios from the skyscrapers and buttoned-down shirt chic of 6th Avenue to the rather more down-at-heel bagel-shop obscurity between 10th and 11th Avenues on the far west side of Manhattan. He appears to be still getting used to it.

Is Franken, 54, over-doing it? His goofy features seem to adorn every third taxi in the city. There are the bestselling books (his most recent hit was Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right), the TV appearances, the political street-fighting, the corporate event pay-days, entertaining US troops abroad, and - perhaps, above all - his seemingly solo jihad against what he tactfully calls "the greedy, evil, warmongering bigots and scumbags of the American Right". Oh, and next year he will be moving his radio show to his home state of Minnesota as he gears up for a possible run for the US senate in 2008.

Tonight the former Saturday Night Live star steps on to the stage at the city's China Club to become the first recipient of the prestigious New York International Radio Festival's World Achievement Award for Breakthrough Radio, which is "only periodically given to one radio on-air talent who has made a great political or cultural impact in his country and/or throughout the world".

Award show hyperbole aside, there is no doubt that Franken and Air America - which has been going for 18 months and is syndicated in 65 cities around the US, attracting 2.7 million listeners - have carved out a niche in enemy territory. Political talk radio has traditionally been the home of rightwing shock jocks.

Now a Jewish, wise-cracking, unabashed Manhattan-dwelling liberal, in a country where that is often a dirty word, has parked his camper-van in middle-America's back yard.

"Rightwing radio still does dominate," concedes Franken, "but before Air America it was a monolith." The Right, he patiently explains, cornered the market in talk radio in the late 1980s when the Fairness Doctrine, which ensured that radio stations had to be balanced, was revoked. His nemesis, top-rated talk show host Rush Limbaugh, who claims up to 20 million listeners, launched his station and spawned a generation of copy-cats. Rightwing talk flourished, while there was no real equivalent on the Left.

Franken's routine uses wry humour to debunk inaccurate claims made by rightwing commentators and politicians. Given his heavy workload, he secured the services of 14 students - a "ragtag bunch of Harvard misfits" whom he named Team Franken - to do the fact-checking and research required to write Lies.

"What we do is set up a lie and then debunk it," he explains. "I think we are developing a kind of a cottage industry. I'm very entertained by the debunking process and also at the same time I'm outraged by the lies. I really do see the serious corrupting effect Fox, talk radio and many commentators on the right have on America. A lot of people in the mainstream media think it's beneath them to debunk it. And it's not. These people need to be subjected to scorn and ridicule. Someone has got to be willing to get down in the weeds and fight them."

He cites a recent example from his show. "[Fox news anchor] Bill O'Reilly took [leading Democrat senator] Joe Biden's appearance on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos and deliberately misrepresented what Biden said. Biden was calling for an independent commission to look at Guantanamo and other US detention camps. When pressed by Stephanopoulos, Biden said that although he personally thought the US should close Guantanamo, he said that he had introduced legislation to get a bipartisan commission to make the recommendations.

"Two days later O'Reilly cuts it together to make it sound like Biden had simply said 'Close Guantanamo', leaving out any mention of legislation and independent commissions. Then O'Reilly himself said 'I believe there should be an independent commission.' He not only misrepresented what Biden actually said, he then claimed for himself the senator's idea. I mentioned this to Howard Kurtz, who writes about the media for the Washington Post. He replied, 'Well, people expect that of Fox'. No one in the mainstream press holds them to any standards at all."

Franken is disparaging of his rightwing media foes. Rush Limbaugh is "fat" and "a hypocrite", Ann Coulter is "a nutcase", and Bill O'Reilly "a splotchy bully and liar". He says: "All three have very different pathologies which is really interesting."

He has written chapters or even entire books about them, such as Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot (1996). Franken thinks Limbaugh is "anything but an idiot. That was meant ironically." He pauses. "But he was of course very fat at the time. He was a huge, morbidly obese, fat man with a huge gut and a big fat ass.

"Rush is someone who for years had been saying, 'Anyone who uses drugs illegally should be put away'. It turned out, of course, that he was doing massive quantities of prescription painkillers. The quantity meant that he had to get them illegally. There's no shame in addiction, but he's a hypocrite. He's a guy that talks about fam ily values and he's been married and divorced three times. Rush is a talented radio guy. It's just that he has no fidelity to the truth at all."

Franken, who has feuded with Coulter, memorably described her in Lies as "the reigning diva of the hysterical right". He has seen nothing since to make him change his mind. "Ann Coulter just says terribly, awful, vicious things ... About Muslims, she said we should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. Or she said the only regret about [Oklahoma City bomber] Timothy McVeigh was that he didn't go to the New York Times building. These are things that pass for jokes for her.

"O'Reilly was sued for sexual harassment by a woman who produced a complaint that included very, very graphic transcripts of alleged phone sex from him that he never denied. In fact he settled with her. Then he talks about traditional values versus leftwing people who have these terrible secular humanist values."

Franken claims not to mind any of them having a pop at him in return. Indeed, to be reviled by Bill O'Reilly is "a badge of honour". He says: "If you are known by your enemies then those are three great enemies to have. And I must say the one who comes after me the most often and the hardest is O'Reilly.

"He did me the biggest favour he could possibly have done when he essentially forced Fox to sue me over Lies. They took me to court over the subtitle - A Fair and Balanced Look At The Right - and claimed that I was infringing their trademark. [Fox News uses the phrase Fair and Balanced]. There was a hearing and the court ruled in our favour and we got massive publicity. I was hoping the case would go on for a couple more news cycles."

Nor do the mainstream media escape Franken's ire for the "disgraceful" job they did reporting the build-up to war in Iraq - which he, of course, opposed vociferously. "What we have in this country right now is a cowed media. The Bush administration has successfully intimidated them and they've done that by denying access to correspondents who have challenged them. Reporters worry about losing their access, and thus their job. It's an awful situation."

When Franken began accusing Bush of lying, it was, he recalls, "a big deal". But that's changed. "Now people are much more willing to say the government was lying, for instance, over the war." A smile creeps onto his face. "We need to broaden our vocabulary. Sometimes people aren't lying, of course, they're just bullshitting, or what they are saying is poppycock or nonsense."

He reveals his next book is called The Truth (with jokes). "It's not about the media this time. It's about whatsisname? George Bush."

From bloggers to pundits, his enemies are no doubt poised to respond. And when they do, Franken will be down in the weeds, waiting for them.

From the Sunday Life report -

North Down MP Sylvia Hermon has tabled a series of questions to the Secretary of State asking him if his officials had been in touch with Sinn Fein before Kelly's arrest.

Lady Sylvia is asking Peter Hain if he is aware of "meetings or communications that took place, prior to Kelly's arrest, between representatives of his office or department with members of the PSNI, representatives of any foreign government, or representatives of any political party which does not have its headquarters within the United Kingdom."

Lady Hermon also asks Hain if discussions were held with any political party with headquarters within the UK, or any political parties currently elected to the Assembly.

And she has asked him to indicate if "members of any political party, or those likely to communicate with any political party, had prior knowledge of his intention to authorise the re-arrest of Kelly".

According to the report, "An NIO spokesman said Lady Hermon's questions would be answered in due course."

The IRA in Derry at the time was led by Martin McGuinness, now Sinn Féin's chief negotiator. After the murder of Kathleen Feeney it issued a public statement that traded directly on the IRA's reputation for telling the truth about its own activities: "The people of Derry are aware that we have admitted responsibility for our actions even at times when mistakes were made by us and civilians injured. We say categorically that the shooting of young Kathleen Feeney was the work of the British army and not of the republican movement." It later announced that it had murdered a British soldier in direct retaliation for the army's alleged shooting of Kathleen Feeney.

He then asserts:

If the IRA could establish 32 years later that one of their own members killed Kathleen Feeney, it is almost inconceivable that Martin McGuinness did not know this at the time.

And that:

Sinn Féin has repeatedly and at times eloquently demanded that there should not be a "hierarchy of victims" of the Troubles, yet it continues to operate in a blatantly hierarchical manner. While laconic, anonymous statements following secretive investigations are good enough for the IRA's victims, nothing short of full accountability is good enough for the victims of the British state and loyalist paramilitaries.

Finally:

Sinn Féin also complains that politicians who knew about collusion between the British state and loyalist paramilitaries "have never been called to account for their actions or for their culpability in the murder of citizens". Yet for almost 32 years, senior leaders of Sinn Féin knew that the IRA was lying about the murder of Kathleen Feeney. They knew what happened and why. And they kept their mouths shut.

By The Watchman

If the Ulster Unionist Party bungles the next few weeks and months as it has bungled just about everything else in the last 8 years then it really will be dead in the water. It has to realise that the electorate has given it a savage vote of no confidence. Its former leader, who often seemed divorced from reality, might blame everyone other than himself for the debacle. But a shattered party has no such luxury.

The post-Trimble UUP has not made a good start. The three leadership contenders publicly focused on internal party reform, not unimportant but comparatively peripheral. None mentioned the metaphorical elephant in the living room: the cumulative alienation of the unionist electorate thanks to an inept engagement with republicans. Trimble failed to grasp the interdependence of the IRA's political and military wings. He believed that republicans were on a road that was certain to end in purely constitutional means and took political risks on that basis.

The result was a long list of failures: putting the unreconstructed IRA/Sinn Fein into power in breach of previous pledges, bungling the UUP's approach to policing, endorsing procedural chicanery in the Assembly, and an ideological passivity (Dean Godson's phrase) in the face of republican pressure. It discredited the UUP as a robust defender of unionist interests and the party's centre-right vote duly floated off to the DUP.

The party may decide to advance towards a centre ground already occupied by the Alliance Party. That offers ideological purity but also a vote combined to bien pensant Greater Belfast. The Roy Garlands who argue for this approach have long been on the periphery of unionism. They regard an Olympian detachment from the concerns of most unionists as a mark of non-sectarian virtue and are happy for company in the wilderness.

They are often as dogmatic as Old Paisleyites in their own way and have learned nothing from the fates of Faulkner and Trimble. (Their stance misses the lesson identified by T.E. Utley 30 years ago: that the UUP always suffers more from fragmentation to the right than to the left.) The unexpectedly high vote for Alan McFarland suggests there may be a future powerful push in this direction from a large minority in the party.

Some may be attracted to a merger with the DUP but they should be more cautious. The DUP's shortcomings have been obscured by the sheer awfulness of the Trimble UUP. Despite profound changes within the party, a united unionism under the DUP flag poses lots of problems:

· The party is still imprinted for the foreseeable future with a profoundly sectarian outlook.

· Although many representatives have a well-earned reputation for constituency work, the flipside is a long-standing parochialism. The DUP has never properly exploited its Westminster presence and constantly misses opportunities to build up support for unionism outside the Province. Its involvement at Westminster in matters that do not concern Northern Ireland has traditionally been dilatory.

· The tight control over the party exercised by a coterie at the centre would give enormous control over the future representatives of a single unionist party to a very few.

· Finally, the DUP's opposition to the Belfast Agreement lacks credibility. Its fierce attacks on the UUP since 1998 have concealed a tacit acceptance of the Agreement.

In its first negotiation as the lead unionist party, only the intransigence of Ian Paisley kept the DUP out of what would have been a suicidal decision to share power with Sinn Fein just before the Northern Bank robbery. One constraint on the vaulting ambition within parts of the DUP is a unionist party that can hold the DUP to account. Parties exist to win votes and seats. The UUP must start again to compete with the DUP over the key centre-right, which comprises unionism's centre of gravity. This has several implications:

· The UUP must make a clean break with the past. Its overriding priority must be to rebuild trust and credibility with the unionist electorate that has been shattered by David Trimble's tenure. The UUP's key strategic misjudgment was to believe that the IRA was in the process of giving up violence and that forming the Executive would accelerate that process. It needs to apologise for its mistakes and admit that it has learned from them.

· The party must differentiate itself from the DUP by trumpeting an assertive, proactive and robust brand of unionism that defends the quality of UK citizenship without reducing its cause to sectarian head counting. That brand must then be allied to sounder strategic judgment. Never again can a unionist leader entrust his own credibility and that of his party to the IRA. Many of its problems arose from Trimble's determination to do a deal with the IRA at almost any price. Never again can terrorists be got in government on the basis that Trimble permitted.

The UUP must learn that there is a difference from setting out a non-sectarian prospectus and a discourse that just sounds wet. The difference can be easily illustrated. On his Let's Talk debut, Tyrone Howe, a likely rising star of the party, lapsed very quickly into community relations-speak about "reconciliation". At no point did he sound like someone who understood identifiably unionist concerns or would articulate them.

When, say, Bob McCartney makes the same comments, he can do so without losing credibility as a unionist champion because of his well-known combativeness on other issues. Howe, admittedly intelligent and telegenic, sounded like an Alliance spokesman. Nothing in terms of his delivery or content will ever pull back a DUP vote.

Unionism is constrained by a Belfast Agreement that is loaded in favour of Republicans. The DUP is discovering that the only basis for a return to devolution is another leap in the dark and putting its fate in the good faith of Sinn Fein. Unfortunately, it is not in the IRA's interests to wind up its armed wing and, in any event, the nationalist electorate will never punish Sinn Fein even if the DUP accuses it of reneging on a deal. That puts unionists at a huge disadvantage and will test the DUP's traditional unity and discipline to the limit. A key test for the UUP is to look beyond the Agreement.

· The party desperately needs new faces that are not discredited by past failures. There is a deficit of rising talent. (Proof of that can be seen in the website of the Young Unionists that has run comment threads full of puerile gloating at Paul Berry's expense.) The UUP must creatively build new non-institutional links with Orangeism, for the estrangement of rank and file Orangemen from the party has been an overlooked factor in the party's decline. It must also reach out to other burgeoning cultural groups within the Ulster-Scots movement and hopefully draw on the grassroots talent there.

· In terms of organisation, there must be a clear out of the Trimble faction from Cunningham House. May 2005 may have been the worst reversal but it was not the first electoral setback. A new leader will succeed or fail on whether he can build a sharp campaign machine to rival that of the DUP. The decay at a constituency level must also finally be addressed. Towering ambition and in-fighting should not be allowed to wreck any more constituency associations, as the sorry lesson of South Belfast should demonstrate.

There will be no quick fix for recovery. But despite the DUP's current ascendancy, there is clearly a place for an alternative brand of unionism: constitutionally sound; non-sectarian; and non-parochial. The DUP may be less stable than it looks on the surface and its eventual leadership succession is likely to weaken the party in a number of ways.

It may have cornered much of what talent there is in unionism, but it still has its mediocre representatives. It is beatable. The task for the new UUP leader is to show, through strength of personality, strategic direction and firmness of purpose, why the party deserves to lead unionism once again.

And if the opportunity is missed? Or the threshold ducked?

Will the Irish and British Governments continue with the current [and past?] strategy as described by Secretary of State for NI [and Wales - Ed] Peter Hain in an article in The Times -

But if you are going finally to crack the end of the process that culminated and then went beyond the Good Friday Agreement, these are the two parties[DUP and SF] that can most effectively deliver if they choose to do so.[added emphasis]

And if they choose not to? Is there a Plan B? Or will the Irish and British governments continue to replay the scene indefinitely?

Update With the BBC re-editing the original report.. sheesh.. I'm adding the relevant question, and answer, from the transcript of today's press conference

Question: Prime Minister, just looking forward to your meeting with the Taoiseach this afternoon and the hope for an IRA statement sometime in the future, how difficult do you envisage it will be to persuade Unionists that Republicans are for real this time, considering what has happened in the past?

Prime Minister: I think it is going to be very difficult to persuade Unionism of the sincerity of any Republican move, which is why that move has got to be clear and bold, because then it will have to result, if the Republicans do give up violence once and for all, it will have to result in a proper power sharing executive in which the Republicans are able to take their place at the democratic table. So it is immensely important that they do make this move, I don't know whether they will or not, but of course you know better than me that it would be daft to say after the events earlier this year that the credibility threshold was going to be easy to pass, but it can be passed, I am sure of that, if the IRA recognise that this is a one-off opportunity to accept what is now inevitable, which is that the only way that you are ever going to be able to pursue the cause that people believe in in Northern Ireland from the Republican point of view is peacefully, it won't happen any other way. And political progress has achieved a lot in Northern Ireland, but we have got to go on and make it achieve more. So it will be difficult, but on the other hand if it is done, and it is done genuinely and violence is genuinely given up, then the obligation then transfers to Unionists to make sure that they drop their opposition to going into a power sharing executive, and that is the situation really.[emphasis added]

Another Update A Joint Communiqué British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, referred to in the above question, was issued this afternoon - full communiqué here

On the "Review of political developments" the Intergovernmental conference had this to say -

Both Governments reaffirmed their commitment to the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. It remains the template for political progress in Northern Ireland.

The Conference reviewed recent political developments, including the results of the Westminster and local government elections in early May and contacts since then with the parties in Northern Ireland. The Conference acknowledged that all political parties with significant electoral mandates had important contributions to make in advancing progress and looked forward to continued dialogue with each of them.

The Conference agreed that any prospect of restoring devolved government on an inclusive basis was dependent on the rebuilding of the necessary trust and confidence. This required the IRA to definitively end all paramilitary and criminal activity and to fully and verifiably decommission its weapons. In the context of such an outcome being secured and verified by the IICD and IMC, it would expect all parties to fully play their part in the restoration of devolved and inclusive government in Northern Ireland and in the operation of all of the institutions of the Agreement.

That would appear to build into the 'credibility threshold' the Independent Monitoring Commission's report[s?]

Final Update Transcript of joint press conference between PM Tony Blair and Taoiseach Bertie Ahern available here.

I'll just highlight this question -

Question: Prime Minister, Taoiseach, are you both in agreement that you don't require the disbandment per se of the IRA, and secondly how would you characterise your own relationship working together given recent speculation?

Prime Minister: Well, on the latter point, look there is a different position on the Common Agricultural Policy for very obvious reasons and the Taoiseach is, as you might expect and rightly so, is a very strong advocate of the Irish national interest. I have got to protect the British national interest. So there have been different positions on the CAP, but it is a relationship that has stood the test of time over the past few years and has worked extremely well and will continue to do so. And the interpreter's box here is for the Iraqi Prime Minister. I hasten to say that. I was a bit alarmed when I saw that actually when I came in.

On the first point which is to do with the form of disbandment. Look let us be very clear, otherwise you get into verbal battles which are not what is important. What is important is that the Republican movement pursues its aim by exclusively democratic and peaceful means, and that means an end to all violence and all preparations for violence. And therefore that means an organisation like the IRA moving into a different way of working, a different frame, a different modus operandi where it is no longer posing a threat of violence, or violence itself in the community in Northern Ireland. Now I think that is pretty clear and what language you use to describe how that happens is I think far less important than the blunt fact that you have got to have an end to violence in word and in deed.

Irish Prime Minister: And I think at the end of the day people will see very clearly whether we have achieved that or not and that is what matters. That violence and all the associated activities are over, then people will be immensely happy. And on the second part of your question I just want to wish the Prime Minister well for the Presidency ahead and for the G8 Meeting. I have had recent experience of it and regarding the CAP there are just a few million between us, but we will sort that out some other time.

That would appear to be something for everyone, then.. not that that approach hasn't been tried before..

The success it seems comes from addressing the sporting needs of an Irish audience first:

Figures show they have abandoned the BBC in favour of TG4 which took a gamble in securing the rights for Wimbledon for the next three years. Ratings figures out next week are expected to show that the All-Irish coverage has attracted a legion of new viewers. Last week while the BBC brought viewers every shot of Tim Henman's early exit from the championship, viewers of TG4 enjoyed a great match from another court, featuring Gilles Muller and French Open Champion Rafael Nadal - with Muller knocking the fourth seed out.

Next week they have the Irish rights to coverage of the Tour de France!

According to the Irish Times on Saturday, the key intervention came when David Burnside

Mr Burnside asked each candidate in the event of the DUP entering into a power-sharing Northern Executive with Sinn Fein would he lead the Ulster Unionist Party into opposition. Mr McFarland and Mr McNarry told delegates that they wouldn't adopt such a stance. Sir Reg however said he would consider such an option, earning muted applause. Sir Reg during his election campaign indicated that he would not share power with Sinn Féin should the IRA effectively disband in the coming months. He said that it could until the next Assembly elections, in such an eventuality, before he would be prepared to accept republican bona fides.

Astute enough. It communicated a hardline to the traditionalists when he needed it, and yet with a strong possibility that the DUP will insist on new Assembly elections before taking their executive seats, hardly binding in any practical sense.

Howwever, taking the loose affliation that is the UUP and turning it into a tight and disciplined is a mountain for anyone to climb. Few doubt the UU house is still divided. He will some time and grace to get it right. The conservatives within the party will feel they have taken back some of the ground they lost under Trimble. Then again, they thought they were buying a conservative when they got Trimble!

Can Empey keep them onside and at the same time create some forward momentum before what is likely to be a very tough Assembly election some time in the next one to two years?

What would happen if a newspaper invited readers to an editorial conference down the pub? First to arrive would be fans of the paper, keen to get involved. Next would be curious bystanders, drawn by the heat of debate. Last would be the drunken idiots, ranting and swearing incoherently until they were escorted from the premises. At closing time the newspaper would be left with no editorial - and a lot of spilt beer to wipe up.

That is pretty much what happened when the LA Times last week opened up its editorial comment on Iraq to public amendment online. It was called a wikitorial, from 'wiki' - originally Hawaiian for 'quickly', now internetese for a page that can be edited by allcomers. It is one of the many innovations that old media see happening, know is important, but don't know why.

In France however, there is a much greater consonance between bloggers and journalism:

'Au blog, citoyens', screamed the front page of leftwing daily Libération, echoing the call to arms in the 'Marseillaise'. Inside, the newspaper devoted a double-page spread to the story of Christophe Grébert, a blogger from the small town of Puteaux who used his site, monputeaux.com, to report on the politics of the local town hall. He is being pursued by the mayor for defamation, a development that guarantees him worldwide internet martyrdom.

Along with a celebration of citizen blogs around the country, Libération hinted its support for Grébert in an editorial comment. 'The law should certainly punish malevolent rumour, defamation and intimidation,' the newspaper said. 'But it is more important still that the law is not subverted by those who want to limit the field of free speech and fair comment. Blogs can be a powerful tool in the service of democracy.'

And this, spotted by Ezter, at Crooked Timber.. may suggest the NYTimes Technology editor might know a site he would like to nominate.. although it sounds more like a comment aimed at the NYTimes marketing department -

STOP BUGGING ME If newspaper marketers think they are receiving reliable user information via those annoying site registrations, they should run their Web addresses through bugmenot.com, which offers quick user names and passwords to people who click on a link only to be confronted by a mandatory registration page. Some examples of usernames: thisisannoying; iwantnews; thisisjustsilly; whydoyoudothis.

Drop your suggestions at the Guardian.. and then call back and tell us which sites you've nominated.. or not..

Reg Empey doesn't seem to be in any rush to declare a return to any restored executive..

'We went into government with republicans on three occasions just to give them time to change their ways and each time they soiled the nest. So we will only be interested in what the IRA does and not what it says.'

Sir Reg said the body established to monitor the IRA and loyalist paramilitary ceasefires, the International Monitoring Commission, will be in a position by March 2006 to report on almost eight months of terrorist activity, or lack of it.

Neither was he optimistic of the prospects of a complete end to paramilitary and criminal activity -

'I suspect they[PIRA] will do as they have done in Dublin and privatise their criminality, allowing ordinary criminals to carry out robberies and so on and then tax them,' Sir Reg said.

There is also a longer article in the print edition of The Observer I have in front of me.. but for some reason it doesn't seem to be online.

But in it Reg takes a couple of extra swings at the DUP, and Ian Paisley in particular -

"He said he would smash Sinn Féin wielding a sledgehammer in the Eighties and he hasn't. He has never in his entire career successfully negotiated anything.

"The only thing he and the DUP can achieve is a bantustan society where there is separate development between the two communities, one which is ruled by Sinn Féin, the other controlled by the DUP"

Of course, Empey was likely to open his leadership term with a bullish statement of intent..

By contrast, Alan McFarland speaking after the result of the leadership contest was known is quoted in this report

After the contest, Alan McFarland said the UUP, "now needed to rally round its new leader and move forward".

"We cannot out-DUP the DUP, we should not be trying, but there needs to be clear water between ourselves and the DUP to give the electorate a choice as to whether they vote Ulster Unionist or the DUP.

"Our first problem is, we have to try to produce a party, as soon as we can, that is electable, that actually looks as if it is together, organised, speaking with one voice with clear policies," he said.

Since then Reg Empey, speaking on the Politics Show on BBC1 today, has said they have met and discussed the situation - seemingly everything's sorted between the two of them and McFarland understands the position [a slight paraphrasing may be inferred].

I'd suggest that there's more discussions ahead between these two and Empey could do worse than to keep Alan McFarland as close as possible to his leadership.. no confirmation of who will be Deputy Leader yet?.. just a thought..

Update the BBC's Mark Devenport does the profiling here

Thanks too for mentions from Diarmid Logan; Dosing Times; exit 145; Best of Both Worlds; the very excellent Tom Griffin; Paul the erudite Magyar; Kevin the disillusioned lefty; Mr Peter The Gudgeon Reavy; Buff and Blue; The boys (and one girl) in the Back Seat; Res Publica; Never trust a hippy; O journalism; An tImeall ag dul ar fheabhas; Incorrect use of soap; Free Stater; Politicalist; Sheila O'Malley; Irish Aires; David Williamson; the inimitable Felix Quigley; Steven at Everything Ulster; doChara; and thanks to Colman at the Euro Trib for occasional links in his thrice-weekly Irish news round-ups.

Now repeat it all out loud in one breath. Sounds like a warm up for the U2 gig in Croker tonight!

Unionists have reacted with scepticism, perhaps seeing it as a cynical move by republicans to demonstrate - without conceding anything - to the two governments that they are 'moving on' before the next round of talks.

Unionists tend to see such moves as minimalistic, not addressing their concerns. But then it isn't unionism that republicanism has to impress, and the cumulative effect of further moves may well - once again - force Blair and Ahern to adopt a softer line.

Given that this admission addresses the concern of a victim first, it might be interesting to see if a pattern develops. There have been moves to appoint a forensic expert to locate the remains of the Disappeared, so perhaps that is something to keep an eye on.

As there is a post-negotiation period where the IRA is expected to demonstrate its democratic bona fides, might we expect a drip feed of further moves? A decommissioning move must surely be on the cards, and while these confidence-building measures may curry favour with the governments, how will unionism react? Surely the DUP cannot remain outside looking in again? What direction will Empey take the UUP in after he is elected UUP leader?

All these and other questions to be answered in the next episode of Peace Processing, Episide 847.

By J.M. Lawrence

"The Bermuda Triangle" – where money simply disappears – is what Angolans have dubbed the confluence of their country’s state-owned oil company, Central Bank and Presidency, The Economist notes. In that triangle of resource wealth, money and power, far more than $3 billion dollars in annual oil export earnings vanish. Not a trace can be found on government ledgers.

That Angolans were dying of hunger by the thousands in the late 1990’s, failed to compel an investigation into how the money needed to end hunger could remain unaccounted for. A clue, though, was supplied by The Washington Post, which reported in 1997 that the Angolan government was spending more on purchases of luxury automobiles for high-level government officials and their wives than on health care and education.

The “corrupt elite” governing Kenya is plundering their country’s economy to amass personal wealth, The Economist reported in 1999. On that diversion of national wealth into Swiss-type bank accounts, the Roman Catholic Church declared: "To notch up foreign bank accounts at the cost of hunger, suffering, blood and death of others is a repugnant infamy," The Economist conveyed.

The Front de Liberation National, governing Algeria, has doled out $26 billion to officials in their party. This personal allotment of national wealth was recently disclosed by ex-prime minister, Mr. Abdelhamid Brahimi, The Free Africa Foundation relates in “The Rape and Plunder of Africa.”

Under the title “le sang des pauvres,” which translates to “the blood of the poor,” Liberation reported in 1992 that Mr. Moussa Traore, Mali’s former head-of-state used his term in office to steal more than $2 billion from that country.

And, the “financial drain continues,” The Free Africa Foundation expounds.

“So money is not the problem here, it’s the management!” the United Nations states in its May 4, 2005 report titled “The IMSCO Proposal/Report: Towards An African Solution.” The report relates that “Southern Black Africa” is “awash in oil and gas and they have more complete control of the world’s strategic metals: e.g. 99% of platinum group metals; 96% of chrome; 98% of manganese; 89% of diamond; 68% of gold; 97% of vanadium and 40% of uranium.” Finding: “These resources (sic) numbers strongly suggest that no one can successfully argue that Africans anywhere are poor, but rather disenfranchised.” Here the U.N. notes: “the world (sic) industrial nations are resources (sic) poor and badly need these resources.” Thus the U.N. determines that, "This wealth places Africa on the top of the Pyramid of the economic Resource War game." The report asserts: "the people of Africa… can and must insist…that African governments are not the owners of African land and wealth."

But most of the continent’s leadership continues to demonstrate an opposing view. "Leadership in Africa, with few exceptions, is seen as an opportunity to get rich rather than serve the people," Mr. Tony Nze Njoku writes in Finance & Development, a World Bank publication.

“Dishonesty, thievery, and peculation pervade the public sector… The chief bandit is the head of state himself,” Mr. George Ayittay exposes in “The Vampire African State” for The Free Africa Foundation. Mr. Ayittay finds that “case after case” demonstrates that most African government officials are "Faithful only to their foreign bank accounts…"

In these foreign bank accounts, an estimated $140 billion had been illegally amassed by 1992, according to Nigeria’s President Olusegun Obasanjo, The New York Times reported. During a meeting of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) that year, President Obasanjo suggested that international financial centers should return this illicitly obtained wealth of corrupt African leaders. Why, then, was President Obasanjo later the same year requesting $64 billion in additional aid from the Group of Seven Industrialized Nations and Russia “when he could have asked the thieves [who] were sitting right in front of his very eyes at the OAU meeting” for the $64 billion, posited Mr. George B. N. Ayittey, Ph.D.

Why hasn’t President Obasanjo asked the thieves at home for the $64 billion? For, “the money suspected to have been stolen by some Nigerian government officials and kept in foreign accounts [rose] from $50 billion in 1999 to $170 billion in 2003,” Vanguard reports.

On these foreign bank accounts, Mr. David Asonye Ihenacho writes for Nigeriaworld:

First, the sum of 170 billion dollars…is about 60% of the entire debt owed by the entire continent of Africa to the rest of the world…Second, who are these Nigerians with this large sum of money stored overseas? The sum of 170 billion dollars is by far bigger than the entire wealth of the four richest people in the world combined. The wealth of Bill Gates III of Microsoft, Warren E. Buffett of Berkshire Hathaway, Karl and Theo Albrecht of Wal-mart retail and Paul G. Allen of Microsoft combined does not rise up to 170 billion dollars.

Individuals on the continent of Africa were transferring “$20 billion a year into bank accounts in Europe ” during the 1980’s, according to a former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, the Africa Insider reported.

Critics of the government in Kenya assert that government officials there maintain their largest accounts "in foreign banks and that there is more money from Kenyans in foreign banks than the entire Kenyan foreign debt" of approximately $8 billion, The Washington Times wrote in 1995.

"What Arab country has $50 billion in private savings stashed abroad? asked The Economist in 1992. Egypt - a country with a $35 billion foreign debt and where “customers fight over Mercedes sports cars that sell for $400,000” - was the answer supplied. And a note furnished was that this is a ‘where a typical monthly wage is $50, and rubbish is collected by small dirty children in rickety donkey-carts"

As is the case for most of the Third World, for every dollar of foreign aid going into Africa, $3 flee the continent for banks in Europe and America, Mr. Philip Emeagwali informed the Voice of America in 2000. "Most African political leaders [have]…bank accounts in Europe," primarily in Switzerland, Mr. Emeagwali continued.

"It is time the West helped Africa to retrieve the money our politicians have stashed in Western banks,” Mr.Ekoue Teko writes for New African. "If this is done…we will have enough to live on without borrowing," he finds.

Not to do so will only perpetuate the ongoing travesty. On the problems confronting Equatorial Guinea, the Cape Times reported in 2004: "the root cause of the turbulence is very likely the same old problem which bedevils many African countries…And that is that the country's leaders are quite simply hogging all the wealth to themselves."

As an immigrant from the Third World told me: "There is no limit to how much they will steal from the poor."

Yet, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and the U.N. are touting a Millennium Project to donate more tens of billions of dollars to the thieving leaders in Africa. Mr. Blair and the U.N. assert that this Marshall Plan is needed to end poverty. They are blind to the fact that, as the Royal Africa Society states: "Africa has had a Marshall Plan several times over in the last 50 years and has little to show for it."

Despite the laudable aims of such a Truth Commission, I've yet to be convinced that, in practice, it would come close to satisfying the varied, and often contradictory, needs and/or agendas of the required participants.

And Adams acknowledges those difficulties -

Those of us who have promoted the idea of a truth process should be under no illusions about the difficulties inherent in such an undertaking or, in particular, the damage that could be done if it wasn't handled properly.

I was certainly left with no illusions after the conference.

I was even more aware than before of just how difficult, if not downright impossible, it will be to overcome some of those obstacles.

He considers the reality facing those who would have to provide information for such a Commission to be viable -

We have to consider, too, what incentive there could possibly be for people such as politicians, clergy or business leaders to volunteer information to a truth commission regarding their own role in the conflict.

If anything, they would have a strong vested interest in not co-operating.

Is it desirable (or even feasible), then, that a truth commission should have powers to investigate, seize documents and summon people to account for themselves if there seems to be sufficient evidence that they have a case to answer? And, in those circumstances, what safeguards would there be for high-profile individuals who would forever run the risk of being maliciously named?

To protect against that, should media access be strictly limited with most sittings held in private? What impact would such restrictions have on public confidence in the process and, in any event, would it be realistic to expect there wouldn't be a continuous leaking of information from the proceedings? Unless properly designed and managed, of course, a truth process would always be open to abuse by those intent on using it to rewrite history to their own advantage.

He identifies perhaps the most obvious problem for any Truth Commission operating in a society where much of the political wrangling remains embedded in competing versions of the past -

Those seeking to inflate their particular "truth" at the expense of others' versions would try to use a truth process as a platform from which to continue the conflict by other means.

Further hurt would then be heaped on already grieving relatives forced to watch from the sidelines as their bereavement is used to bolster the position of one side or another in a public squabble between opposing factions.

And he ends with, IMO, an astute observation on the prospects for a truth-seeking process at this point -

Unless people on all sides are willing to face up to the pain of objective truth and, further, have a clear and realistic idea of the limits to what can reasonably be achieved, then a truth process should, at least at this juncture, be a non-runner. Unless the circumstances are right, there would be a real risk of it further entrenching divisions or, at best, raising public expectations and then dashing them again.

So the ultimate question must be: are the people of Northern Ireland ready to face the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

As yet, there's little evidence from any side that, even if the people were ready, the truth would be forthcoming.

The intelligence establishment does exist of course but its true political agenda is clearly to make life as easy as possible for senior republicans. So the danger of securocrat conspiracy theories is that they can easily implicate senior republicans as well. Might a leading Shinner have lifted the phone and given the nod to Kelly's arrest, for some reason? That's no harder to believe than the existence of a hidden network of disgruntled spooks hell-bent on restarting the Troubles.

He also give short shrift to the 'it's to placate the Unionists theory over Sean Kelly's arrest:

Another republican fantasy currently doing the rounds suggests that Sean Kelly's arrest was a sop to unionists by the new Secretary of State to make up for his ludicrous lefty past. There are two problems with this theory. First, neither main unionist party has expressed any concern over Peter Hain's appointment. Second, both main unionist parties have expressed concern over Sean Kelly's arrest.

In support, he cites:

The DUP in particular fears that, because the details of Kelly's review hearing need not be reported, another juicy set of republican misdeeds is about to be swept under the rug. Perhaps Nigel Dodds should start complaining about securocrats – he certainly has the better excuse.

However since the Northern Bank raids, he is clear what future the IRA should choose:

"I would still support Sinn Fein's right to be part of the peace process," Mr. King said, "but I would be very critical of the IRA for not disbanding. No, they have to disband. Northern Ireland is at the threshold of being a democratic society." What will he do if, as is now speculated in Ireland, the IRA refuses to disband? "With the IRA, I will reconsider my relationship," he said. "The IRA really has to disband. Whether they do it this week or next week, they have to do it pretty soon, and if they don't, I will consider speaking out against them."

Ragham Amú (blúire do)

Is bás, dar liom fein, fragairt,
Is beatha fiafraí –
Ragham amú tamall eile
Is chífidh an tír

- Seán Ó Ríordáin

ragham amú
siar ó dheas
aniar aduaidh
beam ag tnúth
le teas an ghutha
ragham ag triall
ag Rí na bhFeart
is i ndeasghnáth
coinnle is craicinn
i gCaiseal Mumhan
dófam ár seascdhámh
i dtíne chnámh
is scaipfeam an luath
ar choincleach an traidisiúin
ragham amú
déanfam dearmhad
ar mhórdearmhad
i seachrán sléibhe
nó ar maos
sa riasc
idir Altan Mór
is Altan Beag
ag stáisiún traenach
Chaiseal na gCorr
fágfam slán
leis an traein stairiúil
a théan amú

Noteworthy amongst everything else was Peter Hain's advocacy for greater powers for the Welsh Assembly (subject to approval by referendum:

Peter Hain's claim that he can handle double-jobbing has been put to an early test. Trying to settle squabbles in the (Welsh) Assembly by giving it greater powers is, indeed, a bold move. Last week in the Commons, he also learned that trying to forge closer north-south links - in this case with a vague and under-funded Welsh transport plan - can be a thankless task. The truth is north and south Walians traditionally don't care for each other much. All very instructive when it comes to dealing with Northern Ireland, perhaps.

If the IRA is now finally removed from the scene, what do republicans do next if they want to turn the pressure up on the British? The only plausible answer would seem to be that republicans no longer regard the IRA as of benefit to their political project. Instead it has become an albatross around their neck. Bank heists and back-street stabbings do nothing to enhance the republican cause and instead give its opponents reason not to engage with Sinn Fein.

It might also suggest that Sinn Fein believes the North's drawn out end game is now drawing to a close and that the DUP will have no option but to do a deal. Paisley is no longer pre-occupied with wiping out the Ulster Unionists and has little to fear, in the electoral sense, of going into government with Sinn Fein.

When it came to defining nationalism for the 21st century northern Catholic – they left their flank exposed and Sinn Féin was in position to take advantage only too readily. In the south, as the disparity between the haves and have-nots got greater within the Celtic Tiger economy, the southern parties and in particular Labour and Fianna Fail have left another flank exposed. Again Sinn Féin is poised to exploit the gap. Dr Fitzgerald also sees this as a challenge to the southern parties. The SDLP mantra about not being able to eat flags is all well and good but if you are structurally and ideologically removed from constituencies where that message has not reached then it's a pretty irrelevant message to be preaching. Wishing things to be different is one thing but working for things to be different makes more sense. Complacency and arrogance nearly wrecked the SDLP and could provide the gap for Sinn Féin to sneak into government in the Republic.

In the same Irish Independent article, as far as I can understand it (could be Galway), there has been a 50% drop in the number of Catholic baptisms in Dublin between 1965 and 1995.

Some would take this as further evidence of a crisis for Christianity in Ireland and a further indication of how out of touch the established Churches are with the people of this island. Or is it simply a case that religion is no longer the glue that binds much of our society together?

Gaelscoil an tSlí Dála in Ballaghmore, Borris in Ossory, Co Laois, will operate along inter-denominational lines, with pupils receiving some shared religious education and separate instruction in the sacraments.

Bishop Michael Mayes, the Church of Ireland Bishop of Limerick and Killaloe, and Bishop Willie Walsh, Roman Catholic Bishop of Killaloe say they hope the move will ensure children in the area are now able to receive a Christian primary school education through Irish.

Firstly the report states..

It will mean traffic wardens will be transferred from the Police Service of Northern Ireland to the Department of Regional Development.

and then..

The changes will also see Roads Service pass parking enforcement, including vehicle clamping, to a private company.

Which would mean traffic wardens leaving the employment of the Department of Regional Development, surely?

But the area for chaos to reign is with the proposals for wheel-clamping..

Geoff Allister from Roads Service said the company will still have to get approval from the Roads Service to actually clamp vehicles.

Sure they will, Geoff.. sure they will..

...scríobh an Dr Pádraig Ó Laighin gur eagraíodh comórtas ceithre bliana ó shin chun aistritheoirí Gaeilge a fhostú. Ní raibh aibh oiread is duine amháin i measc na n-iarrthóirí a shroich an caighdeán inmhianaithe.

Is mar gheall air sin, dúirt sé, a socraíodh gan tús a chur le córas ateangaireachta agus aistriúcháin agus foilsiú na hIrise Oifigiúla i nGaeilge go dtí 2007 chun seans a thabhairt do lucht ollscoileanna agus institiúidí eile feabhas a chur ar chúrsaí aistriúcháin.

Agus áitionn sí:

Ní mór i bhfad Éireann níos mó bunscríbhneoireachta a dhéanamh i nGaeilge agus téacsleabhair, treoirleabhair, tuairiscí agus fógraí bheith á scríobh i nGaeilge agus ailt Ghaeilge ar chúrsaí reatha, ar chúrsaí eolaíochta agus ar na céadta ábhar eile bheith i gcló in irisí agus i nuachtáin agus iad faoi chaibidil i nGaeilge ar raidió agus ar theilifís.

Dictionary/Focloir

"The Parades Commission is suffering a major frontal attack from the DUP while Sinn Fein snipes from the sidelines. If they really want to resolve parading conflicts rather than try to win them all, they should support the Parades Commission and accept its determinations for the greater good." Mr Maginness accused unionists of attempting to destroy the commission to hand control of parades back to the police while he accused republicans of demonising the PSNI in a bid to portray themselves as 'peacemakers’ in their own community.

As we've already noted, there a unanimity amongst our own politicians on this issue, a rare thing indeed, and we can add Fine Gael to that list too.

Chris Thornton wrote:

But the Committee on the Administration of Justice, the Belfast human rights watchdog, accused the Service of skirting around a key proposal from the Criminal Justice Review, which recommended the new prosecution system five years ago.

"This is a key failure in not making the system more accountable. They have missed the opportunity of addressing one of the practices that goes right to the heart of the confidence of the community."

While few will have shed tears over the death of one of the most evil and sectarian terrorists ever to have pulled a trigger here, the Government has left itself completely open to accusations of a cover-up - as it already has in the case of the murder of Pat Finucane.

This also renders the case for any kind of Truth Commission null and void, since it is now obvious the Government has no intention of revealing the possible role it played in the murder of citizens of the State it was supposed to be governing. The lack of accountability is frightening.

Support for the government's proposed action has slumped:

...two polls released last week, one by Israel's public radio station and the other by a political talk show on Israeli television, showed that support for the pull-out has dropped to about 50 per cent from two-thirds of Israelis just a few months ago.

The parallel with NI continues:

As the summer of disengagement heats up, left-wing supporters of the plan seem to have been outrun by their opponents. There were reports that a coalition of left-wing groups tried to counter the orange ribbon phenomenon by introducing green ribbons, but these are nowhere to be seen.

And the meaning of orange:

he Gaza settlers say the choice of the colour orange is a combination of the yellow of the sun and the golden sand of the beaches and represents optimism and hope. So what does colour analysis say of their selection? According to the fabric online website, orange is the colour of practicality and creativity.

"Your energy levels are high and you are sometimes restless. You have a forceful will and tend to be active and competitive. You are also excitable and can seek domination over the others. But the same site also cautions that "bright orange and burnt orange can make you feel frustrated and blocked. Try wearing peach, which will direct your energy to the others in a more caring way."

On Let's Talk last month Lembit Opik predicted that we'd have a fully functioning local Assembly and government within two years. It was followed by a sharp intake of breath from some sections of the audience. Maybe he knows something we don't.

What we do know is that Tony Blair will leave office at some point in this parliament. Probably some point just after the half way mark. He will want this process, to which he has committed so much time and resources, in his personal bag before he goes.

However, at the moment, it is the DUP which holds the ball - not Blair. They have named their conditions. There must be an end to IRA criminality; and that Sinn Fein must back current policing arrangements before they will return to the model agreed by all in the 'comprehensive agreement' before Christmas.

It is possible to see a double edge in yesterday's comments by Nigel Dodds that his party has no interest in anything the IRA might say. And DUP councillor Chris Stalford recently explained why his party would not allow itself to be Trimbled - an internal party byword for taking any promises by the IRA at face value.

We can probably safely assume that the wording of any IRA statement will only have to suit the sensibilities of the volunteer base of the IRA. Their actions, however, will have to suit the needs of their opponents. So does this provide the IRA with room to move? Is there now a new game on?

Members of Sinn Fein I've spoken to over the last few months are convinced that something will emerge from the Adams initiative. It has to be substantial, they argue, if things are to move on. We will likely have to wait until the day of the announcement to see the detail. But the thinking inside the party seems to be confident that they can match the DUP's demands with regard to the IRA.

Can Northern Ireland's Catholics believe the DUP when they say they now accept powersharing? They've been publicly trailing this shift in policy from as far back as January 2004, when they opened their negotiation stance with three options: a voluntary coalition (to include at least one nationalist party); a corporate assembly; or the Belfast Agreement, (with some minor amendments on ministerial accountability) - contingent on the IRA going away. The paper trail (at the very least) should be enough to keep them honest.

On the other hand, will the IRA agree to play ball with the DUP in a way they wouldn't with David Trimble? Those inclined to trust them, will see their good intentions in the massive scaling down of their military operations and the relative calm that holds in most Nationalist areas. But being a secret organisation not subject to the common law, and with "a reputation for coming up short and offering 'post dated cheques'", few others will want to take them at their word.

Precise predictions are out of the question from here on in. But one thing seems clear, this time out the IRA's actions (or lack of them) will count for much more than a thousand statements from P O'Neill.

The number of victimisation claims received by the LRC has now topped 200, implying an average of two complaints for each of the roughly 100 Ryanair pilots based in the Republic. If all of the claims were to be upheld, Ryanair would face a potential compensation bill of more than €52 million. Ryanair has maintained that its pilots are among the best paid in the industry and can earn up to €130,000 a year.

Is this a lead the PSNI could follow, especially as in April the House of Commons Committee criticised them for having a "sluggish and disjointed" approach to the protection of the Gay and ethnic communities in Northern Ireland, where in Derry, for example, homophobic attacks have trebled in the last year.

By John Coulter

By the end of this week, there’ll be a new Ulster Unionist leader and his first task should be to lay the groundwork for a formal merger with the DUP. The hard reality which the unionist family must face is that when the Paisleyites pull off a deal with Sinn Fein – or even if Direct Rule is made more accountable – there is only room on the unionist spectrum for one political party.

Ulster Unionism must swallow the bitter medicine that the 100-year party is over. It must fully merge or melt totally. If the DUP succeeds in implementing what is effectively Trimbleite policy by restoring a legislative Stormont Parliament, the UUP will be politically exterminated in the subsequent Assembly elections to ratify the deal.

Whilst formal merger is the only solution, what Friday night will decide is the kind of party which will unite with the post Paisley camp. Unfortunately, the Doc (Ian Senior) does not figure in this arrangement as he will probably always insist on the party being called the Democratic Unionists rather than simply The Unionist Party.

Some senior UUP sources have suggested it will be a decade before the party is a significant electoral force again. By that time, hopefully, Ulster Unionism will be part of a structurally united family.

With the future direction for survival of the UUP decided, what remains to sort out on Friday is which of the three MLAs will lead the party up the aisle to marry the DUP bride – or should that be husband now that Ulster Unionism is the ‘weaker sex’ politically?

The clear favourite this morning is Reg Empey of East Belfast. He will establish the party as a centre Right movement with a more youthful team. Basically, this is being interpreted that anyone over the age of 50 (with the exception of Reg himself, of course) hasn’t got a snowball’s chance in hell of being selected for the next Assembly election.

The term ‘this morning’ should be used sparingly. After all, in the UUP Westminster nomination battle for Lagan Valley, Trimble’s wife Daphne was streets ahead of the then unknown businessman Basil McCrea at this point. By the end of the week, Basil had trounced his leader’s missus by a margin of two to one.

The liberal unionist standardbearer is seen as Alan McFarland of North Down. He is viewed as the darling of middle class unionism’s traditional Fur Coat Brigade. There are real fears he will turn the party into a wine-and-cheese version of Alliance.

Merger is still on the lips of the FCB, but with Alliance – not the Paisleyites. The FCB would see itself as championing the cause of persuading the middle class pro-union community of getting off its ass and coming out to vote.

This leaves the UUP’s Hard Right. It’s looking to David McNarry of Strangford. Whilst he’s a former Trimble adviser, his supporters would like to see the UUP becoming more like the tough, no-nonsense Vanguard movement which existed in the early Seventies.

Technically, Empey should clean up at least 60 per cent of the 700 delegates expected to vote. However, many grassroots UUC members are of the opinion the final result could be decided by who gives the best speech on the night.

First published in the Irish Star, yesterday morning.

Today even cricket coaches are warned against giving lifts to their young charges for fear of arousing suspicions, while teachers are told not to indulge in any physical contact whatsoever. Because the hysteria has reached such epidemic proportions, we now have social workers, therapists and psychiatrists encouraging children to come forward with allegations against those in authority, often with the promise of substantial compensation. We even have the ridiculous concept of ‘Recovered Memory’, where a course of counselling is supposed to help victims of abuse to recover deeply suppressed memories of past abuse.

As any therapist with true humanity knows, the nightmare of abuse lives with the victim every day; it cannot be driven into the recesses of the mind. And then there are the police, who appear to suspend the usual rules of criminal justice when it comes to embarking on one of their trawling exercises against former staff in a children’s home or a school. All this does no service in the battle against real child abuse. By making the definition of abuse so wide, by seeing danger at every turn, by putting the most sinister gloss on every act of affection, all rationality has been lost. A sense of proportion has been replaced by one of panic and vindictiveness.

...I do know that Seán Kelly is close to many senior SF people and was considered last year - subject to correction - someone who was very helpful in the [ July] 12th march in Ardoyne. I think that that is correct. I will try and get it as soon as I can. I have already asked officials [ the Anglo-Irish Secretariat in Belfast] to find out what happened. They have lifted nobody else. I don't believe that they would have lifted [ him] without something. If there is [ something] it would be better to know. If there isn't a reason it seems very odd that they would pick one person.

Mr Murphy said the Government was not being properly held to account. The failure of the Department of Health to properly charge for nursing home beds means the State must pay a compensation bill that could reach €2 billion. In its inquiry report, the Oireachtas Health and Children Committee said there was "an urgent need" to clarify "the responsibilities of Ministers and the extent to which they can reasonably be held accountable for the actions of the department and agencies under their charge".

Interestingly, Peter Hain's statement on a meeting with representatives of the Confederation of British Industry takes a slightly different tack - "There are a number of issues within the economy that must be addressed if it is to continue to grow and become a highly skilled, innovative economy that can succeed on a global basis".

SF's Conor Murphy yesterday also described the decision as Peter Hain's "first serious mistake" - according to this Irish Times report[reg. req.]

That lack of detail has been sketched in by suggestions in a couple of reports.. but, with the decision to suspend the early release of Kelly following so closely on from the statements in the House of Commons from the DUP's Jeffrey Donaldson and Nigel Dodds[16 Jun 2005 : Column 491], combined with SF's position on the re-arrest of Séan Kelly, "wrong and unjustified" according to SF's Conor Murphy, and Gerry Kelly's statement that "He [Séan Kelly - no relation] has also played an invaluable and positive role in keeping the situation calm at interfaces in North Belfast." - although many would see that as a somewhat unsuitable role - means that the final decision on his early release licence, to be taken by the Independent Sentence Review Commissioners, will be closely examined.

As the SDLP's Alban Maginness indicated, it's a case that needs as much detail as possible made public.

And, as with so many situations here, I'd suggest we would all benefit from a lot more light.

Africans on a dollar a day

If nothing else, Live 8 has given prominence to a number of bubbling under issues around development and the first world's practical relations with the third world. This illustration was opposite a pro-Bush analysis in an article in the Irish Independent a week or so back. But it also fits with an anti-Bush analysis from Naomi Klein in the Guardian a few weeks back in which she pointed to the oil wealth of countries like Nigeria, and the concomittant poverty of it's wider population. According to the chart, over 70% of the population there live on less than a dollar a day.

however much noise a small handful of our most vocal citizens may have made in recent months about European Union recognition of Irish, nobody really cares.

Oh, we say we do. If there was a list of issues we considered important, the status of the Irish language in Brussels might be one of the boxes we ticked - assuming, that is, we were allowed to tick as many as we liked.

It would be right up there with better nutritional labelling on supermarket food, more cycle ways, iodine tablets for all in case of nuclear emergency, universal peace and an end to world hunger, on the infinite wish list of things which it would be quite nice to have.

But deep down, we don't really give a monkey's about Irish. We only pretend to because it's one of the things that educated and sophisticated Irish people are now supposed to believe, and because, well, believing in the spiritually-enhancing properties of the Irish language has become a habit we're much too intellectually lazy to breakout of.

If we really cared about Irish, then we'd do something about it. Like speak it.

Indeed that activism is not as dim and distant as Hain might like to contest:

He told an audience in India on November 20, 2000, that "the Protestant majority in the North ruling oppressively in a devolved administration and denying the Catholic minority basic human rights which it felt could therefore only be achieved by reunification with the independent Irish state in the South, an objective which some nationalists pursued by terrorism."

Waters continues: "Dr Paisley last week restated his case: the IRA must disband before his party will resume powersharing with Sinn Féin. The Taoiseach baulked at the word "disbandment".

Instead, he reiterated, the IRA must cease all criminal and paramilitary activity and "become a commemorative organisation". He can't see why anybody "would force an organisation to do more than that". I'll tell you why: because by doing so, unionism can claim total and final victory over the IRA. If the IRA disbands, it will have been established that the IRA was not merely an illegal organisation but an unambiguously terrorist organisation. Since that is what Dr Paisley has always claimed, it is hard to see him now resiling from his long-stated position by agreeing to the commemorative idea. Commemorate what, from Dr Paisley's viewpoint? The murder of police officers and innocent civilians, with perhaps an annual pageant in memory of Brighton?"

Having discounted a return to "war", Waters concludes that:

"The worst that can occur, therefore, is a continuing stand-off. Dr Paisley has remained constant. The Provisionals hunker down to discuss their options.

The two governments again seek formulations and fudges by which to move the situation forward. Whoever blinks first, it will not be Dr Paisley. If there is a solution, it will almost certainly involve a total victory for him."

It focuses on the decision of the party's 1922 backbench committee to rescind an earlier decision to franchise the whole of the party membership for party leadership elections, but goes on to make a much more general point about the centralisation and professionalisation of British party politics:

Tory MPs do not trust Tory members because those members, as they showed by electing Iain Duncan Smith rather than Ken Clarke in 2001, have moved well to the right of the electorate. Yet the MPs' move also responds to a spectacular decline in representativeness in other ways. Half a century ago, Tory party membership stood at 2.8 million; today there are fewer than 300,000, with an average age in the mid-60s. Yet crisis is not confined to the Tories. Labour's membership, which briefly surged above 400,000 in the 1990s, is today half of what it was in 1997, while Liberal Democrat numbers mark time at around 73,000.

As membership has declined, the political parties have become more centralised and more dominated by elite professionals, though which is cause and which is effect is a matter of argument. As the parties have grown less radical, so their ability to appeal to idealism has declined, and the membership of single-issue campaigns has increased. Though the Tory move shows boldness of a kind, it is not the only party that is rethinking. Labour has lost much of its grassroots organisation, and even the Lib Dems want to take more control of the annual conference from the party membership.

And the movement within a recently regenerated parliamentary Conservative party? As the Guardian puts it: "it is getting interesting, even important".

Today's Irish News editorial notes:

The fact that Dr McWilliams represented the Women’s Coalition in the first Northern Ireland Assembly seems to have particularly incensed the DUP, but she was plainly as entitled as any other citizen to seek election to sit on any of our new devolved structures. Dr McWilliams has now moved on to a new role and she should be judged on her performance in that capacity in the years ahead.

By Paul Doyle

The provisional movement has consistently argued that Irish unification can come about within the context of the Belfast Agreement, despite the unionist veto. In its discussion document, A Green Paper on Irish Unity, the New Sinn Féin leadership sets out the various means through which unionist voters can supposedly be talked round into voting themselves out of the union.

One of the central arguments put forward by the New Sinn Féin leadership in its Green Paper is the idea that "a unified, all-Ireland economy holds out substantial potential for sustainable economic growth across the island through the development and coordination of economic planning on an all-Ireland basis". It argues that the prospect of this economic growth will prompt unionists to look favourably on unification. There are two problems with this.

Firstly, the Green Paper provides no facts or figures. It assumes the dissolution of the border will make economic sense without any econometric or economic data to corroborate this assertion. It totally
ignores the fact that the North drains the British exchequer to the tune of four billion pound sterling per annum - and that's without a security bill for containing the inevitable disgruntled rump that will emerge from within unionism in the event of unification.

Secondly, the economic argument assumes that unionists can be bought, but there is nothing to suggest that the prospect of economic prosperity will be enough to convince hundreds of thousands of unionists to vote themselves out of the union. Unionism's attachment to Britain isn't something that can be bought-off with healthy GNP figures.

The paper also makes the assumption that the ending of the conflict will bring about a softening of attitudes towards the idea of unification among the unionist people. So can this happen? Well, the paper goes on to sum-up the extent to which this has happened so far: "We are almost 12 years on from the public emergence of the Irish Peace Process in the first joint statement by Sinn Féin President Gerry Adams and the then SDLP leader, John Hume, in April 1993. However, the only strand of that process still existing at this time is the IRA cessation of military activities. There is no political process, no dialogue, no negotiation."

Far from having a moderating effect on unionism, the peace process and the Belfast Agreement are causing unionist opinion to radicalise. The destruction of middle-ground parties such as the Alliance Party and the Women's Coalition, the near-annihilation of moderate unionist parties, and most obviously the meteoric rise of the DUP, have made this fact painfully clear.

Next, the paper argues that unionism can be convinced that their political aspirations can be catered for in a united Ireland. But this too ignores a crucial fact - the national or political aspirations of the nationalist and unionist communities within Ireland are mutually exclusive in that there cannot be an independent united Ireland while the union with Britain is in place. It is a fundamental fallacy to suggest that there is the prospect of a political solution in which the views of both communities can happily
co-exist. The mutually exclusive nature of the political aspirations of unionists and nationalists means that only one can ever be satisfied at any one time.

The paper also ignores the practical difficulties inherent in the outworking of a political settlement which has an acceptance of the unionist veto as its central tenet. For example, the paper argues: "The Good Friday Agreement created the all-Ireland Ministerial Council and set out areas for all-Ireland development where ministers, North and South, would work in co-operation in education, health, environment, agriculture, transport and tourism".

It also set up "implementation bodies" with executive functions to implement all-Ireland policies on aspects of Language, Inter-trade, Food Safety, Ireland's Waterways and Tourism. In each of these areas, progress and programmes of work are being advanced through the implementation bodies.

The issue here is that the DUP with the backing of the unionist electorate are demanding that the North's relationship with the South be subject to Assembly approval and this, in practice, means it will be subject to unionist and DUP approval. The DUP will then use this control over the North/South relationship to stifle the development of any emerging North/South dynamic.

Next, the paper argues that cross-border cooperation will persuade unionists that unification is in their interests. This is far from a self-evident fact. If cross-border cooperation proves advantageous, surely it is just as likely to convince people living in the North that partition is proving workable as it is to persuade people of the value of dissolving the border?

On a first reading the provisional movement's A Green Paper on Irish Unity, with its preamble from Gerry Adams stating, "I hope that unionists will be prepared to take part in such a process and put forward their vision for the future and to consider, discuss and engage with the rest of the Irish people about the nature and form a new Ireland will take," seems blindly optimistic and rather naive.

How could anyone with any knowledge or experience of unionism come to the conclusion that they would be willing to enter negotiations on a British withdrawal while they hold their veto? But a closer examination of the document reveals its true nature. A Green Paper on Irish Unity, much like New Sinn Féin's latest strategy, is a capitulation dressed up in vagaries and ambiguities presented as a viable strategy. The Green Paper looks at how to achieve a united Ireland in the context of the Belfast Agreement and fundamentally, this is where it falls down.

Only when the Belfast Agreement is removed, along with the unionist veto it is built on, will republican ideals be realised. While unionism gets to decide, there will never, never, never be a united Ireland.

First published in Forum Magazine

The EU generously gave us millions to capacity-build the social economy and to what end? Compared to the north, the Republic got roughly one third of EU funds made available but they built a real economy creating jobs and opportunity. We preferred the less travelled road of building an inter-community infrastructure around what is not there. Despite spending hundreds of millions of taxpayers' money on community relations, we have ended up more polarised than ever before.

He singles out the voluntary sector for particular attention:

Of course, the burgeoning industry that is the voluntary sector know only too well how to keep the funds flowing into wasteful programmes but in reality it's time to get serious about community relations and even more serious about what we want to achieve.

Not surprisingly, the report also cites the area's reliance on the public sector as a drag on economic activity and entrepreneurship.

"In the most recent data available, the public sector accounted for 27pc of gross value-added (GVA), compared with 18pc and 15pc in the UK and Republic.

"This heavy reliance on the public sector may be partly attributed to the weak rate of entrepreneurial activity in the province. As a measure of this, business registrations per 1,000 population were 30pc below those in England in 2003," it says.

The report also notes that while the Isle of Man and Channel Islands can set their own taxes as they are not actually part of the UK, any cut in the North's taxes might require EU approval as well as a British government decision.

Is it not time for the parties in Northern Ireland to start campaigning for a harmonisation of corporation of tax rates with the Irish Republic so that the area can compete on a level playing field?

Part of the UUP's problem as a party has been that, within the electorate, it no longer inpires vivid emotions like love and hate. Or even all that much interest anymore. The party hasn't just lost its way. It's lost its heart. It doesn't just need direction. It needs resusitation. Electric shock treatment. And Bob McCartney could well be the man with the defibrillator.

And, she notes:

McCartney isn't afraid of taking flak - or of taking an unpopular stance. But he's light years away from the unthinking intransigience of the backwoods unionist.

As she points out, all it requires is for the UUC to say no to the other contenders, for Bob to get his chance to run.

Hmm.. I get the impression that he's been paying too much attention to John Lloyd, whom he references in the speech.. and Lloyd backs up the Archbishop in the article, more from Lloyd, and others, on blogs here.

Meanwhile, despite the Guardian's relatively restrained response, the Observer blog gets it about right, "It is hard not to feel in Dr Williams's comments a degree of bewilderment in a man confronted with limitless and unmediated choice of new media. That is a feeling with which a lot of people, old media journalists included, can easily identify."

He admits that the resulting stasis would suit the DUP:

Of course the DUP are going to emerge from today's talks telling us all how tough they are and how no IRA statement will shift them. They'll be talking tough in Northern Ireland question time today as well, making the same point. On the face of it they do have a strong position. After all, unionists have twice voted not to share power with Sinn Féin and the DUP are the beneficiaries of that vote in more ways than one. Many, perhaps most, unionists like direct rule partly because they don't want to share power with Sinn Féin, partly because they also think direct rule guarantees there'll be minimum change here.

The added bonus is that if the DUP stall on talking to SF then their main opponents, the UUP, stagnate. Even better, if the assembly is dissolved, as it should be, then the UUP leader will be at most a mere councillor. It's inevitable that there'll be no deal ratified before another assembly election when the UUP's annihilation should be completed. Looks good, doesn't it?

But, he argues, it would also release Sinn Fein energies for other things:

...direct rule enables SF to concentrate on their main aim, increasing their Dail representation with a view ultimately to getting into government. The latest polls show SF in the Republic back to where they were last December. Direct rule means unionists can never have any power but it leaves the prospect of power on an all-Ireland level open to Sinn Féin.

Finally he argues that:

...despite all their breast-beating the DUP are left with no choice. Hang tough, go nowhere and watch the Irish government consolidating its influence here, or make a deal with SF and watch the influence of the Irish government here grow as SF ministers press for more cooperation and harmonisation between north and south.

More significantly, they are now saying that policing cannot be continually put on the long finger before a second comprehensive deal:

At the same time DUP sources last night signalled a further significant departure from the agenda for last December's failed "comprehensive agreement". The Irish Times understands the DUP would require any party entering government to signal its prior approval for Northern Ireland's policing dispensation and the criminal justice system there.

Mr Browne's proposal:

As a means of involving a far larger cohort of citizens in the political process, I propose that nobody be entitled to stand for election if they have been elected twice previously and that there be Dáil elections every two years. Yes, I know this will mean you won't have "experienced" politicos in the Dáil, that the civil servants will ride roughshod over these innocents abroad, that the "wealth" of experience built up by politicians who have been at it for years will be lost to the nation. That two-year parliaments will be awful for it will result in continuous election campaigns. I know.

But, he argues:

...it will mean that over, say, a 20-year period there will be some thousands of people who will have served in the Dáil, who will have had a direct engagement in public affairs. That would mean a lively public debate among serving Dáil members, past Dáil members and future Dáil members, all with some direct experience of involvement in decision-making. A new political literati.

He said he was "not too concerned" about the timing of the statement, so long as it contained the elements needed to restore confidence and move the Belfast Agreement process forward. "To move forward, we need a clear, unambiguous end of all paramilitary and criminal activity and we need to see the completion of decommissioning," he said. But he stressed: "It is not just words, it is deeds. "If we get a statement on the issues I have mentioned, we would be very happy with the statement, but we would naturally enough want to see that they happen."

He believes that the innate conservatism of the blogosphere is creating insurrmountable barriers to new conservative voices trying to break into the US top flight:

In short, the anti-community nature of right-wing blogs has resulted in a stagnant aristocracy within the conservative blogosphere that prevents the emergence of new voices and, as a result, new reasons for people to visit conservative blogs.

In 2001, the proportion of people who could not tolerate a vote for an all island state was 18%. Whilst those who could not tolerate there never being such a state was 4%. In 2004, the proportions drop to 11% and 2% respectively.

It seems the heat is slowly draining from the constitutional issue?

Mosnews reports:

It was not clear whether Blair had pressed Putin over human rights or brought up the fraud conviction of former oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky, whose trial British officials say has hurt investment in Russia.

“We are opposed to the use of these issues for interfering in our internal affairs or as a tool for achieving foreign policy objectives,” Russian President was quoted by Reuters as saying.

Hat tip to Newshound.

To elect the current frontrunner, Sir Reg Empey, Walker argues, would merely be to repeat the mistakes of the past:

And so, the party which ignored all the warning signs for years, over and over again, is about to do it again. The party that allowed its best young politicos to grow frustrated and angry. That finally forced them either out of the party altogether or so far to the margins it was they, rather than the party bosses, who appeared stubborn and freaky. That made it impossible for its core support to vote for it in the last election.

Nice one.

By Mick Hall

Despite taking much criticism to the contrary from the media of late, apart for the odd psycho, Neanderthal man and those who fawn to power no matter who exercises it, few members of SF have any time for the murderers of Robert McCartney, indeed most were as appalled as the rest of us by his murder, if not more so as they were forced to face
the ugly truth that members of their own movement were party to this crime, which in reality had more in common with the loyalist paramilitary goon squad who became infamous as the 'Shankill Butchers'.

However what has become very clear from the response of
many rank and file SF members to this issue, is the leadership of SF has made little real headway in getting their members to accept the writ of the PSNI and all that flows from it. Which is after all at the heart of the McCartney families campaign, hence the defensive stance taken by many Shinners over the McCartney families campaign for justice for their murdered loved one..

To judge from the public statements issued by Sinn Fein leaders such as Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness in support of the McCartney families campaign, it is clear they themselves have passed through this most problematic of rubicon's for Irish Republican's. Having accepted if politics is to become primary within the Republican Movement, the rule of law throughout the island of Ireland must prevail. Thus for this to become a reality, at some time the core Republican constituency within the north will have to, however reluctantly accept the PSNI, as whilst the island is still politically divided it is the only body with the ability to enforce the law, however imperfectly across the north's sectarian divides.

The fact that the core Republican constituency, have not yet reached the stage when they will accept the PSNI, placed them in an impossible dilemma when they were confronted with the campaign by the McCartney family, the main demand of which was that those who participated in the murder of their brother Robert, whether it be the actual act of murder or the cleaning of the crime scenes after the event, should be arrested by the PSNI, charged and brought before the courts of Northern Ireland.

The majority of Republicans had no problem with punishing those who had played a role in Mr McCartneys death. Indeed most who I have spoken to looked forward to those responsible getting their just deserts, although they were more sympathetic to those who helped clean the crime scene, believing they were only following orders, something which when I first heard it made me shudder.

However, what many of them were unable to do was make the leap from agreeing the killers etc should be punished, to accepting that the PSNI and the Northern Irish Judicial system should be the means to do this. Which is hardly surprising given the appalling record of the forerunner of the PSNI, the RUC, whose Special Branch all but institutionally colluded with loyalist paramilitaries throughout the period of the 'troubles' and has never been brought to account for doing so, to say nothing of the Diplock Courts etc, which brought the legal system of the north into disrepute in the eyes of many.

Perhaps it would do no harm for Republicans to consider one of the main reasons why radicals who live in western European countries and the USA give their State legitimacy, despite the fact they oppose much of what it does in their name, is because they recognize without the rule of law, the rule of the jungle so easily can prevail; and if this were to happen any hope of reforming the State would become an impossibility. Revolution would then become the only viable option to bring about social and economic change.

Of course a small minority would welcome this believing the old order has to be destroyed in blood. If it is a bloody dictatorship one is living under or brutal foreign occupation where there are absolutely no peaceful options open to bring about change, so be it. But if it is a liberal bourgeois democracy, which at long last is willing to accept a move to equality; all be it reluctantly, with all this could entail, then one would have to be a very rash individual to reject the chance of reform; psychopathic or someone who either totally lacks imagination or has no direct experience of the extreme consequences of violent revolutionary change.

Basically with the GFA, the Adams leadership have asked Republicans to take the reformist road. However as I have alluded to above, the response in the Republican heartlands to the McCartney's families campaign highlight's the fact Mr Adams and his leadership colleagues have hardly touched on what this will envisage.

The RM leadership's tactic of dragging their membership, however reluctantly, along with them with the promise if the membership trust them they will lead them out into the bright sunny uplands of the Irish Socialist Republic, is surly reaching the end of the road. For if there is one thing the McCartney affair has demonstrated, it is the RM rank and file need to be actively on message and not at times of crises left to stagger around, in the hope they will muddle through until the leadership can regain control of events.

What the McCartney affair has shown us is many Republicans are not yet ready to accept the PSNI, however this does not mean they will never do so, indeed being the intelligent people most of them are, the contradictions the McCartney affair has confronted them with will force this issue to the fore.

What is clear the issue of policing must now be a priority for the SF leadership and the two governments, how they will manage to square this very spiky circle they alone will have to decide. If they fail to do so, and accepting the PSNI will be a very bitter pill for Republicans to swallow, one cannot see much of a future for the GFA. Having said this, the bitterness of the aforementioned pill will have much the same foul taste as that which the DUP is being asked to swallow by accepting SF as equals into government. Perhaps there is a quid pro quo here?

Note: the comment zone is switch on at the moment and will remain so as long as we can keep the discussion away from the specifics of the McCartney case.

Empey's press conference was well attended, and he had an interesting cross section of the Party in support. Definite supporters seemed to include Jim Nicholson, Danny Kennedy, Fred Cobain and Tom Elliot. He also had the support of a number of new Councillors such as Mark Cosgrove as well as the established faces of Bertie Kerr, Jim Rodgers and David Browne.

Alan McFarland's launch was less pronounced in terms of supporters, however he stressed that this was by design in his speech:

And I stress that I am offering myself. There is not a sea of faces behind me; not because I don't have support at Westminster, Stormont, in Councils or at our grassroots, but because I want delegates to vote for me personally rather than because particular people may be endorsing me.

Noticeable in the room however were Lady Hermon, Esmond Birnie and Leslie Cree.

David McNarry has decided not to do a "presidential style" press conference.

In terms of priorities, there seems to be very little difference between the candidates

Empey:

Those days of high-handedness are over. On my watch, full weight will be given to the views of our supporters. The antenna is switched on and in perfect working order. Your views count, and they will not be ignored or filed under ‘forgotten’.

McFarland:

The priority for the Party is to regroup, rebuild, reconnect and re-engage. It is an internal priority. We have to change and we have to be seen to change. Our grassroots, members and voters alike, who have stayed with us through our very darkest days need to have confidence in this Party again.

McNarry:

I am running for the Party leadership because I believe that I can inject an impact, which will restore the Ulster Unionists to our rightful position as No 1 in Northern Ireland. To succeed is not a daunting thought but the turnaround can be made more efficiently with our younger members being encouraged to play a pivotal role in making this Party successful.

The candidates all have the same core message to delegates; internal reform for external gain. Empey talks of "radically re-organising the Party", while McFarland states "we have to change and we have to be seen to change". It is perhaps this outside perception of change that will be the mark of success of whoever emerges the victor.

I also want to point out that this story is actually incorrect. The relationship between the UUC and the Orange Institution was initially between the UUC and Grand Lodge of Ireland, this however has not been the case since c1925 when it became a relationship between the UUC and the County Grand Lodges (initially including Cavan, Monaghan and Donegal, more recently limited to the 8 County Grand Lodges within Northern Ireland). One may think that the superior governing body of Grand Lodge could compel the Counties, however this is not the case and therefore it was not within the competence of Grand Lodge to break the link with the Party. This means that there will be a small number of Orange Delegates at the leadership contest on the 24th, however their numbers will be negligible. (City of Londonderry have not sent delegates for some time, Counties Antrim, Armagh, Londonderry and City of Belfast will probably not send delegates leaving Tyrone, and possibly Fermanagh and Down). One would imagine that the rules will be changed at the UUC AGM next March to remove the Orange from the Party completely.

The elections of 2005 were bad ones for the Ulster Unionist Party. As far as I can see there are those with a chance of winning the leadership, and those without. I have my own opinions on who those people are, and I have my own opinions on who the best leader to turn fortunes around would be. All I will say however (perhaps a little out of context) is that Reg Empey has it right in this sentence:

When the votes are counted at the end, the Ulster Unionist Party will be the victor.

By Lindy McDowell

Just because I'm a Prod doesn't mean I'm Bertie Wooster. The thought occurred to me again recently when I read about how the cartoon programme, The Simpsons, was planning a storyline about a leading character's conversion to Catholicism. In the show, we were told, Catholic heaven would be depicted as a sort of Irish Riverdancing hooley. Protestant heaven would be genteel types playing polo and croquet on the lawn.

Now I'm not for one second suggesting that the creators of the cartoon took their inspiration from Northern Ireland. The Simpsons' has much bigger things to concern itself with than the trivial matter of religious stereotyping in the occupied six counties.

All the same, for very many of us who grew up in this part of the world there is in that concise portrait of parallel paradises - on the one hand the fun-filled, laid-back, culturally rich Catholic option, and on the other the upper-class, anally retentive, staid, Protestant version - a sharp resonance.

For, where Northern Ireland is concerned, it's a common perception that this is precisely how the community is divided ... between the liberal, popular, up-for-a-bit-of-crack Catholics. And the rest of us. The elitist, Anglicised dour Ulster Prods. What surprises me is not just how widespread this perception is, but how very rarely it is challenged.

True, someone like Sir Basil Brooke might well have fitted the upper crust almost-Anglo template. But there are hundreds of thousands of us Ulster Prods from a working class background who most certainly would not. Yet, in the world out there, that's often how we're viewed.

Catholics have culture and crack and victimhood status. Protestants have all the advantages, all the bigotry, small minds, dour personalities - and moustaches.

My first taste of this came many years ago during a visit to America when I was accosted by an Irish American (fourth generation, had never been in the Oul Sod himself) who told me in no uncertain terms that the best job a Catholic in Northern Ireland could ever get was as a bin man. That there was a law against Catholics owning property. That they weren't allowed to vote. And that I Was Personally Responsible For All This.

I did try to remonstrate. To point out that actually I knew many, many Catholics whose families were a damn sight wealthier than mine. That the One Man, One Vote legislation gave my parents too a vote for the first time. That for a so-called privileged community, the people I grew up with were every bit as poor as our Catholic neighbours. And if my community was so hot on oppressing the other lot, how come it wasn't any better off?

Then, as now though, nobody was listening.

This week has seen the release of more statistics to fuel the "equality" debate I won't bore you with the details of these latest unemployment figures. If you want to get a flavour of the arguments and counter-arguments they've provoked I suggest you take a look at the always excellent Slugger O'Toole weblog (www.sluggerotoole.com). The fact is that while they have been seized on by some to project yet again a picture of oppression, discrimination, Alabama and the back of the bus, there is a reality staring those of us who actually live here, in the face.

And that is, despite what the propaganda might suggest, no one community in Northern Ireland has a monopoly on inequality.
"Privileged" Prods are just as likely to live in deprivation. And the very sizeable Protestant working-class faces, and has faced over the years, exactly the same concerns, difficulties and disadvantages as the Catholic working class.

But there is, of course, that vital difference I've alluded to. In Northern Ireland only nationalists are allowed to claim second class citizenship. The fact is that there will be many, many Protestant people reading these words who will like me have grown up in a working-class home, without any "ascendancy" advantages whatsoever.
How come then that the stereotype of the privileged Prod has been allowed to survive for so long?

More interestingly, how come the views of those people who feel they have been unfairly portrayed as such are so rarely articulated - in the media, in the arts and in literature? I've mentioned before how it is almost impossible to cite even one sympathetic portrayal of a working-class Ulster Prod in film or on stage. (No, Jim McDonald in Coronation Street doesn't count.)

Equally it wouldn't take the fingers of many hands to count the number of books written about the Northern Irish working class Protestant experience. And that's something the media rarely focus on either. How Protestants think and feel, how they see themselves and the others with whom they share this island gets strangely little coverage.

Why is this? Isn't it time we opened this debate?

Liam Kennedy coined the cutting acronym MOPE to describe the mindset of that section of the republican community that revels in the image of victimhood. It stands for Most Oppressed People Ever. Could something similar be applied to the Protestant working class?

Most Suppressed People Ever?

First published in the on 4th June 2005

After the Abercorn bomb, in 1972 too, the Northern Ireland Prime Minister Brian Faulkner reflected on the thinking of the bomber. He assumed, correctly, that the bomber was a republican; perhaps he had had a full intelligence briefing.

He said: "What thought went through the twisted mind of the man who planted the bomb as, on the way out, he looked into the faces of the unsuspecting mothers and babies who were soon to be mutilated by the blast? Did he think of a united Ireland? If he did, then that aspiration is infinitely besmirched by this thought.

Faulkner's first mistake was to assume that the bomb had been left by a man. It had not. It came out in the inquest that it had been left by two young women. He assumes too that the bomber's intention was to mutilate "unsuspecting mothers and babies". He might be right. The two young women, given the job of leaving the bomb, may have sought to incinerate innocent civilians.

The warning that was telephoned in, from a Falls Road pub, two minutes before the explosion, and which didn't name the Abercorn, may have been intended only as a cosmetic device to allow the killers to pretend to their own followers that they had made an honest effort to prevent carnage. On the other hand, it may simply be that a pair of feckless brats made a hash of the whole operation.

As things stand however, he argues that it is unlikely that any of these stories are likely to emerge:

What truth is available there, even to the investigator who has all the names and dates?

The reasons are apparently twofold; to recognise the other tradition on this island and to get Irish workers another public holiday as they are currently shortchanged in comparison to their European counterparts.

If the ICTU passes the motion, it will likely be put to Taoiseach Bertie Ahern when talks about a new national pay deal start in September.

St Columb's is celebrating it's 125th Anniversary and the president used her speech to address the issues of sectarianism, racism and homophobia.

“Those citizens of tomorrow . . . what do they say when their friends make sexist, racist, sectarian or homophobic jibes — do they stay silent and let the poison of contempt go on its cruel way, or do they have the guts to stop it in its tracks and say such words are unacceptable and dangerous?

“Do they have the backbone and the conviction to lead their friends in the right direction even if it seems the loneliest place in the world?”

Reported attacks on gay people in Derry have trebled during the past year and prominent gay activist Sean Morrin, project director for the Rainbow Project, welcomed the President's intervention. Morrin doesn't believe that Derry is any worse than other parts, but feels the gay community has more confidence in reporting attacks and in reporting them as specifically anti-gay to the Police, a claim supported by the PSNI who last year drew up an anti-hompohobic protocol for the city.

In the TMS-MRBI survey, support for Fianna Fáil is now at 32%, down six percentage points.

Fine Gael support at 25%, is at its highest for five years while Labour is up two points at 14%. The PDs are at 4%, up one, while the Greens are unchanged at 4%.

Personal support for Taoiseach Bertie Ahern is 54%, down four points while PD leader Mary Harney's rating is down six to 41%.

Strangely, considering his party's rise, FG leader Enda Kenny's rating is down four to 41% while Labour leader Pat Rabbitte is at 48%, up three.

The ABC figures are due around the end of the month, so I guess we'll find out soon enough whether the NIO decision not to advertise with DI was justified or not. Daily Ireland is claiming a five-figure circulation, while outside speculation averages about 7,000 sales.

Hopefully this will, as promised, deliver competitive prices to consumers.

A formal agreement is expected by next February to establish the new market operator, in time to meet the deadline of July 1 2007 for the start of the single electricity market.

For the anoraks, there are also graphs on both companies' homepages which show how much electricy each part of the island is using per day.

The noticeable absentee..

The party's only MP, Lady (Sylvia) Hermon, was not present, did not send her apologies and is not seen as a supporter.

Still a sizable crowd there though -

More than 100 of his supporters attended his campaign launch in the Holiday Inn in Belfast last night, among them five MLAs including Fred Cobain, Danny Kennedy and Tom Elliott. MEP Jim Nicholson, who was not present, has also pledged his support. With the number of MLAs there and apologies from other Assembly members, it was indicated that more than half of the UUP's 24 Assembly members support his candidacy.

and a swipe at John Taylor.. and the first mention from the UUP of what the Belfast Telegraph described yesterday as a "testing period" -

Sir Reg said if Lord Kilclooney was proposing leaders who were not members of the UUP, he should at least check if they were willing to stand. Of the peer's "has-beens" remark, he said: "If this party is to succeed, the days of Excocet politics have to come to an end." Were the IRA to stand down fully, end activity and decommission, he believed it would take the lifetime of the current Assembly, due to expire in autumn 2007, before the UUP would enter a power-sharing Executive with Sinn Féin.

All good realistic stuff. Tim Lemon gave few hostages to fortune, but presaged his shortish speech with the honest remark that his party had been the only true and visible losers in the election. The internal review arising is thorough and ongoing. Sean Kearney of Sinn Fein noticeably kept well away from his party's performance and concentrated largely on the negative effects of recent electoral reform on voter turnout.

In the breakout group on politics and the media jointly chaired by Ciaran O'Kelly and Liz Fawcett led a spirited discussion between politicians and several members of the media. Both complained that the other was not sufficiently interested in issues, with one radio producer suggesting they'd had to manufacture a series of pieces on issues in the absence of any substantial response from parties. Politicians responded complaining that when the do put issue based material out, it is consistently ignored.

Even where PA, for instance, made efforts to garner issue material from each of the parties this resulted in poor take up from the wider media. One DUP representative hinted too that when policy material is presented to the media they often miss important difference in detail. A representative of another political party told the group he had had to resort to photo opps to get any interest from any of the media outlets.

It may be that without any significant means by which the local parties can formulate policy and drive it through the government machine - there is no real pull in locally written policy documents. However with both sides claiming the other is not listening, it may be time for the local media and politicians to get together and attempt to fill the communication gap?

No doubt Tony Blair is thinking along similar lines.

The opening paragraph, in the Belfast Telegraph piece, is interesting -

News that Gerry Adams has had three meetings with Bertie Ahern, at his request, since his appeal to the IRA to consider ending violence will puzzle as many people as it pleases. What proposition could he be putting to the Taoiseach and what more could Mr Ahern be saying than "away with private armies"?

Interesting, in part, because the source for the reading of those three meetings being at the request of SF's Gerry Adams.. was SF.. and that statement only came well after the story appeared in the media. The Taoiseach's version was somewhat different.

But assuming that Adams did request the meeting.. the question posed by the Belfast Telegraph bears consideration...

What proposition could he be putting to the Taoiseach and what more could Mr Ahern be saying than "away with private armies"?