Here are two links to scary stories about Local Government incompetence in Clare County Council Planning Department. Both relate to maladministration that has already (or probably will) cost the Council huge amounts of money it does not have.
The first story relates to a further information request on a Planning application. When the information was lodged, it was never logged by the Council leading ot a refusal and Judicial Review by Applicants. Que a High Court settlement of €650,000 against council .
The second relates to anther administrative mess-up, where Applicants very altruistically re-lodged a Planning Application after it was granted by default, as the Council had made no official changes or comments. A Senior Council Employee told Councillors they could not be told about any deal made on re-lodging the Application and were shut out of the process until pressure lead to a behind-closed-doors meeting where the information was divulged. Apparently this case is one of a series in which information has been removed or altered.
When I worked at a legal office, the prospect of a Judicial Review was all that kept us going on bad days. The administrative mistake of some Public Authority, where we'd seek almost undreamt-of figures for damages (and of course significant fees) was the basis of many parties. The targeted Public Authority (in this case the Refugee Appeals Tribunal or Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner) had to get very smart, very quickly to tighten its procedures or there would be huge budgetary outlays on Judicial Reviews. This they did, they brought lawyers into every facet of their operation, and JRs slowed to a trickle. This occoured with leadership from a strong Minister (Michael McDowell). Now, it has to be asked where is the strong leadership needed to head off this debilitating drain on local resources? These mess-up have been going on for years in Clare County Council. And now the Management is denying our elected Councillors access to basic information!
This bodes ill for the Minister for the Environment's Reform of Local Government, currently at Green Paper stage. The proposal for directly-elected Mayors is welcome, but before any Mayors are elected, there needs to be a strong and definite chain-of-command structure put in place in Local Government so that whoever is in charge (Manager or Mayor) has absolute authority from the start. Similar to the situation in London where the Mayor controls Police, transport etc. but unlike the previous proposal from Minister Noel Dempsey, which proposed directly-elected Mayors with the powers of the current Mayors - a ludicrous ubworkable suggestion (that I'm glad Jackie Healy-Rae torpeoded. Local Governmetn can contribute so much to the happiness of it's citizens, but not if it's consistantly paying out large amount of it's budget in legal fees.
(some small editing and additions 16/0508)
How the typical Irish Mayor is viewed
(credit: The Simpsons)
What being a vegetarian means to me (and this dude!)
"As you're enjoying that pork loin next to me, I am not silently judging you. I realize that anyone who has encountered the breed of smug vegetarian who says things like, "I can hear your lunch screaming," will find this tough to believe, but I'm honestly not out to convert you."
I see dead cows...
Happy Europe Day!
There has been little discussion about the fact that the new Táiniste and Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Employment has few policy achievements to point to in her political career. Most of the reaction has been in the vein of Labour’s Joanna Tuffy who “said it was good to see a woman in the post”.
New Táiniste & Minister Mary Coughlan: "Great to see a woman in the post"
Tangentially, real change could come to Ireland if there were more women in powerful political positions, the Spanish Government's female majority is an example for us all. However, my view is that Minister Coughlan may not be the example to follow.
Admittedly her Ministerial experiences have been in Agriculture and Social & Family Affairs – two “management” Departments that give little scope for policy dynamism. One area, however, she’s targeted diligently has been the undermining of the rights of gay people. As Minister for Social and Family affairs in March 2004, she attempted to introduce legislation withdrawing protections and rights from gay partners under an amendment to Social Welfare legislation. The amendment would have defined the word “spouse” solely in terms of opposite sex relationships. Also in 2004, Minister Coughlan took it upon herself to tell a European Union conference on Family and Social policy that Ireland would never be ready for same-sex marriage or gay adoption. “Ever” is a very long time, obviously Minister Coughlan had foresight denied to us who had been foolishly campaigning for just that.
The question is whether it’s right to have a Táiniste that has repeatedy tried to undermine the rights of a minority group in the country they govern? Obviously discrimination against gay people is no impediment to progress in this government.
Finally, as an addendum – isn’t it depressing that we have a Taoiseach, Táiniste and Minister for Finance who are inheritors of their father’s seats? Is this what you need for the sticking power needed for high office, a guaranteed seat because of your name, so you can concentrate on climbing the Ministerial ladder?
Last Wednesday I attended a screening of "Citizen Havel" (Obcan Havel), a kind of pen-picture of the 8 year latter Presidency of Václav Havel. The access granted to the film crew was amazing, and the backroom dealing and power relationships that were shown, didn't need translation as they were clear in body movements alone!
Playwrite & politician - Václav Havel
However, the humanity of Václav Havel was the element that made this film great. Private moments of doubt and delight were scattered through the film; poignant moments were shared, such as his arranging the flowers over the coffin of his first wife, his being remarried and his agonised decision about whether to run again for office.
It was in the context of this decision that he quoted one of his own plays; "those who truly value democracy cannot understand it, leaving it to those who do not value democracy to define it" (quote may not be exact - from memory). Perhaps that's why politics has been so unresponsive to people's real earnest needs. Can we really say that we get a chance to elect people who truly value democracy and the will of the people rather than secretly resenting it? Where are the people that truly value democracy and why is our system driving them away?
This book singlehandedly changed me from a dyed-in-the-wool Clintonite to an Obamaniac...
Audacity of Hope - Barack Obama
In a political world where shafting, lying and manipulation are seen as skills, this was the first political biography I think I've ever read where I felt the author was absolutely honest; not only about his positive/good points but also about his weaknesses. I really learned so much from it, about how human weakness affects a candidate, about how the influence of money slowly seeps into the mind of a politician and how one's humanity must be brought to his job to counter this potentially negative influence. More than anything, he struck me as being the embodiment of a progressive (but not naive) politician and extraordinarily aware, both of himself and of others. His two-sentence description of George Bush ("I had found the President to be a likable man, shrewd and disciplined but with the same straightforward manner that had helped him win two elections; you could easily imagine him owning the local car dealership down the street, coaching Little League, and grilling in his backyard--the kind of guy who would make for good company so long as the conversation revolved around sports and the kids.") is I think it's a better pen-picture description of the man than anything I've ever come across.
Originally I was a strong Hillary supporter (I even bought the t-shirt!). I couldn't warm to Obama - I felt his comments about talking to the Iranian President were naive and also Hillary was so good to Ireland (she even visited Doolin - a woman of taste!) but after reading this book I cannot but be certain that Obama would be a masterful and potentially transformatory President of the United States. I believe his election and subsequently his open style of government could awaken a sense of civic participation the world over in people and lead to many great achievements that have proved elusive for the last generation. The Bible says "Cometh the hour, cometh the man" - I'm sorry it can't be a woman, but for the here and now, Obama is the man.
(There is an entertaining short extract here: http://jacquelinekam.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!713D0CCEAEBEE05!2108.entry)
One of the politicians I have campaigned for, worked for and really admire as a politician is Senator Paschal Donohoe (Fine Gael) of Dublin Central (below). He diligently worked a 2 1/2 year Election campaign from the day he got elected to Dublin City Council and was barely beaten by a candidate that won a third of Paschal's first preferences - in the process beating candidates like (ex-MEP) Patricia McKenna and (current MEP) Mary-Lou McDonald.
Senator Paschal Donohoe.
But what I admire most about him politically, was his idealism tinged with a business based practicality, combined with a constant desire to seek consensus and the best posssible solution in any conflict situation. I feel these are traits possessed by a new generation of young politician who are appearing in almost every Member State in the European Union. It is fascinating to examine the very similar characteristics and outlooks this generation of politician possess, suggesting that the influence of globalisation and cultural convergence may be finding its way into politics and Government of our countries. It is striking, for example that that an Italian is now the French First Lady, Stubb is married to a British citizen, as is Denmark’s opposition leader and that the British Foreign secretary has an American wife. Newsweek magazine examined this in its January 21st edition and it drew a number of similarities that it saw between the next generation of politicians. It stated that “They are more technocratic, more global in outlook, more comfortable with technology, more idealistic and yet less ideological and invested in old debates. They are also international in a way most of their parent’s generation was not.” Can this new generation of politicians transform the European Union in the next number of years?
Younger politicians (say those under 45 years old) have a different set of experiences than those who are currently in power. Most for example would not have been part of the social revolutions of the sixties and seventies that defined political divisions (divisively) for the past 30 years.
It is suggested in this same article that younger leaders have moved beyond these damaging divisions to come to a consensus that thought “there is widespread support for a state-provided social safety net…there is a realisation that current benefits and tax systems that support them have become overly burdensome and must be reformed”. With 46 year old Barak Obama having a great chance to be America’s next President and 42 year old Dmitry Medvedev taking over this year as President of Russia (and Paschal with hard work I'm sure will make it into the Dáíl (Parliament) next election) – perhaps it’s time for a younger and perhaps truly revolutionary set of younger politicians to take charge.
(A modified version of this Article may be published in the European Stagiaire's Journal - Backstage in May 2008)
This video broke my heart. It’s the tortured innocence that young gay people experience every day that makes me be more out about me being gay than I feel comfortable with at times, so that maybe I can change things slightly for these children growing up. Yesterday when in Amsterdam I saw a young gay couple (late school-going age) who were out to dinner. Though I felt delight at seeing this for the first time ever (I think!), what I mostly felt was a terrible pain that I couldn’t have had those experiences growing up. Hopefully in the next generation, when kids get to adolescence they will be told that it’s ok to like anyone you want (even if they don’t like you back, sometimes) and nobody will be killed for asking someone to be their valentine.
Ireland and the League of Nations, 1919-1946: International Relations, Diplomacy and Politcs - Michael Kennedy.
The legacy of the League of Nations on the development of Ireland's Foreign Policy is an area that is fascinating for me due to it's continuing impace on Ireland Foreign Policy outlook today. In this book I gained a great insight into what we balance an active internationalism that sees us currently having troops in Kosovo and Chad with a neutrality that isolates us in the world.
Coming out of a distracting Civil War, Ireland initially gave little attention to the League, however when Desmond Fitzgerald became Minister for External Affairs, Ireland entered the League (with the assent of Great Britain) and began defining her Foreign policy as one of internationalism, standing by the idealistic aims of the League Convention and pusing forward the rights of small nations against the Great Powers. It led the break away from the dependence that the then Dominions had on Great Britain in the League, that was typified by the election of Canada to the League Council in 1927 and Ireland in 1930. Irish diplomats (including Sean Lester, the last Secretary-General of the League of Nations from 1940-1946) played a very active role in solving many disputes in the 1920s and early 1930s.
As an interesting aside, one of the positions of the Irish delegations was maintaining the ability of under-developed States to develop some industries with protectionist tariffs, against the prevailing Free-trade agenda of the day, a policy that would be very helpful to follow today in underdeveloped countries in Africa. The inability of the League to solve the Italian-Abyssinian issue, however lead to the erosion of confidence in the League and the author traces a growing isolationism and retreat to neutrality by the Irish delegations, lead by DeVelera.
It began to become clear that Ireland would not be involved in the coming war. However the Author posits the interesting question of whether Ireland would have been involved if WWII had been a League-led war instead of a war lead by the then "Great Powers" of Great Britain, France and latterly Russia and the U.S. I feel its apparent devotion to the aims of the League would have meant that it would. However, in the end, Ireland retreated to isolationism and it was 1955 before it came onto the International stage again when it joined the U.N. It is sad to read the last 1/3 of the book as it traces the decline of the League and Ireland’s retreat into isolationism. It is interesting to see how WWII, a war I always saw as moral, was really a kind of grubby Great Powers war, leading up to which smaller powers were justifiably worried that their sovereignty being trampled upon. Our geography and neutrality meant that we were not invaded; however you had to feel sorry for active League members such as Czechlosovakia who hadn’t the option that Ireland had. I was reading it at the same time as I attended a Forum on Europe discussion lead by former President of Latvia Dr. Vaira Vike-Freiberga where a similar point was made that Latvia had tried neutrality but that it had led to two successive foreign occupations of her country, by German and Soviet forces. She defended Latvia’s NATO against some of the more isolationist voices in the Forum stating that NATO membership and its common defense provision was a no-brainer in these circumstances. Eventually the podcast of the debate will be at this link – if you get a chance to listen, go to the last 20 minutes which is a fascinating insight into how Latvians see the world and a strong rebuff to some of Ireland’s more idealistic isolationists.
The legacy of the balance that Ireland struck in the League between internationalism and isolationism is, I believe still defining our Foreign Policy today. Reading this book and listening to Dr. Vike-Freiberga has given me the insight me that we have been lucky in having the ability to pursue this balance.
President of Pakistan - Pervez Musharraf's acknowledged yesterday that he is now undertaking the role of Presidnet in a caretaker capacity and this is to be welcomed. Even though this is mainly just a technicality as he has replaced with loyalists the uncooperative Supreme Court who will ultimately make the decision on the legality of his recently received second mandate, the fact that he still recognises this and his government has siad here that he is now acting in a caretaker capacity as President gives some hope for the future of democracy and the rule of law in Pakistan.
Musharraf is not one’s typical idea of a dictator. He seems to want the understanding and acceptance (and maybe the love) of the West for the course he feels he has been forced to take. He disarmingly appeared on Sky News a couple of days ago sating “The day when there is no turmoil in Pakistan, I will step down…I am not a dictator, I want a democracy”. Also with his recent autobiography - In the line of fire, he made numerous appearances on a number of American talk shows including the Tonight Show with Jon Stewart, seeming folksy and eager to please. Among the more interesting quotes from the autobiography are “a true leader will always be loved by his people; they will be prepared to follow him, not because of his rank or position but because of their rank and esteem for him”. He was also informed us that he had been told by a former top ranking Mr. Universe that “I had a most muscular physique” and also gave us the insight that “I prefer small dogs” (These quotes comes via a very insightful comment piece about the man by Steve Cole in the New Yorker magazine).
Yet the impression that's come across to me that perhaps he’s overcompensating for the fact that his mother didn’t hug him enough as a child is perhaps too facile. After all, the U.S. have given either $10 billion (Wall Street Journal on 9th November - Jay Solomon) or $11 billion depending on your source in aid since the events of 9/11, much of which has gone to the military probably for their continued support for the regime. Indeed so anxious was Musharraf to avoid the withdrawal of finding that he “called the chairmen of the Senate and House foreign-relations committees to explain his actions” and also “dispatched a top legal adviser to Washington and New York to meet with media and think thanks, and stress the potential dangers of cutting support for his government” (Wall Street Journal on 9th November - Jay Solomon).
Unfortunately, even though, as Seumas Milne states in the Guardian withdrawal of this aid would probably topple Musharraf and possibly restore democracy, the fact remains that he his now head of a volatile county and the last thing the U.S. desires is to introduce more instability. Questioning the he value of his continued rule is valid, however - Pakistan has gone from a putative bulkwark against jihadist terror as George W. had hoped, to a place where most of al-Qaida operatives are now trained in the largely uncontrolled mountain border area with Afghanistan.
Milne also notes that a human tragedy underlies all of this, including the fact that “a third of its 160 million people go hungry and 44% are living below the poverty line" and it is a place where "half the population is illiterate and barely one in two girls goes to school”. Very few people are gaining from this situation, perhaps the newly laundered whiter-than-white from her previous corruption links, Benazir Bhutto, perhas al-Quida but many millions in Pakistan again bear the brunt of political instability and mismanagement.
