Picture by Theen Moy
Watching the debate on Spotlight I have to ask did either of the two main Unionist politicians answer any question on local issues without just trying to point score against SF? Did any of the political parties offer fresh new solutions to local issues?
When discussing the issue of the health service Mike Nesbitt and Gregory Campbell claim the issue of welfare reform has affected the budget available for it. Surely the problems raised have not just sprung up overnight so why blame the Nationalist parties, SF in particular, because they oppose welfare cuts? Nesbitt also said “Let’s run it over 7 days, it will be more effective as a business” yet didn’t properly address the question from the floor about the assembly working 7 days a week by saying he works 7 days a week. Hmmm. So all the hospitals close on a Saturday and Sunday! Is that pretend nurses and doctors working in them on weekends? Then how long have the DUP held this portfolio yet now they look to blame SF? I wonder if doctors behaved the way the DUP health ministers have done, would they be allowed to keep their job?
On the issue of politicians being too old a number of valid points were raised but notable for her performance on the night was Claire Hanna, showing the SDLP that perhaps they would be better off without only sticking to old / middle aged men, she came across much better than other debates I’ve seen her in. We can all agree that in any job sector a mix of young and old is ideal to bring fresh ideas, experience, innovation and wisdom; politics should be no different if the politicians are there for the people and not themselves. The most depressing thing was to see the focus of unionists on the recent 2 deaths attributed to republicans. I doubt unionists really care, this for them is just another way to destabilise having to share power with SF, as if they really did care about the use of violence why then have they been so quiet about loyalist murders and continued criminal activity in the very areas they represent? Lecturing SF is all fine and well but surely hypocritical when they happily stand shoulder to shoulder with loyalist murderers on platforms and excuse their violence around the issue of the ‘fleg’ and parades blaming others such as the Alliance party or Parades Commission. That said it’s interesting to hear SF say these murders were criminal acts yet as Campbell pointed out surely this was the same case over 20 years ago, it will be interesting to see how SF handle the forthcoming independent report (independent but based on PSNI information) if it goes against them considering they have said there is no more political policing. Maybe we should have an age expiration date on political lives after all form this debate and all the other ones and all the crises we’ve witnessed this current lot won’t deal properly with the past so they can move on with the present social and economic issues and create the future they all claim they want for us.
The main thing that stood out was their attitude towards the issue of education and underachievement amongst working class Protestant boys. Nesbitt appeared to blame it all on the fact SF has held the education portfolio since the start of the Assembly whilst Campbell criticised O’Dowd for scrapping the signature project which O’Dowd created and was a success. I’d agree the money isn’t there and choices have to be made on budgets but perhaps our politicians on all sides would like to actually step in to a classroom and teach for a few weeks to see the issues before coming up with such brain waves as they do. Education like health should not be used as the political football it is. The two main unionist parties still view the need for academic selection but yet haven’t offered a clear vision on how it should now work or indeed how kids should be assessed later. Nesbitt was quick to say OFMDFM haven’t spent money and should be held to account yet what has his party done then to check SF and their fears on education? It can be argued that the main unionist politicians don’t really care about the working classes they would much rather them believe there are vast differences between the two communities and keep them believing ‘them’uns’ have more, as heaven forbid Protestants got educated and started asking them questions about how they truly represent them!
Then they finished by looking at questions with an international dimension; refugees and nuclear weapons. It’s funny how much they all agreed on these issues and could offer solutions and ideas but on domestic local issues merely wanted to play the blame game. Perhaps we don’t just need young new politicians but more importantly a new approach and new type of politics.
Why no comment on Mairia Cahill’s performance on Spotlight? She was excellent, refreshing and articulate.
We are all of course entitled to our opinion Orfhlaith but I can’t say I agree with yours regarding Mairia Cahill. Can I ask what you found “refreshing” about her?
In my opinion she contributed little. She seemed overly dependent on her notes and I don’t recall her making any points that I thought offered a fresh perspective on any of the issues raised. In fact on a number of occasions she pretty much just went along with what her friend Clare Hanna said.
I’m not saying her performance was terrible but I certainly don’t think it’s deserving of some of the praise she has received for it.
I’d say articulate yes but I’d have expected more from her as regards challenging others.
I like to see politicians challenged and as Cahill herself is now a member of the Labour party I’d like to see her challenged too.
I’d like to see someone challenge her on her journey from Sinn Fein to RNU to the ‘Irish’ Labour party. Quite the journey I’m sure we’d all agree and I wonder is she just a gun for hire or does she have a political ideology so to speak?
She’s made a lot of noise regarding her allegations of rape, an unwanted IRA investigation into it and political cover up. Many have been extremely eager to take her on her word alone and accept all allegations as fact in spite of the fact that her alleged abuser was found not guilty in a court of law. I’d like to see her challenged on some of this.
Why was she sending such warmly written letters to Breige Wright, thanking her for all her kindnesses if Breige Wright was part of an IRA unit who coerced her into an investigation that she didn’t want? I believe in one or two of these letters she was inviting Wright up to hers for cups of tea. A strange offer to make to someone who along with others allegedly subjected her to the horrible ordeal of an unwanted investigation into her alleged rape.
I’ve heard that Cahill was herself spoken to by police under caution in relation to an allegation made by Catherine McCartney that she was harassed by Cahill. Now I don’t know whether or not she was guilty of harassing Catherine McCartney (I like the concept of being innocent until proven guilty) but considering how Cahill has been quite vocal in claiming she’s a victim of online harassment then perhaps this allegation should have been more closely scrutinised?
Orflaith and others may see her as “refreshing” which is their right. I guess I see her as akin to the likes of Ruth Dudley Edwards, someone with an intense hatred of SF and this hatred will be expressed and aired on a regular basis (often on the pages of a Sunday Independent).
Maybe it is because of the fractured nature of politics here that all the ministers seem to think that their briefs are unattached and have no influence on the outworking of life here. Hence we have the unionists parties saying that the challenges in the health service are the fault of nationalists wanting to protect welfare.
They really need to try and bring cohesion to the art of government here and break away from the silo mentality currently in place. It should be obvious even to the Poots of this parish that health and welfare are two faces of the same coin. People who are poor tend to have more illnesses than those who are well off, cutting welfare to those already poor will make matters worse for the Health service. I suppose this a Winter we will see hospitals overcrowded, wards closed, patients dying in corridors as old people and the poor can’t afford to either eat or heat.
Of course, for the most part the unionists and the unionists lite, tend to favour the Tory economic policy of austerity for the poor and enrichment of the already rich but one could also contend that there is a wee dose of sectarianism in backing welfare cuts, since the majority of those needing will be Catholic and nationalist, as for the poor Prods, well they don’t really care for them any way.
“Of course, for the most part the unionists and the unionists lite, tend to favour the Tory economic policy of austerity for the poor and enrichment of the already rich but one could also contend that there is a wee dose of sectarianism in backing welfare cuts, since the majority of those needing will be Catholic and nationalist, as for the poor Prods, well they don’t really care for them any way”
I believe the unionist parties see this as a sacrifice worth paying to remain a part of the UK.
They know that england is not going to indefinitely continue forking out 10 billion per year just so they can fly their flag on to some irish turf and have been told in no uncertain terms that is the case.
I believe all of the parties here do care for the protestant working class after all they do ask for their votes, but the unionist parties have decided it is a sacrifice worth paying.
Not so sure about the alliance party, they seem to just believe and do whatever they are told and apparently will happily switch from british to irish should the time come, I suppose so long as they get to be involved they are happy.
The problem is, not all of the unionist working class might be happy with such a sacrifice and the nationalist community certainly wont be. I dont like using religion to identify communities here, national identity should be open to all of our people regardless their religion or what community they grew up in.
I certainly believe there is a lack of honesty and openness over this. If Scotland can demand more then surely a society emerging from conflict would be expected to demand more again.
I believe the compromise will be additional money in the form of some of the policing costs and other expenses directly associated with the past being invoiced directly to england, a dropping of the fantasy fines (these were never going to be paid and are basically the longer it takes to reach agreement the bigger this pot will be as part of the negotiations) and long term loans available to which they can do what they want with.
I wonder had the unionist parties stood shoulder to shoulder with nationalists demanding the 1.5 billion cuts to the block grant are too much too soon, would we have got anywhere?
I suppose we will never know now.
An interesting point Jessica as regards this being a sacrifice Unionists happy to make to stay in UK but I still question how much they care about working classes, just because they ask for their votes doesn’t mean they actually do for example the Tories will campaign in working class areas but we’d be kidding ourselves if they care about the issues and people of those areas. I’d also question how much any political party cares about what we would call working class areas as so many are still suffering severe social and economic problems.
maybe having people who are qualified to take up the posts would be a start,
Do you mean like the daughter of a convicted loyalist gun runner?
no,a 1/2 dozen direct rule people could be running the show for a place this size,its a laughing stock the world over.
I think you have point Billy in fact people need some qualifications especially when it comes to departments they run it would be of help. As for direct rule it would stop the arguments and indecisions but then would we regret the decisions that are made even more. Sherdy it seems that appointment has caused more problems and bad press than those in power anticipated, if the press and TUV are to be believed rather than her father’s history it seems the main issue to consider was her husband’s involvement in Nama as a civil servant.
I think very few people are qualified in politics – or education, for that matter. I’m talking in politics about the brief people have – cabinets get ‘reshuffled’ and there’s no visible link, very often, between the background of the Minister and the brief s/he holds. That doesn’t mean they can’t do a good job but that’s how it is – little qualification on show. Ditto in education: really good teachers get promoted out of the classroom into administration, which is a totally different kettle of worms. I’m a part-disciple of the Peter Principle: people get promoted until they reach their Level of Incompetency, then they stop there.
Indeed Jude but where they don’t at least they should have civil servants with relevant qualifications / experience to support them or get advice from experts and listen to it. I believe there is a number of cases where ministers have ignored specialist advice and the department committees at Stormont to just do their own thing. As bad as they have been here in people’s minds the politicians have nothing on Gove and his time as secretary of Education.
As someone who was in the studio, what struck me most was the total separation between the esteemed panel of talking heads ( politicians everyone) & the audience.
The panel were paraded in just before recording began led by the Chief Inquisitor, Noel Thompson and they were paraded out at the end before any member of public would have an opportunity to talk further with them. None of the esteemed panel showed any interest in breaking with their minders & slumming with the plebs when the cameras were nt on them.
I thought it was a fitting representation of our political culture where affairs of state are transacted in the big white palace on the hill suitability well removed from the masses. A TV studio brought the masses uncomfortably close, but thankfully it all passed without any unseemly encounters.