A politician died on TV last night – did you see it? Of course he may have been dead for the past two years and we didn’t notice, but last night delivered the definitive verdict: Basil McCrea is dead.
I mean, of course, dead as a politician. He was caught up in the explosion (or was it an implosion?) on the electoral launch-pad in May of 2014. Two days before the European and local elections, allegations of sexual misconduct were made against Mr McCrea by an NI21 party worker. There was a roaring sound, the patter of political feet scampering away from the scene of the explosion, and Basil McCrea found his political existence on life-support. Last night on BBC NI’s The View, Mark Carruthers switched off the life-support.
It was like watching that film of JFX getting shot: you knew what was coming but you couldn’t take your eyes off it. Basil declared that the report had found him not guilty of the charges against him, and that the woman involved had lied; Mark Carruthers wanted to know what then did happen in Basil’s hotel room between 5.30 and 7.30 pm that evening. Basil did his best to dance away from the question, but then the presenter made his question more pointed: “Did you have consensual sex with that party worker – Yes or No?” It was awful. Basil said he wanted a drink of water and took it. He affected impatience with Carruthers, accusing him of effectively rolling his eyes when off-camera. He said he’d been exonerated by the investigation. But he still looked like a man desperately trying to conceal information that would damage him, and in doing so inflicted terminal damage on himself. Mark switched off the life-support machine and moved on to talk about something completely different.
In a way that should and probably will be the end of it. The idea of Basil McCrea, once a poll-topper, running under the NI21 banner in May would be laughable if it weren’t so sad. But here’s the thing: was Carruthers right to ask the question in the first place?
The Sunderland footballer Alan Johnson has found himself caught in a similar bind: should matters of sexual morality feature in judgements on a person’s ability to pursue his/her chosen career? Johnson has been found guilty of sex with a young girl and his life as a professional footballer is over. In fact he’s going to jail. Basil McCrea hasn’t been found guilty of anything so brutal, but because he was clearly embarrassed by the public questions about his sexual life, his career as a politician is over.
To be blunt, I think that’s unfair. I know people claim that footballers need to be models in their off- and on-field behaviour for young boys and girls; but surely the same doesn’t apply to politicians? Whatever abilities McCrea had as a politician when he topped the poll, he still has. But the media – in this case The View – and the general public will see to it that his sexual activities, or non-answering of questions about his sexual activities, have damaged him fatally.
Basil McCrea has brought this on himself; Mark Carruthers simply administered the coup de grace. Decades ago, when Bernadette Devlin announced that she would be having a child out of wedlock, her political career was mortally damaged. I never thought then and I don’t think now that her private life should have been used to judge her professional life. And seedy and evasive as the Basil McCrea affair may have been, I don’t think it should be used to end McCrea’s political life. But it will.
Footnote: before you decide McCrea deserves everything he’s got coming to him, spare a thought for a man called Charles Stewart Parnell and a woman called Kitty O’Shea.
Burning issues
NI 21 will go down in the history books as a cross community party. Be that as it may, but what about the the body politic? A disinterested observer might query the lack of forensic investigation into the NAMA debacle. Let us recall that while the ‘fixers’ were at their work, the Tories were telling the electorate that there was no more money for welfare reform. What priority is being given to prison reform in the wake of scathing reports on the prevailing culture in prisons? To date experts in health care have not being given a role in the complex issue of foetal abnormality and to make matters worse, health care staff continue to bear the brunt of unprovoked attacks as they attempt to provide care in hospitals and in the community. Priorities for broadcasting this past week had more to do with a plaque in a police station and pallets for pyres.
Seems like a fair amount of political skullduggery was going on within NI21, if today’s interview with Tina McKenzie is anything to go by. There’s probably more a lot more to this story than we are privy to, but it’s difficult to see any way back for Basil from here. The shame is that any efforts to normalize politics in the north appear to get strangled at birth.
Interesting though how homophobia, misogyny and outright racism never seem to end the careers of DUP politicians though, isn’t it? As LAD posted on Twitter the other day –
‘There comes a stage when you realise that people must vote for the DUP *because* of their xenophobic, homophobic bigotry, not in spite of it’
I disagree with you ,Jude, that a person’s private and public life should be kept apart especially in matters of honesty. If a man is a known liar/thief/bully in his private life then it will indisputably be carried over to his public life. Unfortunately a reasonably honest man can be led astray when he enters politics as the prizes grow bigger and juicier but in general the leopard does not change his spots.
What about a brain surgeon, Fiosrach. Supposing you’d Surgeon A who was classed top of the list for his/her skills but had a reputation as a bit of a womaniser/slut, and Surgeon B who was very average at the surgical skills but had an impeccable record as a father/mother, Boy Scout leader, philanthropist, etc. Which would you like to do your head??
But saying something went wrong, who would be more likely to cover up?
Both of them. Surgeons always blame the anesthesiologist.
In that case you would have been buried, and unable to take any further interest.
I agree Dr C.
In my local ‘town’ there is/was a anaesthetist of ill repute.
By that I mean he was a hell-raiser in the pub, was banned from EVERY drinking establishment at the time (13+ pubs) and nearly had his front teeth removed courtesy of my uncle’s fist (an achievement in itself as my uncle’s list of enemies was remarkably low by Irish standards).
Yet, said anaesthetist was highly regarded in his field even if it meant that the local hospital had to trail him out of pubs a mere hour before the operation.
I think we’re entering (or have entered) a very boring era of professionalism.
In the meantime I’ll prefer to have my teeth removed by a part-time cabaret singer, my car serviced by an alcoholic and my plumbing served by a deviant. Anything to offset the current fashion of blandisation.
Some of the best oilfield engineers I know are alcoholic whoremongers, but their bosses are clueless straight-edgers.
Anyhoo, with regards to Basil, I shan’t comment too much as I’m curious as to the outcome. I was a big believer in NI21 and I think their passing marks yet another tragic watermark in NI’s blighted history.
So tragic I suggested it looked fishy to John McCallister. He was adamant it was cock-up, if that’s the word I want…
Yes, Am Ghob …Out with the blandishments of the bland..Mind ..i just watched Basil on that “the View” and I have to say the man did himself no favours and Mark Carruthers gave him plenty of chances to either hang himself or be hanged. There was the sound of a dead parrot meeting with a counter-top.i still have plenty of time for John McAllister , mind, but sadly there are not enough men like him around .
How to be a successful politician and never get caught?
Jeremy Paxman’s view was ..”Why is this lying bastard lying to me?” …whereas John Humphries approach was different in that he said “I don’t believe politicians are liars. Most are pretty admirable people. I wouldn’t do their job. It is horrendously difficult. And we need them.”He also said :
“How do you get democracy if you don’t have politicians? You end up with Russell Brand. Fine. I’ll be on the next boat out.”
My view would be somewhere between those two extremes. I have an inherent mistrust of the political animal ..a unique creature who strives for the glamour of power and then assumes that it is his or her entitlement to keep it forever.
I’ve said before , a politician is an odd critter to begin with.To be a successsful one , he’ll have to be as slippery as an eel ; be able to answer a question with another question without the questioner being distracted, or even realising that it’s like a magician’s trick of misdirection. If he’s cornered he needs to be able to lie and bite like a weasel and protect himself by downing his political enemies and wearing down his interrogators. He needs to know how to disguise his weaknesses.
Why would a person choose that kind of life ?
They might want to improve society in a benign way or they might simply want” a nice little earner “where the hardest thing they’ll be asked to do is debate very well. Sometimes we’ll find a great debater but most of the time we’ll be confronted with a succession of dullards.Should their sexual proclivities be a factor in their doing a good job? No more so than anyone else really.The footballer caught with the fifteen year old girl is the latest example. His football skills are still the same but unless you were a sixteen year old boy , you might find his action’s very creepy and it was also thankfully illegal in our society .Had he lived in another society the rules might be different….somewhere where they think it is perfectly alright to marry off your ten year-old daughter to some aged paedophile as also happens .What about the priest recently caught sniffing coke ?Would that maybe make him more knowledgeable about some aspects of the modern world? it’s an illegal act but thousands obviously carry on indulging …obviously some of his friends and parishioners. Does it make him less skilled at his job or morally as bad as his followers?
Morality in Norneverland is a very odd thing in any case. Many living here have been raised in a Christian ethos but can easily set that aside when it comes to hating their fellow- man. We’ve got racists , bigots , homophobes by the barrowfull here . Can you be a Christian and also join an extreme grouping which hates your neighbour? Many find no problem in doing that double-think. We have built walls to separate us .We live in divided communities but we have no problem saying we are morally right.
Can Basil McCrea recover from this latest adventure? I doubt it. That kind of thing put President Clinton out of office even though he was one of the most mesmerising speakers and communicators on the planet .The bottom line is that we all know we are fallable creatures but we hope that those that we elected to represent us can rise above our slack morality and be better than that. They very rarely are.
True
It boils both down (and up) to a question of figures, Esteemed Blogmeister, when it comes to a politician’s future becoming toast.
Down here in the economically sophisticated and numerically non-pareil Free Southern Stateen the Armani-suited and hirsuted Gerry Adams / Gearoid Mac Adaimh, signed his own debt warrant when he betrayed his weakness once again, on TV progammes, eve after eve, for figures.
(The one thing G.A. has not been accused of, btw, and even though Adamh is the leprechaun for atom, is of being in possession of an atom bomb. Yet.)
Up there in Norneverland it seems that Basil McCrea was shown up to have a similar weakness though for a dissimilar type of figures. Though, curiously enough, both sets of different figures feature, erm, bottom lines.
Interestingly, EB, you namechecked a politician whose weakness for one kind of figures was matched, indeed, if not surpassed ,by his frailty for the other sort of figures. As Nylons Nolan has been only too willing to attest.
Who, NN?
This Fine figure of a northside Dublin Gael/ gal with a southsoide Dublin awcent and whose initials bore testimony to her fabled ability to make, erm, N’S meet, was one of the elite who were either invited or contrived to be invited to meet and greet JFK (for it was he !) at a garden party on the lawn of Aras an Uachtarain or the Vice-regal Lodge in June, 1963. (As the Anglophile guest of honour would no doubt have preferred to refer to it, as.)
-Say no more, Seymour.
As for the case of Charles Steward Parnell and Kitty O Shea while it might well appear to be a , erm, straight forward, open and shut , straight down the middle kinda case involving a fine figure of a female, nonetheless there is an alternative point of view.
Bean Counters (the BCs who can AD up) might well posit the numerical theory that (a daaarlin’ word posit, Joxer) as the surname of the Floozy Q. in q. is akin to the leprechaun for six (Se) the sum of the two parts in this sex affair combine both types of figures, including bodily parts. And that is to leave the leprechaun for Woman (Bean) totally out of the equal –opportunity equation
The same might even hold more milk and water in the uncanny20 th century re-enactment of the 19th century cause celebre, when a different Chas played the role of the other Chas. The part of Kitty was taken by the extremely keen Terry.
The latter edgy affair gave rise to an immortal phrase in that massive mass-market organ of record, the Sindo:
-A terrible cutie is longhorn.
So buoyant indeed was this extra-marital boy meet girl romance with the x-factor that one of the social secretaries of a particularly discreet and street wise disposition, in the then Taoiseach’ office was specifically charged a particular task. A task of juggling dates, checking menus, booking tables, gourmet restaurants, ungodly hours, very, fine wines, chauffeur rosters, sudden cancellations, eleventh hour changes of venue, that sorta clandestine thingy.
The main bone of contention in these sotto voce phone calls from the private office of CJH (for it was he !) was: Le Coq Hardi in Ballsbridge, Dublin 4 or Armstrong’s Barn in Annamoe, Wicklow 4. Romeo preferred one, Juliet’s preference was for the other. (Or, t’udder, in Peter Alliss-speak).
Though which was which in this tacky though tragic Eachai – Hackette short lived and tear-filled flingy thingy of a mere 27 years is a snitch-free zone.
Ironically, it was not for this all too human weakness of the Ard-Flesh which caused the downfall of The Horseman of the Hooded Eyes from his high political horse. Rather was it the certified accountant’s failure to reign in the run-away figures of the other ilk.
-Thank you, big boy.
Balance sheets, rather than bed sheets. Sums, rather than bums.
Chuaigh se sa toir, b’fheidir, ar an or mi-cheart.
It figures.
–
–
Bravo, Maestro! Or do I mean Provo, Mister? After much mental toing and froing and much bodily biting of nails, including those on my toes, the cigar today goes to “(The one thing G.A. has not been accused of, btw, and even though Adamh is the leprechaun for atom, is of being in possession of an atom bomb. Yet.” A darlin’ word, yet.
That must rate as your most lubricious entree yet ,Oh Mighty Perk …and that was before I even got to Alfred E. Neuman does Yeats….”A terrible cutie is longhorn” …indeed…. Man oh man!
Perkin
Are you actually Ronnie Barker?!!! I thought you were dead!!!
Nobody ever accused one of being the l. g., Ronnie Barker before, so one is deeply honoured.
GRMMA, Am Ghobsmacht, a chara.
Despite the fact that there has been, down through the centuries, a long and dishonourable tradition of barkers nesting in the various branches of the Warbeck family tree (at least till the dreaded Dutch Elm disease did its worst) all doing what barkers do best: trying to attract passing putative patrons to their -faute de mieux – ‘entertainments’.
Notice boxes, one and all. One also regrets to say one is not even distantly related to RB, even through, erm, morridge.
We Warbecks have always taken no little pride in our twin tradition of being as clean-shaven as we are clean-living which means there has never even been a ronnie in the family. And a detailed study of the family portrait gallery (which includes a Gainsborough, a Reynolds and even a Warhol – recall the Rolling Stone cover – ‘Warhol does Warbeck’?) will bear this bareness of face out.
Alright, there is a hint of a five o clock shadow hanging over one of the portraits commissioned in the 18TH century (was it the George Stubbs?) but there are two mitigating factors at play here: the equine-featured ‘Lady’ Warbeck with the hint of a ronnie who features in the charcoal drawing – she was no oil-painting, for sure – was bogus, a mere pretender to the Warbeck name.
The reason for this shame on the name was on account of the indisputable fact that the P. Warbeck in q. departed from the family norm in that he was, sadly, given to dissolution. Though he might not have been clean-living, as the merest perfunctory perusal of the portrait will reveal he still wished to cling, with religious fervor, to the Warbeckian tradish of being clean-shaven.
On his death certificate , in florid 18th century calligraphy, is thus written: ‘He dyed as he liveth, a bare-faced lawyer’.
Thus, no ronnies in the Warbeck line, not even through, erm, morridge.
Indeed, despite the racking of what one is still pleased to call one’s brain, the only slight connection, remote thought it be, is that both he and me both had the odd, erm, stab at the poetic form known as the Limerick.
And even then, as a quick perusal will verify, this contrasting ability of each at stability, makes even that connection seem all the remoter. (Or, the more remoters in DJ speak) .
Judge for yourself.
In private, Ronnie Barker annotated ‘A Book of Nonsense’ by Edward Lear, penning punch lines of his own for each limerick. On the title page he wrote:
There was an old fossil named Lear
Whose verses were boring and drear
His last lines were worst
Just the same as the first
So I’ve tried to improve on them here.
Now, consider, if one feels up to it, the following by y.t. P.W.:
The reason one’s lines are so lumpy
Is not just because one is so grumpy
It’s because Quaker’s
Breeds windbreakers
Who know f-all bout d’art of, um, p.
It’s a well known and verifiable fact that Ronnie Barker was a secret consumer of Flahavan’s Progress Oatlets and was, sadly, like Titus Oates himself, to become even progressively more addicted during his life-long life. Including that period he spent behind as well as in front of, bars. Thus, not only are we not related by morridge, neither are we, sadly, by even (gulp) porridge.
So, Am Ghobsmacht a chara, It’s good morning from me, and it’s maidin ar doigh from him.
Him, in this instance , being the gentlemanly R. Corbett. And who, given his diminutive dimensions and Howlin-like proclivity for lordly language may even has essayed his hand at the luimneach in leprechaun. The form having originated with Fili na Maighe / Poets of the Maigue in Croom, County Limerick, during the 18th century. (see above).
Not wishing to be vague, one mentions the two progenitors of the form, Sean O Tuama, publican and Aindrias Mac Craith, a lush verifier/ a versifying lush. Bhiodar an-chairdiuil lena cheile / They were best buddies until there was a falling out. A dispute pertaining to the question as to which of the pair was the better customer of the publican.
Not uninterestingly perhaps the most poignant line to appear in all the 37 plays (and counting) by The Great Shakes was that uttered by (gasp) Sir Andrew Maigue-cheek in ‘Twelfth Night’ (even though 12 into 37 doesn’t go):
-I was adored once too.
A line which is as prophetic as it is poignant when applied to the little-regarded File na Maighe in the Limerick of Morning-hatted Noon-an. About whom, who can deny there is something truly of the, erm , Knight?
One imagines R. Corbett , the one not behind bars, cobbling together a limerick in leprechaun about Leite which is the l. for Porridge. And which the protean though perplexing lexicographer, Fr. Dineen, SJ., cruelly defined as ‘gruel’.
While also ladling out the following, Oliver, leite bhui as’ Indian-meal stirabout ‘and leite bhan as ‘oat-meal stirabout’.
IS CUMA
Gach uile la ni thig liom a ra
Ce acu den da is fear no is ga
An stuif bhui no bhan
Roimh tae agus aran:
Tiocfaidh ar Leite of the La !
Stirabout ye !
Jude
Whatever is the case with Basil there is an issue about abuse of power.
When a man in a position of authority, say a party leader or a line manager in a workplace engages in any kind of relationship with a junior then that is at the very least questionable, and could be considered harassment or bullying.
That is different from what happened to Bernadette Devlin which should, as you sa,y have been her own business
Mmm – not totally sure although I accept a good bit of what you say. I think the work situation you describe would be unacceptable, certainly; but was the young woman hired by NI21 or a volunteer/member? I suppose the more fully involved in NI21 work she was, the more reprehensible any sexual misconduct. But I understand Basil has been cleared of misconduct and what Mark Carruthers was talking about was ‘consensual sex’ (never heard that term before – sounds like a hint of an orgy…), which would mean those involved chose freely. If so, I think it’s nobody’s business but theirs.
Maybe, but the point is in such an unequal relationship (in terms of power) can it really be deemed appropriate?
I am not speaking specifically about Basil, as I don’t want to get sued, but in general in such a situation there is the risk that that the younger/junior partner feels ‘obliged to consent either for fear of career repercussions or in hope of career advancement.
On the spectrum of abuse such situations would probably be at the lower end, but it would still be (in my view anyway) sufficiently inappropriate to make it a valid concern and of public interest.
I know what your referring to Gio, or at least I think I do. Such “relationships” are notorious within the Movie industry, for example. Everyone has heard the rumours and allegations of young, attractive women hoping to go on to become actresses and models applying for auditions, then directors or people in “high places” offering the part in return for sexual favours or they flirt with the actresses/models, invite them out to dinners/parties/etc and the actresses/models are afraid to shun them in fear of not getting the part.
I have a brother who is an actor (funny enough he just auditioned for a role today). He’s went to acting lessons, dancing lessons, music lessons, etc and has hung out with possibly some of the biggest Irish/British movie stars of tomorrow (Actor Martin McCann, who played Bono in “Killing Bono” grew up with my brother, they were friends, Martins mother was friends with mine for decades). My brother had a very small part in “The Fall” a few months back where he met and worked with Jamie Dornan.
From what I have heard from my brother, the movie industry really is a bit sleazy for girls and to a much lesser extent for men. Of course my bro is no Hollywood A lister but he’s been in the industry for a few years now. I’ve been party to conservations where my bro and his mates were talking about the girls who are dancers willing to do whatever it took to get success. I had even thought many times of going down the “Danny Boyle route” and trying my hand as a Film Director but I’m not sure, some (but not all) of the things I’ve heard about the movie business has been off putting, the sleaziness is one of those.
Does this “sleaziness” go on in other professions? Of course it does. I would say it does go on in the likes of Politics, Business, Banking, Music, Film, etc Did Basil McCrea court this woman and she went with him only due to fear that her rejection might make her unemployed? I honestly don’t know, we honestly don’t know, I’m certainly not alleging that happened. It is most likely that Basil and that woman had a genuine attraction for each other, only they know the truth.
Ryan
I am sure it happens in the world of politics too, and any arena where young ambitious people rub shoulders with older powerful ones.
If they were genuinely attracted to each other the proper course would surely be for one of them to move from the sphere of influence of the other.
I don’t care who sleeps with who but if it suggests the abuse of power then I would not want them representing me.
I personally have no sympathy for Basil McCrea.
Back in April 2011 he cast aspersions upon civil servants from West Belfast by suggesting that there was a security risk in moving an area of work from the Lisburn office to the Andersonstown office. To say that we were not well pleased is an understatement.
As quoted in “The Ulster Star” of 15/4/11
“Ulster Unionist Lagan Valley election candidate, Basil McCrea said the decision will affect locals in Lisburn: “There is no doubt that some of the 350 new claims, or hundreds of individuals who use the centre each month will now have to travel to Andersonstown to speak to specialists on certain benefit issues.”
“Speaking as a Policing Board Member I feel the interests of ex-service PSNI officers, or currently serving military officers claiming benefits such as income support or pensions, are not being given adequate consideration in this decision.
“The relocation of some claimant matters will create security issues that do not currently exist at a time of increased dissident activity.”
Read more: http://www.lisburntoday.co.uk/news/lisburn-news/jobs-fears-as-benefits-office-relocate-staff-to-andersonstown-1-2596369#ixzz41wLZYXT0
When NI21 came a calling at the last council elections I was assured that Basil would be happy to clarify those remarks, however I am still waiting.
Cross community, moderate unionist, me arse.
The likes of Basil only ever feel sorry for themselves and never reflect how their intemperate use can impact on ordinary working people.
I couldn’t care less whether he had a consensual relationship with this woman or not. It has no relevance on his ability as a legislator. It might be interesting to the public that he may have had extra-marital affairs but is it in the public interest?
I felt a bit sorry for Basil last night. He was so happy that he’d been exonerated from the serious criminal allegations & then Carruthers hit him with the question about consensual sex & we watched him crumble apart, it was hard to watch.
I think he should have just done a Clinton & said ‘i did not have sexual relations with that woman’ it’s nobody else’s businness really.
“I felt a bit sorry for Basil last night. He was so happy that he’d been exonerated from the serious criminal allegations & then Carruthers hit him with the question about consensual sex & we watched him crumble apart, it was hard to watch. ”
So Basil had consensual sex with a NI21 employee in a hotel room, I assume they were staying in over work at the parties expense.
Even so, if it was consensual, I doubt she would report him about it so am I right in thinking that his other partner in NI21 John McAllister is the one who reported him for this behaviour?
The reason I ask as in doing so, he is bound to have known it would also damage their own party so why would he do that?
Either he has principals that are too extreme for my liking making him untrustworthy or he fancied the woman in question himself and it was jealousy.
To be honest, I have more sympathy for Basil than the one who squealed on him.
Perhaps I don’t now the full story but I didn’t like the looks McAllister was giving him on the bits I did see on TV.
He was a very vindictive looking character in the clips shown.
Well there is a lot more about this story that will come out.
Apparently McAllister is subject to a PSNI enquiry, about what it is not clear.
I noted those looks McAllister was giving Basil, he looked like a man about to stick a knife in
A think that’s a bit hard, guys. We’re all born with the face God gave us – nothing much we can do about it, short of botox…
The wily shinners have never been floored to such an extent by any journalist north or south.When section 31 was dropped,SF’s enemies had a forlorn hope that “incisive” journalists would rip them to shreds.They had’nt factored in the fact that people who had taken all that the RUC had thrown at them in Castlereagh and other torture centres were’nt going to be bested by a bunch of plummy voiced hacks in RTE and BBC!
Should Mark Carruthers have asked that question?
The woman who made a number of allegations against Basil, to my knowledge, did not make any suggestion or allegation that they had sex, consensual or otherwise.
Had the sexual act been involved, would it not have bolstered her claim to mention the fact in her complaint? Basil referred him to the report where it was not mentioned.
Did Basil handle the question adroitly? No.
Had he put such a question to me I might have turned the tables and asked him about his sexual proclivities, saying that as he was a public figure (who worked in the BBC = implication with Savile).
After the trials and tribulations he has come through, it is understandable that Basil may not have been in his best fighting form. Serious depression can do that to the best of people.
Personally I thought Carruthers’ persistence in looking for an answer to a question the investigation did not ask was in rank bad taste, and only demeaned the questioner – but then that’s the BBC for you.
PS – I’m not, nor have been, a NI21 member, nor do I know Basil personally. But if this is me going soft in my old age, so be it!
Therein lies the problem…..When NI21 was launched , all those eons ago, it was billed as a “middle of the road Unionist party” ( an oxymoron in itself )…..to be Unionist ,and there is no small “u”, ..by your very nature you have to be far more than just right of center ….even a liberal thought, never mind professed ideas, of an equality nature doomed the party. The BBC ,UTV,DUP, UUP UVF etc etc cannot and could not exist in an atmosphere of equality…if Basil himself had not made a serious faux pas ,then the media and the Unionist political parties would have set traps aplenty .Watch the proliferation of Easter Lilies on our TV channels in a few weeks time, the documentaries and passionate accounts of epic ,heroic struggles to free a small nation and then compare it to the miserly coverage of the Somme…..where Paddy was just cannon fodder….you’ll then understand perfectly how much they value equality and parity of esteem
Eolach
That’s complete cobblers,
I am a small u unionist. I am willing to listen to and consider the arguments for a UI (and I once wrote a ‘pro-UI’ argument over on slugger O’Toole, something a lot of nationalists struggle to do).
I am pro-Gaelic culture and would like to see everyone in Scotland, Ireland and the Isle of Man bi-lingual in Gaelic and English. I’m a fan of folk music (my B-special grandfather was a folk musician) and have lived in Dublin a few times without any problem whatsoever. I’m married to a Catholic, have catholic pro-union friends and I have a vision for factoring the Orange Order into irish life.
I believe that unionism is becoming (slowly) more of a political ideal rather than the Ulster-Protestant-Zionism that we are used to.
So I take great exception to your comments.
“That’s complete cobblers,”
No it isnt, I totally agree with Eolach.
6 counties of Ireland are a colony of the UK under military occupation. MI5 are actively recruiting now, the PSNI are still being controlled by the same british security forces responsible for some of the worst atrocities in the conflict and the same black propaganda is relentless.
The same mistakes are starting to be made all over again.
“I am a small u unionist. I am willing to listen to and consider the arguments for a UI (and I once wrote a ‘pro-UI’ argument over on slugger O’Toole, something a lot of nationalists struggle to do).”
You are still a unionist regardless of your exception, listening and ignoring the obvious doesn’t make you any different to those who are more honest unionists.
You want an argument for pro UI.
Lets start with the negatives.
Partition was wrong, it was undemocratic and has led to unionists and nationalists being more polarised than ever before.
It allowed democracy and human rights to be abused, for unionism to become paranoid over whether or not they would be able to maintain control in a state which was clearly sectarian, that benefitted the pro british over the irish citizens in their own country.
Unionism will never be without that paranoia, there will never be a day when any part of ireland will be comfortable under british rule or when all parts of Ireland will be comfortable with any part of ireland remaining under british rule.
The British forces in Ireland will always return to form and clash with those who they mistake for those who would be prepared to use physical force to remove them. It is simply not possible or realistic to prevent this from happening and that us down to human nature, not any individuals.
Too many people have sacrificed their lives for Irish independence and the number of people who support Irish independence has never been higher throughout the whole of Ireland and that number is growing.
The more negative the media coverage while we remain under british rule, the more people will grow frustrated with the situation.
How much longer are we going to have to endure the endless vilification and condemnation of republicanism in the past, while unionism refuses to admit having done any single thing wrong in its history.
So what about the positives.
I want to feel like I belong in my country. Where the Tri Colour is seen as a flag bringing all shades of opinion on this island together under one banner and we finally have an independent country of our own which is already respected throughout the planet.
Working together in a single Irish parliament even if devolved to each province, is the only possible way we will be able to break down the divisions that partition has introduced and is still entrenching as each year goes on. We are not getting closer, we are growing further apart, now also divided over whether we should have a return of a manned border for britain to leave the eu.
A 6 county statelet will never be economically viable. I don’t want to live off hand-outs from the UK in return for england ruling the roost.
I would prefer that both parts of my country pull together and grow our collective economy and create a prosperous economy which will improve the quality of life for all of our people.
Yes, that is the only way possible for the north to have a strong self sufficient economy.
9 million people come to Ireland each year, less than 1.5 million come north including those travelling across the border which means being in the UK is costing us a lot in tourism though that is turning around as the union gets weaker.
We should be building hotels and establishing all ireland tourism products and bringing the benefits far beyond Dublin to help the whole of our country.
We need to borrow as an all island economy to pay for the development needed to grow this industry which will in turn pay for itself in boosting jobs and construction knock on benefits again beyond dublin which cannot build the hotels needed for potential demand as things are.
The best possible economy north and south is through removal of partition. Not only through money saved through removal of duplication over separate state administrations but through more fluid infrastructure and inter trade growth.
Building an all island renewable energy infrastructure would be more possible and I am positive we could become fully self sufficient from renewable energy and that we could sell much more energy back to the UK than we currently do. This has been totally neglected by the tweedle dum and tweedle dee parties and something I want to see taken a lot more seriously.
“I am a small u unionist. I am willing to listen to and consider the arguments for a UI (and I once wrote a ‘pro-UI’ argument over on slugger O’Toole, something a lot of nationalists struggle to do).”
AG, you come at this saying you are willing to “consider the arguments for a UI” as if it was doing someone a favour.
Northern Ireland is not and never ever will be a country in its own right. This country is Ireland and it has 2 jurisdictions due to partition which was a poor result to end a bitter and costly conflict over the denial of the countries democratically expressed wish for independence.
I gave you reasons for unification and could give you many, many more, but you do realise, this is like asking a family who has had siblings taken from them to live in different lands, to ask them to justify why they should be returned to one another and not just accept they now live in different families.
How would you justify the continuance of partition of this country?
By the way, I could just as easily claim exception to your attitude but I would rather try to get to a point where we understand each others point of view and to respect one another’s point of view and see where it brings us.
I will say that I would make more of an effort to accommodate your point of view than many others here such as neill and MT who I would not even want to live in a society with.
Just like the flag protestors, they will just be ignored and laughed at ny the majority with their wishes not mattering diddley squat to anyone but themselves.
Ireland is on the road to unification and the removal of british rule. I doubt there is anything any individual on either of these islands could say that will stop it.
No Jessica, I say this as some one who is taking exception to Eolach’s comments, mainly “to be Unionist ,and there is no small “u”, ..by your very nature you have to be far more than just right of center ”
“You are still a unionist regardless of your exception, listening and ignoring the obvious doesn’t make you any different to those who are more honest unionists.”
I’m sorry but I don’t understand what this means.
If a united Ireland is such a good idea then all you have to do is convince a small number of the non-nationalist population that it is a good idea and to get them to vote accordingly.
If you can’t do this then perhaps some of your arguments don’t push the right buttons?
Perhaps when selling a united Ireland argument it would be easier to sell the ‘duplication of services ‘ argument IF the North’s biggest nationalist party didn’t oversee an expensive department that has duplication and sometimes TRIPLICATION of services?
Perhaps the tricolour is not a good idea either (anymore)?
I’m sorry Jessica but there are numerous good arguments for a UI but nationalists seldom present them, preferring instead to air grievances (which FYI is interpreted as ‘when we’re in charge we’ll do the same to you’) or agreeing with each other how bad unionists are.
Now, here’s the argument I put forward over on Slugger (first/last comment depending on your settings) and the only comment was a positive one from another small ‘u’ unionist (which Eolach says doesn’t exist) and the other people who up-voted it were small ‘n’ nationalists/unificationists.
http://sluggerotoole.com/2014/08/19/more-thoughts-on-irish-unity/
If you want a UI then that’s the way to go, otherwise just wait on this never-ending demographics game which will still leave a century or two of trouble in its wake.
There is enough political acrobats already, I will leave that to the like of Fine Gael and Fianna Fail as persuasion is really down to who is the best liar.
I would actually be happy to talk with you about how we could make the people of this island better off, both economically and socially.
I enjoy your positive attitude compared to the life sapping monotony of conversing with MT and the like and fully respect your right to be British first.
I would not think of a united Ireland being a “good idea”. I am Irish and don’t know how to be anything else. I use only an Irish passport, I follow GAA, my son attends a GAA club, my whole family see the Irish flag as the flag of our country, we are proud of our anthem, our history, we will be in Dublin for the commemoration of the rising.
To us, unification is not an idea. The biggest difference it would bring is that we will finally feel like we belong in our own country. We have been forgotten and let down by the southern state.
I do look forward to the day when all of Ireland and the Irish people throughout the planet finally have our own independence day to celebrate.
But it is up to both states to be the persuaders and make this happen, not jo public.
In the past I have described Ulster unionism as being a sliding scale of bigotry.
I agree that you are a unionist with a small “u”, ie. on the lower scale of bigotry, but you still see partition as normal and acceptable, you still ignore the issues partition caused, though to a lesser degree since the border was removed.
You give lip service to looking into British state atrocities in Ireland, denying evidence on national security, continued use of black propaganda and still paying criminals as state agents with the PSNI empowered to touch them.
To be fair, ulster unionism is actually British nationalism.
It would therefore be reasonable to accept that you could equally see Irish nationalism as a similar sliding scale of bigotry and me as having bigoted nationalist views which I would accept is the case.
Would it therefore not be better to instead of a pointless arguing over who is right in hypothetical situations, to do away with the terms unionist and nationalist altogether and embrace the GFA and accept that whether we are irish, british or both, we are all equals in whatever part of Ireland in which we live.
Some keep saying that unionism and nationalism will always exist. Yes, in so much as bigotry is part of the human condition that is accurate.
Likewise, fascism will always exist. Neither nationalism or unionism are people, but points of view or a choice of 2 national identities in a divided country.
I don’t see future generations in Ireland seeking to call themselves either nationalist or unionist to be honest or to focus on what divides us but what unites us, and that is that we are all Irish people.
I spent ages replying to that link you posted AG, only to find out I didn’t know how to login, only to find it was closed.
Slugger is a horrible site to use, far too complicated. Yours is much easier to use Jude.
Post, receive an email with a reply bottom at the bottom, Simples
Anyway here is the reply I would have posted on that topic if it had let me.
I agree with a lot of points Alex Kane makes.
Unionists will never change, they will always be unionists and to try and persuade them of the merits of a united Ireland would be like persuading blacks in Alabama to vote for Donald Trump for president.
I cannot imagine a more fruitless and frustrating task.
The truth is, we don’t need to.
The GFA is the only roadmap to unification and it will only happen when there is sufficient support for it.
We have peace in return and while it isn’t perfect, there are many gripes on both sides.
The IRA have not been punished enough, unionists who started the recent troubles between 1966 and 1969 before the PIRA existed have never acknowledged there role in causing the conflict or enflaming it, the British engagement in terrorism, bombing Dublin and monaghan and the Fine Gael involvement in covering it up, British state covering up child abuse in Kincora to protect members of thatchers cabinet, collusion and the still on-going MI5 recruitment of informants which the PSNI still are unable to touch.
It may not be perfect but the people of Ireland have moved on from sectarian politics throughout the island.
Fine Gael and Fianna Fail are no longer the only show in town. Progressive politics has made a significant impact in the recent election with Sinn Fein the most likely to benefit in the next elections.
No more a two horse race for Taoiseach, I doubt the bookies would give much odds against a Sinn Fein government in the Dail in 5 years’ time.
Does it really matter what unionists think about this?
Is it even any of our business what people like Alex Kane think about it?
I think it is exciting but I would not have a problem if he was not interested one jot.
To put a timeframe on unification would just cause issues. Unionists would get jumpy, Catholics would still go to mass, dissidents would object and still see it as a sell-out.
What is the rush?
Britain have not invested in the infrastructure in the north for 50 years. Fine Gael never invested a penny in the southern infrastructure for 5 and look at the disaster that has been, homelessness, hospitals in disarray.
The north has suffered this tenfold. At the moment, the north has a 10 billion pound subvention to address the consequences thanks to the English taxpayer, but zero of this goes to fixing the problems.
To counter the economic pressures during the conflict, the public sector in the north was bloated and the economy became very reliant on this.
England no longer wants to pay this and has put pressures on Stormont to address this, the block grant will be reduced to the amount of public sector reductions demanded.
You can look into this and verify, but neither Sinn Fein or the DUP have touched this.
Instead, they have borrowed 2 billion pounds of Westminster to cover the public sector fees to reduce the public sector through natural wastage at a slower pace.
That money will cover to the end of the year.
I doubt there will be any further political theatrics to get another loan squeezed out, so assuming further borrowing will not be an option, I see no possible way of avoiding new taxes in northern Ireland to cover the costs of running northern Ireland.
Perhaps if the question was, would you be prepared to pay new taxes in northern Ireland to avoid talking about unification and remain wed to the UK then that would be a more pertinent question.
Perhaps if there is a brexit, and ulster towns and villages are once again crippled by the checkpoints along the border, perhaps would the people of Ireland be happy for the return of a border in Ireland?
I doubt Alex Kane would have much issue with either, but thankfully the next generation will be not nationalist or unionist, but progressive.
The days of civil war politics in the south and sectarian divide in the north are coming to an end.
What will be will be and it will happen at the speed the people of the whole of this island are comfortable with.
That may be faster if the threat of a border comes sooner or when the old guard unionist population whose majority is in the over 65s anyway are less of an issue.
It will not come about by persuading anyone of anything however, but on the merits of what is best for the majority of people on this island.
All Basil had to do was answer `yes` or `no`, I don`t think ANY politician could have the sheer gall of slick Willie Clinton and his dancing on the head of a penis answer regarding Ms Lewinski all those years ago. Imagine if Basil had answered `not even with yours` to Mark Carruthers who is a very good interviewer who tries his best to cut through the waffle and spin. Mind you, if Sammy Wilson can deny agreeing with the bigoted neanderthal he was talking to about the EU, then I suppose our politicians have even more brass neck than I imagined.
I feel like kicking myself now, I just switched it over to The View when the interview with Basil was nearly over and missed 9/10’s of it and I never really thought it was that important. I will admit I did notice he sounded a bit tense and looked angry, which is out of character for Basil. I think I’ll go back and watch it on BBC iPlayer.
I always found Basil McCrea to be very likable and fair. And that IS saying something when it comes to Unionist politicians. Indeed Basil is maybe the only Unionist politician I like and who I believe wants to create a fair state for everyone, Catholic and Protestant, within the Union but I still don’t agree that’s the best solution, obviously because I’m a Republican.
I was tweeting with Basil last week on the topic of technology replacing people in jobs. He wondered how a solution to this problem (if it even is a problem…) could be found. I was of the opinion people need to be told the truth, the truth being they need to reskill in other fields, the days of getting jobs as Taxi drivers, Truck drivers, Take Away delivery drivers, etc (and in other fields too) are nearly over. If Google can make a computer drive a car more safely and better than a human and save a lot of money for businesses, and potentially lives too due to road accidents in the process then people need to reskill and society has to adapt.
I think when it comes to people in the public eye its important to remember that we’re all human and we’re not perfect. Should a persons private life have an effect on their public life? It depends on the circumstances, in my opinion. I think the girl footballer Alan Johnson had sexual intercourse with was 15. Jude is right to say his career is over but I was told online (this info may be wrong, so feel free to correct me) but Spain once had its “Age of Consent” at 12-14 years of age. Some parts of the Muslim world have the “Age of Consent” very low too. Indeed Muhammad, whom Muslims follow married a 6 year old girl and had intercourse with her at the age of 9 but society back then was very different than the one we know today in the West. The highest age of consent in the World I believe is 21 in one of the American states, though again I’m no expert in this field. The “Age of Consent” is a whole different topic but my point is if Alan Johnson was in another country where the Age of Consent is 15 or lower his career would not be over and he wouldn’t be going to prison. The Age of Consent in the UK is 16, is there really much difference between a 15 or 16 year old? (BTW, I believe Age of Consent should be 18).
Basil McCrea’s situation is completely different to Alan Johnsons. He has been cleared of any wrong doing. If he has had any sexual intercourse then it was obviously with the woman’s consent and she was of age. In my view, Basil’s circumstances in his private life don’t merit any effect on his public life as a politician but unfortunately it will, especially given most of the Unionist population whom Basil seeks to get votes from are very Conservative (or pretend to be…) and will frown upon Basil’s publicity.
Is Basil’s career over? I don’t know but I hope not.