Should we stop moaning and start being proud of our wee country?

Malachi O’Doherty and I discuss on the Nolan Show whether Northern Ireland is a great wee place.

Defending the Tory Welfare Plans?

A few of you may have seen/heard me on the Nolan Show last night and again this morning – apparently defending the Conservative ‘welfare to work’ plans. All somewhat ironic as I’m no longer a Conservative Party member.

I’ve had some, ahem, “feedback” from the local populace.

Here are some of the best(?) of the tweets (in Italics) with my responses interleaved.

“Jeffrey Peel makes me sick. People like that have never been unemployed and will always have had help from the moment they started.”

JP: True, I’ve never been unemployed but don’t think I’ve ever had much help – except from my parents who always encouraged me to get a good education. Education is the greatest help anyone can get.

“Ready to award it: Today’s #assholeoftheday is Jeffrey Peel and his patronising bullshit approach to employment.”

JP: Not sure it’s patronising to suggest that people should be more self-reliant. Sometimes it’s no bad thing to give something back to society rather than sitting around doing nothing.  Even voluntary work is a good means to get out and meet people. With people and relationships come opportunities.

“Who is Jeffrey Peel ‘political commentator’ and why is he polluting my TV screen even more than normal on the Nolan Show?”

JP: Presumably because I cause controversy – and it’s good entertainment?

“Fuck off Jeffrey Peel ya dick”

JP: Not sure what to say…other than thanks for the advice and kind words.

“Jeffrey Peel isn’t looking too well tonight”

JP: Yes I suspect it’s because my Summer tan has faded and, unlike the politicians on the show, I wasn’t offered any make-up.  Sorry for disappointing.

“Jeffrey Peel talks a lot. Lots of it irrelevant.”

JP: Hmm I think most of it was relevant – but perhaps you didn’t agree with it.

Paisley Jr: Nice Little Earner

Kalapo Lawson, Chairman of Ecobank, also owes the Nigeria quite a lot of money

Kalapo Lawson, Chairman of Ecobank, also owes Nigeria quite a lot of money

It has been revealed today that Ian Paisley Jr, the UK’s most expensive MP, was unable to make a critical House of Commons vote on British military action against Syria because he was on a trip to Uganda at the expense of an African bank called Ecobank.  Thankfully this trip, at least, wasn’t paid-for by the tax-payer. According to Paisley’s submission to the register of members’ interests the costs of his trip amounted to £5,000 and he was also paid £7,500 of “consultancy fees”. I’m sure the consultancy was insightful.

Paisley – in typically arrogant fashion – has made clear that that the voters of North Antrim can decide if he has been acting in their best interests at the next election. I hope they will. But one suspects that they’d elect a goat if it were called Paisley.

I’ve made a few cursory investigations into Ecobank.

It turns out that the bank – one that operates all over Africa and beyond – is facing investigations by Nigeria’s SEC relating to “corporate governance issues.”

Reuters has reported that these corporate governance issues may relate to inappropriate investments made into businesses associated with Ecobank’s Chairman, Kalapo Lawson.  Other reports in the FT suggest that Ecobank’s board is divided because of considerable debts racked up in relation to Mr Kalapo’s personal business interests.  Lawson also chairs Agbara Estate, a property company, that owes Ecobank’s Nigerian unit close to $10m.

As to why the MP for North Antrim is making trips to Uganda to act on behalf of an Ecobank subsidiary, remains to be seen. But when many of his constituents are finding it hard to make ends meet, Mr Paisley is consuming public money and corporate largess at an alarming rate.  I hope that the voters of East Antrim are taking note. Surely even Paisley arrogance has a finite limit.

Free School Meals? Lembit and I ‘Discuss’

How much is Richard Haass being paid to chair the NI talks?

Since writing my last post that questioned what on earth Richard Haass and his entourage could possibly achieve chairing talks on flags and the past and stuff, I have discovered that Haass isn’t actually representing the US government in the talks.  He has his own foreign policy consulting machine for that. It’s a decent little earner. Indeed he’s reputed to be the highest paid “charity” boss in the United States.

When he does his thing – whatever that is – he tends to do it on behalf of his ‘think tank’ – the Council on Foreign Relations.  The CFR has been the subject of considerable criticism in the past.  Indeed, in order to answer some of this it has compiled an FAQ.  The main criticism is that it adopts a ‘one world government’ view of foreign policy.

This begs the question whether the CFR is providing its services to the NI Executive for Haass and his helpers’ services.  Is it a pro bono engagement? Or are ‘donations’ being paid for his expenses?  Perhaps one of our local illustrious journalists might ask the question.

This is important because it’s not clear in what capacity he’s acting. The Council on Foreign Relations doesn’t take payments from foreign governments. However, I presume his expenses will be picked up by the tax-payer. However, if he’s acting on behalf of the CFR then his ‘salary’ will continue to be paid during his time here. He’s paid nearly $900k by the CFR. So he won’t go hungry. However, if he’s acting on behalf of the CFR it does beg the question why a region of the UK – the size of Manchester in terms of population – needs the Head of a US foreign policy think-tank to chair its talks on parish pump issues. There are no foreign policy dimensions to these talks – apart from the miniscule reflected glory the CFR might achieve if they can announce some minuscule forward movement on flags and “the past” – whatever that means.

If Haass is, indeed, here in an official capacity it’s clear he’s not exactly impartial. He is clearly a foreign policy hawk on – for example – Syria. He wrote a highly critical article in the FT about the democratic decision of the UK parliament on UK air strikes against Syria. In this piece he claimed that Britain was “drifting towards isolation”. (http://blogs.ft.com/…/30/britain-drifts-towards-isolation/). There’s a clear irony here because the US congress, too, would almost certainly have voted against air strikes on Syria has Obama put it to the vote. Oh and the irony is even greater because NI MPs also voted against air strikes. So, in summary, Haass is a foreign policy hawk, is hostile to UK foreign policy, would have failed to get his foreign policy way in Congress and has a diametrically polar position to our own elected MPs – but is now chairing inter-party talks on flags and “the past”. Oh and he’s so busy he’s had to draft-in some Harvard academic to chair the talks anyway because he really doesn’t have the time – he has much bigger and less parochial fish to fry. It could only happen in Northern Ireland.

Peace Leeches and the Haass Talks

 Jeane Kirkpatrick Professor of the Practice of International Affairs at Harvard Kennedy School and head of the Belfer Center's Geopolitics of Energy Project

Meghan O’Sullivan – Jeane Kirkpatrick Professor of the Practice of International Affairs at Harvard Kennedy School and Head of the Belfer Center’s Geopolitics of Energy Project

They abound.  Peace leeches. People who straddle the globe like colossi proffering their powers of envoy, moderation, decent thinking. Oh and they demand the best hotels and talks venues and limousines.

But here’s the deal. These peace emperors have no clothes.  They are snake oil salesmen. They know nothing.  Haass and his entourage of Harvard academics are worse than useless. They bring no science, no formulas, no powers to solve. Why? Because the problem they are trying to solve is insoluble. But they’ll take the fine dining and limousines anyway. But their expert knowledge is quackery. And we’re paying for it – or, rather, the tax-payers of the South East of England who foot the bill for all of our contrived, expensive folly.

So how have I come to this conclusion? Simple – social scientists and diplomats and academics know nothing. They appear to be experts, but they aren’t. They have read books, but the books provide no answers.

Social science experts like grand titles to prove they are experts.  Consider this for a title: Meghan O’Sullivan, Jeane Kirkpatrick Professor of the Practice of International Affairs at Harvard Kennedy School and head of the Belfer Center’s Geopolitics of Energy Project.  

Meghan is the lady who has been nominated to chair the latest hyper-expensive round of “all-party talks” with Northern Ireland’s rag-bag collection of super-parochial weeny parties. The leader of the “largest” of these weeny parties, our illustrious First Minister, couldn’t even muster enough enthusiasm from the electorate to get re-elected to Westminster at the last general election.

But I digress, let’s return to Ms O’Sullivan. Ask yourself why she is  Jeane Kirkpatrick Professor of the Practice of International Affairs at Harvard Kennedy School and head of the Belfer Center’s Geopolitics of Energy Project.  The answer, almost certainly, is because she found physics, mathematics and computer science a tad too tricky at High School. She couldn’t get her head around all those immutable laws of science. So she took the easy option – an academic career in the social sciences. All of the prestige but none of the hard stuff.

No doubt Ms O’Sullivan has contributed to the social science section of Harvard’s libraries. There are, apparently, some 2 million books in the section, and research papers. In order to read the entire collection would require some 9,000 years. And after all that reading – if it were humanly possible – I’m not sure one would be any wiser.

But now she’s lending her wonderful brain, her insightful social scientific international affairs knowledge to Norn Iron’s thorny flags issue. According to her media release, “I look forward to working with Richard Haass and the leaders and people of Northern Ireland to tackle the thorny issues of parades, flags and other symbols, and the past. We plan to build on the tremendous progress that has been made in recent years.”

No doubt she’ll wallow in the glory that Blair, Clinton, Hume and the rest have been wallowing-in for the last few decades.

But here’s the rub. According to the Centre for Independent Research and Analysis of Crime, “Contrary to the media image, the province suffers from very low levels of crime. According to both recorded crime figures and victim surveys Northern Ireland has one of the lowest levels of crime in Western Europe. For example, recorded crimes for 1990 showed that it had the lowest rate of recorded crime per 1,000 of the population compared with all 43 police constabulary areas in England and Wales.”

By comparison the United States has some four times the murder rate than the United Kingdom.  Some 14,748 people were murdered in the United States in 2010. Just yesterday a crazed gunman murdered a dozen people in a naval base in Washington DC. I need hardly mention other mass shootings, but I will.  Sandy Hook Elementary – 22 murdered, mostly children. Luby’s Cafeteria, Texas – 23 dead plus the gunman.  McDonald’s restaurant in San Ysidro, Calif. – 21 dead. Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo. – 15 dead.  Etc. Etc. Etc. On and on, with nothing done to change America’s mad gun laws.

Northern Ireland, like most places, has problems. But, ironically, our problems don’t, any longer, result in mass death. Even during the worst years of our troubles our murder rate wasn’t as high as Philadelphia’s.  But right at the heart of our civil society we have a festering problem of sectarianism that cannot and will not be solved by these talks led by a well-intentioned, if silly, Professor.

And the problem will be in the Professor’s talk-rooms. The politicians themselves feed and stoke and are representative of a sectarianism that bores most of the population witless. We have political parties that suckle at the teat of Irish or British nationalism.  But these people do not speak for the majority of our population. Our voter turnout is now the lowest in the UK. Those who vote tend to vote for the most extreme parties to force them to do business with each other – but they rarely do even that. Our supposed obsession with flags and symbols is a media and politico-contrived nonsense. Those that do care are an ill-educated rabble that is cajoled by a self-aggrandizing political class that makes no obvious sense in a normalizing society.

Meghan O’Sullivan could do us all a favour. She could go home and try to sort out her own back yard. In the meantime we should ignore the ‘problem’ of our flags and our past because, over time, they are problems that will diminish. Sometimes, ignoring a problem is its best solution. But we could help by creating some replacements for political parties that are creating the problem – not solving it.

McDevitt Falls on Sword

conallNews is filtering out that the hapless Conall McDevitt, the South Belfast MLA, is to quit politics after a series of revelations about lining his own (or his wife’s) pockets at tax-payers’ expense. He overlooked declaring such expenses. Yesterday he admitted to paying his Missus the full £16k per annum expenses allocation from the Policing Board (twice for the two years he has served on the Board). He also had to admit paying his wife’s company £14k’s worth of MLA expenses earlier in the year – payments that he had also overlooked declaring.

The latest revelation was that he also received payments from his previous employer, some £6,000, which he failed to declare.

McDevitt, it would appear, has been put under some pressure to quit politics – no doubt by his own Party ‘leader’. This is convenient, as McDevitt, the “mouth from the south,” didn’t exactly hide his personal ambition. He, himself, bid for the SDLP Party leadership.

It seems bizarre that a former “PR executive” should have been so cavalier in his redirection of public funds towards his personal or wifely coffers. This is the stuff upon which journos love to feast – and freedom of information makes it relatively easy to obtain such expense information. McDevitt, when interviewed yesterday, seemed somewhat taken aback that such questions could be asked about use of public funds. His only defense appeared to be that if he were to be honest, this might be used by his political opponents. Why not just be honest? Why not just survive on the salary without resorting to dodgy payments? Why not just engage in public service?

The answer seems to be that McDevitt got sucked into the whole minor celebrity and BT9 culture. Surrounded by people earning so much more than him – in the senior civil service or in business – he obviously had to derive some significant supplements to his income. An MLA income, combined with his wife’s meager salary as an academic, is hardly enough when one wants to be seen to be both a mouth and a wealthy man about town.

But perhaps it’s impossible to be both?


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 56 other followers

Musings on things political and secular…

This is my site where I share my world views for anyone who might be remotely interested. Visit only if you think the content is interesting. Oh and comment is free. So go right ahead and agree or disagree. But, please, be kind and polite (especially to me).
Add to Technorati Favorites

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 56 other followers