Sunday Independent Stupid Statement of the Week June 20, 2010
Posted by Garibaldy in media.trackback
Not a hugely stupid edition this week, although we are seeing the re-emergence of the anti-public sector and anti-union rhetoric given that not everyone affected by the Croke Park deal has dropped to their knees and humbly accepted what is coming.
Emer O’Kelly offers this outraged response to the opposition to the Croke Park deal.
The anti-democratic charge, with its potential to scupper the agreement, has been led by the Teachers’ Union of Ireland (TUI) and the Irish Federation of University Teachers (IFUT). It’s hard to believe that the men and women entrusted with the educational formation of many of our citizens at second level, and all of our citizens at university level, can behave in such an unprincipled fashion. At least, it’s hard to believe of the IFUT; we’re used to the outrageously selfish impropriety of teachers at primary and secondary level. But how uneasy does it make you feel to envisage the intellectual elite of the country being taught ethics, philosophy, and particularly, politics, by people who refuse to abide by a democratic, if reluctant, vote?
Jody Corcoran rushes to the defence of his neo-liberal heroes in Fine Gael. You know, the ones who couldn’t unseat a massively unpopular leader, but who have the talent, skills, vision and courage to turn the state around. After all, it’s not like their ideology landed us where we are.
The truth is also this: Neither were Varadkar, nor Naughten nor Timmins, nor all of the rest of them so foolish as to involve themselves in a coup, of the palace kind or any other variety, for any reason other than they felt it the right thing to do, and they probably still feel that.
These are the people who know Enda Kenny best. It seemed to me that they sought a different future for Fine Gael, and they were defeated by a combination of gombeenism, opportunism and patronage. Kenny’s opponents will pay the price for that because that is the way of it. Another curious thing though: It also seemed to me that most of them were happy enough to pay the price.
In first place, Ruth Dudley Edwards, as well as baffingly describing someone as completely and utterly weird (not to say perverse in every sense of the word) as Philip Larkin as the voice of the fed-up ordinary bloke, has this to say of the Tea Party Movement.
These John and Jane Does are the infantry in the war against Washington (personified by the aloof, cerebral machine politician that is President Barack Obama and the wealthy career politician, Californian Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the House of Representatives), which they believe is bent on ruining the essence of America by replacing free enterprise, small government and personal responsibility with wasteful European-style statism and large-scale income redistribution.
Where do you start with that?
By the way, the Sindo seems to be pushing for the emergence of a new right-wing party, made up of Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil elements. Bonkers.
But how uneasy does it make you feel to envisage the intellectual elite of the country being taught ethics, philosophy, and particularly, politics, by people who refuse to abide by a democratic, if reluctant, vote?
Fantastic.
Does Emer mean that students in general are an ‘intellectual elite’? – because students by now constitute a majority of 18-21 year olds, and my understanding has always been that ‘an elite’ is numerically smaller than ‘everyone else’…
or does she mean that the ‘intellectual elite’ are those who will be taught ethics, philosophy and, especially, politics? that make me feel all warm, but if the performative contradiction of the likes of us, having rejected the ‘democratic will ‘of the majority, only to go on and preach respect for same, is that obvious, then said ‘elite’ will presumably see right through us……being so clever and all.
Talking to an FG acquaintance of mine the other day and he suggested that Brian Hayes was the dark genius behind the plot to oust Inda. He also said that Varaker had got a right pasting in Kenny’s address to the troops.
Never mind bankers’ greed and political corruption, the real national outrage is the “selfish impropriety of teachers at primary and secondary level”. Now it’s all so clear. Enough with economic corruption, lets deal with the real problem of those lazy sods with the long holidays. Genius. When will the SINDO come to our rescue with a think-tank of its own?
I’m beginning to think that everyone on the staff of Independent Newspapers is a frustrated teacher or failed the civil service entrance exams.
The attack on workers’ living standards to pay for the debacle brought about by finance capital is worldwide. There was a protest in NYC last Wednesday. The response of the finance capitalist, billionaire mayor Bloomberg was to say that Wall St. bankers pay the salaries of teachers and firemen.
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local-beat/Protesters-Gather-Against-City-Budget-Cuts–96512139.html
Its interesting that Tea Party leaders have been the first to defend BP; right-wing populism, -a front for corporate predation.
The prospect of playing second fiddle to Labour could have precipitated the heave by Bruton. And if Labour continues to advance, some in F.G. and F.F. may try to put a new label on their failed, old right of centre doctrines. ( but they probably won’t call it the ‘Progressive Democrats’)
And if Labour continues to advance, some in F.G. and F.F. may try to put a new label on their failed, old right of centre doctrines. ( but they probably won’t call it the ‘Progressive Democrats’)
I hear the Tories are giving out franchising opportunities these days beyond the shores of Mother England (And The Other Bits). Maybe they would consider extending it to Eire.
We could get the ex-Libertas, the Dublin & Wicklow Orange Lodge, the right(er)-wing toryboy elements of FF and FG and the Sindo commentariat all under the same banner (the comedy potential would be huge).
“right-wing populism, -a front for corporate predation”
aw, c’mon you don’t believe that? Your ideology, just maybe, can’t handle a grassroots movement that isn’t left-leaning …?
aw, c’mon you don’t believe that? Your ideology, just maybe, can’t handle a grassroots movement that isn’t left-leaning …?
To actually believe that the swathe of GOP-connected firms, activists and politicians who are behind the so-called ‘Tea Party’ is some sort of cosmic coincidence takes a really epic level of gullibility, I fear.
touche.
To believe that those groups you mentioned are orchestrating the whole thing and are not tapping into a real vein of Americana (however much I disagree with said vein) is what is gullible
@ yourcousin
I don’t doubt for a moment that there is a rich vein of (as I’ve already stated) “middle-class, Anglo supremacist, Christian conservative ultra-nationalists” in American life. What I’m saying is that these Teabaggers are being organised and encouraged in order to get out the right-wing base for elections, in GOP hopes of reclaiming Congress.
And they’re succeeding, EWI.
Although studies of the movement have shown their makeup is broadly representative of the population at large their ideology is far from socially-conservative. It’s basically a tax revolt (hence the name…) and Libertarian-leaning Republicans have got behind it forcefully.
The GOP will benefit in November, and some businesses have got behind it, but in 2008 the American business world – and particularly the financial industry – threw their weight in behind the Obama campaign. Goldman Sachs donated several times more money to the Dems than to the GOP. This is in the hope of bailouts, obviously, but the point is that the TP movement is a citizens’ movement independent of financial interests. Politicians, incidentally, have responded to the movement, and not the other way around.
and btw, the sentence “personified by the aloof, cerebral machine politician that is President Barack Obama” makes no sense whatsoever!
@ Tim Johnsob
I’d be interested in seeing where you got “broadly representative of the population at large” from. Every other mention I’ve ever seen of their demographics agrees that they’re significantly richer, whiter, maler and more conservative than the US population:
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/289821
As to your comments on Goldman Sachs, I’m presuming that you’d agree with what I’d say is the majority opinion here, that all such corporate donations should be curtailed?
This whole middle class, ultra, conservative, anglo etc. etc. thing is a little thin. Will the GOP ultimately benefit? Maybe. Lets remember that at best the GOP have this tiger by the tail and right now they (the established GOP) are the primary victims of Tea Party anger in primaries across the country. Are groups trying to direct it to their own ends? Of course they are, but I doubt they’ll succeed entirely. While the Tea Party movement is officially a libertarian republican venture the anger, and alienation that fuel the movement are hardly confined to white, wealthy, retirees.
I thought the key thing about Goldman Sachs (and US corporate donations in general) was mentioned accidentally and in passing:
Goldman Sachs donated several times more money to the Dems than to the GOP.
They gave to both.
EWI,
I took the data from the Gallup poll,
http://www.gallup.com/poll/127181/tea-partiers-fairly-mainstream-demographics.aspx
But, yes, they’re perhaps more representative of the middle class than the population at large, my bad.
@ yourcousin
Please. Clinton’s election spawned Freepers, Obama’s spawned the Tea Baggers, and it’s purely a coincidence that these were Democrats?
…. and the years 2001-2008 were entirely peaceful and devoid of any presidential criticism
Clinton and Obama may be both Democrats but the similarity ends there. Antipathy to the one far outweighs that to the other ..
…. and the years 2001-2008 were entirely peaceful and devoid of any presidential criticism
I realise that you’re being tongue-in-cheek here, but Florida was a (real) point of dispute that was the subject of a close court decision, and the ‘Bush dunnit’ 9-11 Truthers were a fringe of a fringe that no-one paid any attention to. And even being seen as insufficiently pro-Bush was grounds for the most remarkable hate towards Democrats and the media, who we were incessantly informed were covering up The Decider’s great victories.
I didn’t see Washington DC newspapers suggesting that he had murdered members of his cabinet, that he wasn’t really American, or that he should be impeached for lying.
These John and Jane Does are the infantry in the war against Washington
So, Washington DC represents the enemy of middle-class, Anglo supremacist, Christian conservative ultra-nationalists? Reassuring good news, though perhaps not to columnists with the Sunday Independent, Daily Mail and London Telegraph.
As to the rest:
(personified by the aloof, cerebral machine politician that is President Barack Obama
I’ve never met a “machine politician” who was simultaneously “aloof, cerebral”. Rather the opposite. Someone who wasn’t as mad as a bag of hammers would perhaps recognise the contradiction here.
and the wealthy career politician, Californian Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the House of Representatives),
Amusing. So Dudley-Edwards is saying on the record that she thinks that being a ‘career’ politician and ‘wealthy’ are disqualifications for political legitimacy? I’d like to see her apply this to all of the 137 millionaires in the US Congress, including the right-wing crazies whom she would be a fan of. Oh, and Reagan was a Californian.
which they believe is bent on ruining the essence of America by replacing free enterprise, small government and personal responsibility with wasteful European-style statism and large-scale income redistribution.
Yes, because a (weak) national healthcare insurance scheme and requiring BP and other corporations to clean up the mess from their own negligence clearly mark Obama out for being a Socialist.
I haven’t read RDE’s article but that quote re. the Tea Party rank and file – while definitely not good analysis – is an excellent description of their mentality and self-image.
I think I’d agree with that Peter, but alas she seems to be accepting it as an accurate description of reality.
Interesting that you didn’t include this gem from Marc Coleman:
‘But I believe democracy is about choice, and with Fianna Fail under the centre-left leadership of Brian Cowen and Fine Gael’s old social democratic wing now triumphant, we don’t have any choice. As cheerleaders for Bertie Ahern socialism, the PDs are justly discredited.
Even those on the left accept that we need a balance between right and left. Healthy debate demands it. But neither FF nor FG will openly defend the value of the right. So we need a movement that will, one sufficiently sure of itself to know that going into coalition with Labour
‘What is more important to us — our children’s future, or that of the public sector?’
would as bad for the country as it would be for Labour. A party that will also — incidentally, and on non-economic issues — stand up for the plain people of Ireland against politically correct bullying by the metropolitan elites.’
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/are-you-right-there-ireland-a-call-for-fresh-thinking-2228030.html
honestly this paper seems to be getting worse with each week that passes, which is no mean feat
That’s a very fine choice indeed
Yeah, it’s definitely a throughly stupid set of statements. I did think about using the first paragraph you quote, but decided it fell under the rubric of totally insane statement of the week instead of stupid statement of the week. That may have been a mistake on my part on reflection. The remark about the Sindo pushing for a new party was partly a reference to this though. I think I left it out as I just couldn’t see it going anywhere, and I had an FG quote already.
Marc Coleman’s remark about the children’s future v public sector disgusted me. Stabbing in the back those who try to guarantee that children especially the vulnerable do have a future i.e. social workers, teachers, SNAs, Gardai, psychologists, nurses, child care leaders etc. etc. etc.
heh – good quote
to be fair to Coleman though, he is calling for cuts in salaries over 40k, something which I doubt few on here would object to (unless 40k has become average these days, I dunno!).
Seeing the ‘public sector’ as a monolith is a useful rhetorical device for some too lazy to apply critical thought, but more analytically minded people know there are a lot of high-up folks making a lot of money in the civil service and these are hardly what you’d call ordinary ‘workers’.
But Coleman kind of betrays his own analysis by blaming the entire ‘public sector’ for, well, existing.
He is also missing the point that there is already a decent balance between what he calls left and right in Ireland – a low tax country with a strong Labour tradition.
And as for local government, he is spot on. Who can object to a call for fewer politicians??
I don’t think I’ll bother emailing him.
I’m not too sure about that. I think cuts in the 55,000 / 60,000 + bracket would be alright, especially the mandarins at the top (and it’s important to remember most public sector workers are on less than 50,000). I think that 40,000+ is more than sufficient for a single person with low debt. But for families deep in debt, reliant on one income, even if it is 40 / 50,000 +, cuts would be extremely severe and knock back consumer spending big time.
But for families deep in debt, reliant on one income, even if it is 40 / 50,000 +, cuts would be extremely severe and knock back consumer spending big time.
I wonder is there a mechanism for reducing or clearing those debts? Obviously letting inflation go up for a period would do something, but I’m thinking of something more pointed and political — say, taking back the excess gains from bubble-driven house sales.
(ah, I may dream)
more analytically minded people know there are a lot of high-up folks making a lot of money in the civil service and these are hardly what you’d call ordinary ‘workers’.
Speaking purely from my own experience, people inside the public sector are no different from people in other employments, for better or worse (and why should they be?). I have to say that I have a hard time in believing the hairshirts all around line from the particularly well-fed and prosperous-looking M. Coleman. Call me a cynic.
@Tomboktu
One way of doing this would be to have the state buy half of struggling mortgage-payers’ homes. This cuts their payments in half right off, and in any case the taxpayer has bailed out the banks to such an extent that we’re going to own the banks and the mortgages anyway. I know at least one person who bought an apartment jointly with the local authority and there is some scheme in place for this.
Just a thought.
One way of doing this would be to have the state buy half of struggling mortgage-payers’ homes. This cuts their payments in half right off, and in any case the taxpayer has bailed out the banks to such an extent that we’re going to own the banks and the mortgages anyway.
Incidentally helping to re-inflate the property bubble. And I see a lot of talk about effective control of the banks, which in FF/PD speak seems to mean that we’ve socialised the losses, but the PAYE majority will never see that money again as future profits will remain in private hands.
And as for local government, he is spot on. Who can object to a call for fewer politicians??
Me.
Especially if it is accompanied by a call for ‘experts’ and business people with experience of the ‘real world’ to take up the reins. The idea that business is more ‘real’ than other human activities tells us how far we have fallen.
Especially if it is accompanied by a call for ‘experts’ and business people with experience of the ‘real world’ to take up the reins.
In this regard, the fevered expectations over at IrishEconomy about the so-called fiscal council (or whatever), has been something to behold. It’s be a permanent PD ideologue veto over democratic politics – just what they always wanted, so as to be able to eternally stick the boot into the scroungers and layabouts who exist outside of the middle classes. I’m sure that some of the bunch gracing our screens over the past two weeks in RTÉ’s latest orgy of PD worship would find their way into it.
Yes, the call for fewer politicians more often than not is the vested interests in society seeking to reduce the representation of those opposed to them. That’s why the DUP is so keen to cut the number of both Executive ministries and MLAs. And it’s why both the big parties in the north are so keen to see the number of local councils reduced from 26 to 11.
I have opined elsewhere on CLR that there is a case for increasing the number of deputies. With 15 cabinet seats and a few more posts than that for junior ministers (and about half that number for committee chairs, ditto vice chairs, and ditto “rapporteur” posts (what exactly do they report on?)), any semi-competent TD can expect to get a ministry if they can get elected often enough and if they keep their nose clean.
We don’t see backbenchers here taking to that role and scrutinising the government, getting a technical expertise in a policy area and holding the minister and officials to account in a sustained way. The backbenches are is only ever a waiting room for those on their way up or down.
I think one way of breaking that would be to increase the number of TDs. I don’t claim that would in itself be sufficient for improvement, but I think it would contribute to creating the conditions for change in how our parliament works.
Marc Coleman’s piece is unbelievable. I quite regret having read it.
I think he pines for the deeply polarized politics of America and Britain – where politicos are more likely to categorize themselves in neatly packaged ideological boxes. That’s actually one of the reasons I’ve always liked the STV system – it makes such a thing less practical. Parties competing under the STV system usually have to enter coalitions, which tends to have a moderating effect. A greater multitude of parties also lessens the need for opportunistic alliances, like the American Republicans (what exactly do neo-cons, neo-libs and socio-cons have in common?).
And what does right-wing in an Irish context even mean? Old style Fianna Fail? Surely that’s anathema to Coleman’s Thatcherite agenda? And do we need to be defining heterogeneous political parties and individuals so rigidly on the seating arrangements of an archaic French parliament?
Most voters are more interested in what works than in any ideology. Any party specially dedicating their platform to workers’ rights or scaling back the size of the state is going to have a very narrow appeal. Most voters are more interested in a strong economy, and decent public services.