Street names and other matters in West Cork April 29, 2016Posted by WorldbyStorm in Uncategorized.
Street names, West Cork, Jim Lane and more from Archon of the Southern Star. Many thanks to the person who forwarded it.
STREET names can politically define a place. Pearse Street in Clonakilty, for instance, forms part of the West Cork historical memory and is a statement of identity and of pride in a shared past.
Generally speaking, when streets are renamed to commemorate major political events, such as the 1916 Rising, the purpose is to instil a sense of national dignity and self-respect; however, occasionally there’s a downside that can provoke ideological opposition.
Here’s an example. Although the Real Capital has street names that celebrate Britain’s imperial past – that of the Marlboroughs, the Georges, the Alberts and the Victorias – the City Fathers always have been reluctant to change the names of such streets in order to commemorate our own patriots.
It’s a scenario that perplexes educationalist and historian, Charles Hayes. At a recent 1916 ceremony in Farsid, East Cork, he made his opinions known. Mr Hayes commented in his oration that ‘we have a Marlboro’ Street to honour a British Grandee, but we have no Pearse Street.
We have George’s Quay, named after an English king, but we have no quay or city centre street named after James Connolly.
‘We have a Princes Street, but no MacDonagh Street. There is not a single city-centre street in so-called Rebel Cork that is named after any signatory of the 1916 Proclamation.
‘Neither is there any standing monument in the city centre that is dedicated to an Irish patriot of the 1916-1923 era. General Tom Barry, for instance, lived for many years in an apartment overlooking the little square where Patrick Street swings into the Grand Parade. But this square is called Daunt Square.
‘It is not named after the great patriot who lived there, as it would be in any liberated, self-respecting country, and it is more than time for this situation to be rectified,’ he said.
Republican historian Jim Lane points out that one has to go back to the dark days of World War II for any sustained effort at replacing existing street names with those of the 1916 Proclamation signatories.
In May 1945, the Lord Mayor of the time, Seán Cronin, and members of several nationalist groups decided to alter the situation whereby Cork city was devoid of ‘even the meanest tribute to the memory of the seven signatories.’
In conjunction with a group called the ‘Street Names Sub-Committee,’ he drew up a list of street names to be changed, along with the names of Irish heroes he wanted as substitutions.
But he hit a brick wall. Whenever the Mayor and his group asked the Corporation to abandon ‘a shameful state of affairs that guaranteed the survival of anti-Irish symbols,’ certain cliques surfaced in the city to ensure that the old, imperial monikers were preserved for ‘historical reasons.’
Which intensely annoyed the First Citizen and his republican group! So they organised a parade through the streets of Cork, stopping at key locations to erect new nationalist street signs that they said would impact on the nationalist consciousness of Leesiders. Lord Mayor Cronin was convinced that in the decolonising environment of the time the new street names would help perpetuate the memory of Irish historical figures.
Thus the Grand Parade became Connolly Street, and a new street-sign was erected.
The large crowd then moved onto the South Mall, which was formally converted to Pearse Street; Princes Street became Clarke Street; Marlboro’ Street MacDermott Street; Winthrop Street Plunkett Avenue and so on to other streets, where changes also were made.
Nationalist Cork was jubilant but, sadly, the patriotic nomenclature lasted a mere day and a half! Infuriated traders and their legal eagles demanded that City Manager, Philip Monahan, immediately remove the new signs. They argued that the original names could not be unilaterally altered without the support of two-thirds of the ratepayers on the street.
Mr Monahan quickly acceded to the request, apparently influenced also by a secondary argument: that the business community would be out of pocket if it had to change the addresses on stationery, lorries and vans!
The new street-signs were taken down amid vociferous criticism from nationalist-minded Cork. Five weeks later, the City Manager held a plebiscite in order to establish if, in fact, a majority of ratepayers was in favour of a name change.
It turned out that Rebel Cork, as represented by its business leaders, didn’t give a hoot about the 1916 heroes! And matters have remained that way to the present day.
Now, whatever about Leeside forelock tugging, a town once perceived as a hotbed of Southern Loyalism did things differently – and in a more civic spirited fashion. In Bandon, as with 1940s Cork, members of the public asked that patriotic names be assigned to many of the town’s ancient streets.
As a result Devonshire Square became Allen Square after one of the Manchester Martyrs.
Warner Lane was turned into Casement Road, Boyle Street (originally named after the Boyle family who were Earls of Cork) was renamed Connolly Street, Burlington Quay became McSweeney Quay, and Castle Street changed to Pearse Street. There were others but, curiously, Fluke Hole Lane remained as it was!
Clonakilty also changed. Over the years Sovereign Street became Pearse Street, George’s Street became Connolly Street, Oliver Street Casement Street, School Street O’Rahilly Street, and Bank Street became Kent Street.
But, as for Skibbereen, well, not much remembering of revolutionary times went on in that noble municipality – at least in relation to street names. Indeed should any ghost of the Anglo-Irish ascendancy come trotting through the town he’d have no trouble ascertaining his whereabouts.
In Skibbereen, no serious street renaming took place in response to major political activities.
Townsend Street remained the same, as did High Street, Bridge Street, Main Street, Ilen Street and Market Street. Indeed our traveller from the past would enjoy a warm sense of recognition and belonging in Skibbereen, a town that took a utilitarian approach to the official version of history and of street names!
Certainly a Civic Guard from the old days would have endorsed the Skibbereen approach.
The story goes that a certain Leeside policeman was called to an incident in Marlboro’ Street, Cork, where he was confronted by a dead horse that had been pulling a dray full of Suttons’ coal. Taking out his pencil, he proceeded to record the details in his notebook.
‘And the name of the street?’ he asked.
‘Marlboro’ Street, Guard,’ came the reply,
‘Marl…Marl…bo…bor….’ he spluttered with his pencil raised in the air, repeating the words until the linguistic difficulty of spelling ‘Marlboro’ beat him.
Then, a little embarrassed, he turned to some men in the crowd and whispered: ‘Listen, lads, would ye ever do me a favour?
Pull that shaggin’ horse into Cook Street, will ya!’
Basic Income April 29, 2016Posted by WorldbyStorm in Uncategorized.
1 comment so far
I’ve noted before that I’m not hugely fond of Freakonomics. But every once in a while I’ll listen to the podcast and every so often there’ll be something interesting. For example, in the course of a broadly positive overview of basic income schemes recently – and noting that many economists are coming around to it due to certain trends in employment and so on the following point was made that far from BI schemes weakening research and development ‘some of the great cultural break troughs (in the 19th century) were made by people who did not work’. Scions of the aristocracy, those who had their own guaranteed incomes from the ever expanding capitalism and whoever. And it’s worth noting that for certain sections in society – those just mentioned basic income, and indeed more than basic income, was a part and parcel of the social (and economic) existence.
Of course BI’s are far from being the concern of the left. Milton Friedman was a fan (though IIRC he also agreed with universal healthcare). And one entrepreneur was open that it was an almost libertarian approach (of sorts). But… the sort of pressures that are coming it is difficult not to think that some fairly radical ideas are going to get practical outings sooner rather than later.
Those Hollywood rights… April 29, 2016Posted by WorldbyStorm in Uncategorized.
add a comment
I’d never heard of the ‘Friends of Abe’, apparently a low profile group of conservative Hollywood actors – mind you can’t have been that low profile, it had 1,500 members. Though members were initially sworn to secrecy. Why so? Because:
[it was] a refuge from what they see as Hollywood’s bullying liberal ethos.
It was the one place where many of its members – actors, producers, writers and technicians – felt safe from liberal sneers and potential retribution.
“As a conservative, if you expressed your political views at work you would be weeded out,” said Jack Marino, a film-maker. “At Abe events we could get together over dinner and hang out with our own kind and speak freely.”
Anyhow, as reported in the Guardian, the it could well be that the Trump effect continues to work its magic on the US right.
…on Thursday the organisation – which counts Jon Voight, Jerry Bruckheimer and Kelsey Grammer among its 1,500 members – made an abrupt announcement: it was dissolving.
“Effective immediately, we are going to begin to wind down the 501 c3 organization, bring the Sustaining Membership dues to an end, and do away with the costly infrastructure and the abespal.com website,” the executive director, Jeremy Boreing, told members in an email, a copy of which the Guardian has seen.
“Today, because we have been successful in creating a community that extends far beyond our events, people just don’t feel as much of a need to show up for every speaker or bar night, and fewer people pay the dues that help us maintain that large infrastructure.”
Hmmm… does that sound like a definition of success? Not to me it doesn’t. Or to the Guardian.
The announcement caught members by surprise and fueled speculation that infighting over Donald Trump’s candidacy, among other factors, had drained commitment. Others said the group had been losing steam for years.
Instead of electrifying the organisation, California’s 7 June primary, a final and potentially decisive showdown between Trump and his GOP rivals Ted Cruz and John Kasich, appeared to frazzle it.
Lionel Chetwynd, a producer and screenwriter and co-founder of the FOA, recently spoke of the primary campaign causing a “civil war in slow motion”, which fractured friendships and shredded solidarity.
It’s funny reading the list of members – there’s a lot who I like as actors. Grammar, Gary Sinise, and I’ve a certain odd degree of sympathy (misplaced no doubt on my part) for them in regard to the difficulty of holding different political convictions in certain environments. In the early 1990s I worked for an offshoot of the Murdoch empire, in my office alone three of us were paid up members of the British Labour Party, myself included, but it was months of working closely together before we discovered that and it was an affiliation that we all kept very very quiet about. The funny thing was that that sentiment, leftwards I suppose one could call it, was much much more general in the company and related companies (we shared a floor or two with other Murdoch owned companies), than might have been thought.
The day Thatcher was unceremoniously evicted from office a massive cheer went around the floor at the moment the news broke.
Eugenics in the US April 29, 2016Posted by irishelectionliterature in Uncategorized.
A review of what looks like an interesting book on The Eugenics movement in The US
The first two paragraphs of the review in The New Yorker
Carrie Buck was nobody you would have heard of. She was born in 1906 in Charlottesville, Virginia. Soon afterward, her father either abandoned the family or died—there’s no reliable record—leaving Carrie and her mother, Emma, in dire poverty. As a toddler, Carrie was taken in, with the approval of a municipal court, by a well-to-do couple, John and Alice Dobbs, who asked to become her foster parents after seeing Emma on the street. Carrie lived with the Dobbses and went to school through the sixth grade, after which they pulled her out of school so that she could do housework full time. She cleaned their house and was hired out to clean neighbors’ homes, until, at seventeen, she was discovered to be pregnant—she later said that she’d been raped, by Alice Dobbs’s nephew—at which point her guardians moved to have her declared mentally deficient, although there was no prior evidence that this was the case. They then had her committed to the Virginia Colony for Epileptics and Feeble-Minded.
When Carrie was sent to the Virginia Colony, in 1924, the forward thinkers of America were preoccupied by the imagined genetic threat of feeblemindedness, a capaciously defined condition that was diagnosed using often flawed intelligence tests and by identifying symptoms such as moral degeneracy, an overactive sex drive, and other traits liberally ascribed to poor people (especially poor women) who were seen as having stepped out of line. (Just a few years before Carrie was committed to the Virginia Colony, Emma was also sent there. It seems that she had turned to drug use and prostitution—although it’s hard to say, since many female vagrants were labelled prostitutes.) A sloppy reading of Gregor Mendel’s pea pods and Charles Darwin’s theories gave a scientific veneer to the conclusion that many social ills were caused by the proliferation of the wrong sort of people and that they could be neatly nipped in the bud with the intervention of eugenics—a term coined, in 1883, by Darwin’s half-cousin Francis Galton, who declared it “a virile creed, full of hopefulness.” Soon, the United States, along with Germany, was at the forefront of the movement to improve the human species through breeding. Scientific American ran articles on the subject, and the American Museum of Natural History hosted conferences. Theodore Roosevelt, Alexander Graham Bell, John D. Rockefeller, Jr., and many other prominent citizens were outspoken supporters. Eugenics was taught in schools, celebrated in exhibits at the World’s Fair, and even preached from pulpits. The human race, one prominent advocate declared in 1909, was poised “to dry up the springs that feed the torrent of defective and degenerate protoplasm.”
This Week At Irish Election Literature April 29, 2016Posted by irishelectionliterature in Uncategorized.
add a comment
From the 1977 General Election , a Leaflet from Niall Andrews, Ruairi Brugha and Jim Murphy who were running for Fianna Fail in Dublin South County
Then two from The Assembly Elections
A Leaflet from Richie McPhillips who is running for The SDLP in Fermanagh South Tyrone.
add a comment
A piece from The Irish Republican & Marxist History Project
After a raid on the National Bank in Kells, Co, Meath in 1969, Saor Eire issued their first official statement to the press claiming responsibility for the robbery and describing themselves as the Saor Eire Action Group. They signed the statement Michael Price, using the name of the 1930’s Socialist Republican leader and claiming that the money would be used to finance a movement which would strive for a Workers’ Republic……
You can read the full piece here
Brexit woes… April 28, 2016Posted by WorldbyStorm in Uncategorized.
add a comment
Odd, the Brexit camp is in some disarray (the Guardian’s word, not mine) about the Obama visit. It’s certainly not helped their cause, and Boris Johnson (and Nigel Farage’s words too, less reported but just as noxious) afterwards about Obama’s heritage did themselves no favours at all.
I’ve no sympathy for them whatsoever. You want to do politics, prepare for a push-back from those who take a different view. And prepare to hear people expressing opinions you may not like. It’s risible to hear Obama’s opinion being dismissed as if the US had no strategic or other interests in the matter. Indeed the irony of those who reify (and in some aspects correctly) sovereignty denying that to others is entertaining.
And just on all this Tom McGurk in the SBP who does not hide his antipathy to the EU under a bushel and appears to be very much the champion of Brexit argues oddly, that:
If anything the reaction against the Obama intervention has highlighted how deeply personal British voters consider the choice they have to make. They will feel that it’s for them and for them alone to make this choice, and that only people who are British and conscious of their unique culture and history can make it.
Well, again, the point about opinions is that they are just that. No one is denying the British the chance to make their decision. But, given that Obama’s intervention is regarded by many as reasoned and timely and the reaction is as described above I wonder was McGurk indulging in some wishful thinking.
Anyhow, I don’t know what the political effect will be, but the polls (taken before the visit) generally show the Remain camp ahead by a fair distance (the last Ipsos MORI/Standard poll had REMAIN 49% [nc], LEAVE 39% [-2%], DK 12% [+2%]). So, it’s going to be tight and who knows how things will go, but at this point REMAIN is ahead. Fascinating breakdown of attitudes between the two camps:
MORI also asked an unprompted question on what the most important issues were in deciding how people would vote in the EU referendum. Overall the impact on the economy (32%) and immigration (27%) came top, but there was a sharp contrast between remain and leave voters. Among those who want to remain 40% named the economy, followed by jobs (15%), trade (14%) and immigration (14%). Among those who want to leave 47% named immigration, followed by making our own laws (25%), the economy (21%) and the impact of immigration on the welfare state (20%).
Meanwhile, it emerged that Gisela Stuart, the co-chair of Vote Leave, had written to the home secretary urging May to exclude the rightwing French politician Marine Le Pen, who plans to come to Britain to make the case for Brexit.
No, not Le Pen, Stuart. She’s an interesting career as an LP MP. And she clearly changed her mind on the EU in the 2000s from pro to anti. No shame there. But a little more curious is her stance in 2004 on the re-election of G.W. Bush, and her membership of the Henry Jackson Society.
An unhealthy obsession with Gerry Adams… April 28, 2016Posted by WorldbyStorm in Uncategorized.
Did anyone read Ruth Dudley Edwards piece in the Sunday Independent this last weekend? It was – as is the wont of that paper and its daily twin, an attack on Sinn Féin, and Gerry Adams in particular. I’ve meant to comment on how any even cursory view of their politics stories will almost inevitably offer up a couple of anti-SF stories, and most focused on Adams, every week. Sometimes they are more frequent. That they are near enough all froth, faux outrage over non-events or non-comments or misinterpretations, is neither here nor there. The Independent papers clearly know their target audience. It’s difficult to know whether it reflects worse upon the papers themselves or that audience. I think its 50:50, but others opinions will vary.
None of this is to suggest that Adams or SF are beyond critique or criticism. But the words logical, reasoned and principled surely should inform such critiques and criticism.
Anyhow RDE offers some boilerplate about how Adams has spent his life ‘opposing pretty well everything that came across his line of vision and prevented him getting his way’. Such as?
…the Northern Ireland state, Brits, unionists, Orangemen, the SDLP, securocrats, capitalists (unless they’re American donors), revisionists, partitionists, dissidents, media lackeys and so on and on. Not the IRA, of course, of which he was never a member but for which he has empathic understanding. And not anyone who thinks he’s wonderful.
An odd analysis, one would think if one looks at the fact the peace process was in train perhaps marginally longer than the conflict itself in the North (a bit ambiguous this, but say the conflict was from 1970 to 1996 or so and the peace process from 1990 to date. Again opinions will vary). Or that Adams and others in SF and PIRA came to terms with historic adversaries including…er… pretty much all the above, bar the obvious.
Nor, and this is particularly notable, does she bother to engage with the implacable attitudes of some on that list above. Truly there’s only one original sin in her book.
Anyhow, after such a list it is curiously unimpressive to read where her thoughts take her next. Parochial is the word that springs to mind.
Gerry’s hierarchy of hate-figures list is not set in stone, of course. These days, Micheal Martin tops it. They are engaged in a war for the republican soul which requires a lot of casuistry from both about physical force nationalism, though if Micheal’s difficulty is real, Gerry’s is awesome.
And so we are treated – using the term lightly – to her thoughts on the varying degrees of error of Martin and Adams in regard to republicanism.
As Newton Emerson put it last week in the Irish Times, Micheal Martin was “implying he was more republican but only in the less violent way.”
And then she makes what are actually some thought-provoking points. Not terribly well, it has to be said, but interesting:
All they agree on is that 1916 is sacrosanct. “The anti-nationalist revisionists have been marginalised,” said Micheal. “The arguments of the 1970s and 80s that we should reject the tradition of 1916 are now confined to a small fringe.”
Gerry is with him. “For our part, Fianna Fail and Sinn Fein agree that there would be no Irish State, no level of independence and no amount of sovereignty, however limited, for Ireland, but for the revolutionary republican tradition.”
For her this is error piled on error. For some of us her interpretation will be error piled on error.
Where to begin? I don’t quite know what Micheal means by “anti-nationalist revisionists”, but if he’s talking about unionists, then after decades of murder and destruction in the name of republicanism, they are more critical of the violent tradition in Irish nationalism than ever.
If he’s talking about people like John Bruton, Fr Seamus Murphy SJ and a vast number of others who believe the 1916 leaders had no moral legitimacy, we are mostly happy to be citizens of an independent Irish Republic but regret that it didn’t emerge peacefully, as it certainly would have, had the Irish people wanted it.
That last is simply incorrect, though it is a most expedient line if one wishes to deny the legitimacy of 1916.
But we’ve ploughed that ground sufficiently on this site. As to the first, and this is something she appears to share with many, yes, republicanism has changed, but then so has everyone else. Power-sharing was hardly accepted at all by the UUP until the GFA itself, and completely anathema to the DUP until well into the last decade. And it is notable that she sees partition flowing from 1916. But surely she is aware that it was implicit in the home rule agreement that she (clearly) views as a precursor somehow to ‘an independent Irish Republic’? Or perhaps not:
Without the violence of 1916, politicians would have had a chance of reaching a constitutional agreement without bloodshed: because of it, the island was partitioned and the hearts of the two main tribes hardened against each other.
Offered without even an hint of supporting evidence. One is meant to take it as read as being correct.
Anyhow, that’s by the by. The stuff about revisionism is actually more useful.
Anyway, Micheal is talking rubbish about the marginalisation of dissent. There is a far more lively public debate about the legitimacy of 1916 these days than there ever was in the 1970s and 1980s. Just look at the letters pages of the newspapers for starters. Most of our young adults today have not had years of heavy indoctrination, are cosmopolitan and prepared to think critically about their nation’s sacred cows. (Mind you, the patriots-and-Brits take on 1916 that is being fed to some schoolchildren at the moment may be storing up trouble for the future.)
And what of this remarkably partial defence of British rule:
But if Micheal Martin blurs history, Adams simply lies about it. Those who “seek to elevate what has been termed the ‘constitutional nationalist tradition’ in Irish history at the expense of the revolutionary republican tradition… ignore the reality that in the Ireland of 1916 there was no democracy”, he explains, thus blithely writing out elections for parliamentary and local government, a constitutional, not absolutist, monarchy, not to mention free speech, freedom of assembly, the rule of law, an independent judiciary, a public service open to all and Home Rule on the statute book. This is what the seven anti-democratic signatories of the Proclamation of the Irish Republic, who were a sub-group of a tiny secret society, set out to overthrow.
Does she genuinely believe that the situation in Ireland in 1916 prior to the Rising was as she describes, that the functional and effective aspects of British rule were as benign as she presents? No word at all how the British state had bent under the pressure from Unionism. Nothing about the entirely skewed form of parliamentary representation, or the appallingly restricted franchise. Or about how Home Rule itself was utterly compromised.
The Brian Hanley talks linked to on this site this week underscore this. In Dublin TCD could elect 2 MPS to Westminster, both Unionist, the rest of the city elected 4. Just 33,000 men (and only men) had a vote in Dublin out of a population ten times that number in the city as a whole. Property, gender and other qualifications ensures the disenfranchisement of many many tens of thousands more men and women in the city. Local elections had similar qualifications, albeit some women were allowed to vote. As Hanley notes, ‘democracy as we know it today did not exist in 1916’. Further, he notes that home rule as envisaged then did not include women’s suffrage. The Home Rule party, Redmond himself, were adamantly opposed to both suffrage and women’s participation in that party.
And I mentioned last week that I find this line about the Irish people as gullible consumers of nationalism or republicanism (of whatever stripe) as hugely insulting. But it’s also in political terms rather stupid. There is no chance of a second Troubles, the context and dynamics are now so radically different that it would take ruptures unlikely to occur in the medium to long term to even bring us marginally closer to such an eventuality.
But I think she is wrong about revisionism of her stripe not being marginalised. Her thesis about 1916, one shared with Bruton and the indefatigable Fr Murphy is not shared by the overwhelming majority of people in this state (and by extension this island). The state itself, subsidiary institutions, cultural formations, all the media – whatever about the space afforded to ‘dissenting’ voices, often a disproportionate space given their numbers, all are as one in being of the opinion that the Rising was legitimate. It goes further. So does the British state. So do other states.
Nor, and this she and those who take a similar view ignore completely, is that legitimacy regarded as mapping onto all else. Their wilful misunderstanding of the dynamics of the 1960s in the North means that they offer an amazingly reductionist view of the relationship between 1916, nationalism and the Troubles. But without ignoring some impact it seems much more logical to suggest that the conflict that ensued was largely a product of those dynamics referred to a sentence or so back. But that’s problematic for them because it means there isn’t a single font of political conflict on the island but multiple ones. Small wonder that the sight of Adams in Dáil Éireann is so troubling to them because that suggests layers of complexity in regard to the histories and relationships on this island (and between these islands given the centrality of SF to the GFA/BA) that make their take on it seem partial and partisan.
That the same, or largely the same, group who have made this the central obsession of their political lives disagree is their choice, they are fortunate that they number amongst them a few who have a relatively high media profile.
Again though, there’s an odd parochialism, and personalisation in her conclusion. She writes:
Gerry Adams will always put his cult before his country. He is aching to be leader of the Opposition, so he can get his snipers in the best position to destroy and demolish everything the Government does and reap the electoral rewards of the anarchy that would ensue.
To his credit, Micheal Martin is putting the national interest first in holding the centre. If he keeps his nerve, while Gerry goes on opposing things for cynical party advantage, at least he won’t be doing it from the best seat in the Dail.
This is it? This is her ‘revisionist’ project in all its glory in 1916? Just about keeping Gerry Adams (and SF – though that seems to be less important than the man) from being ‘leader of the opposition’? It seems small beer for all that effort, all that supposedly existential struggle for the heart and soul (and history) of the Irish people. Doesn’t it?
Inequality: ‘Risk of poverty’ in the RoI. April 28, 2016Posted by WorldbyStorm in Uncategorized.
1 comment so far
After transfers, the “at risk of poverty” rate is higher than in such states as the Czech Republic (8.6 per cent) and France (13.7 per cent).
However, if there was no social welfare system, with all citizens dependent on the wages and the support of family, the at-risk rate would be a staggering 49.8 per cent – topped only by Greece, where the rate before transfers would be 53.4 per cent.
In practical terms:
Consistent poverty rates increased, from 7.7 per cent in 2012 to 8 per cent in 2014.
That translates as 368,440 people in consistent poverty – ie living on an income below 60 per cent of the median and also unable to afford such basics as a second pair of strong shoes, a warm winter coat, sufficient heating to be warm at home or to have friends or family over for a meal once a month.
Of the almost 370,000 experiencing such privation are an increasing number of children. In 2014, one in eight children (11.2 per cent) were in consistent poverty.
Government formation: ‘Deal’ or no ‘deal’ April 28, 2016Posted by guestposter in Uncategorized.
You take your pick…
Fianna Fáil may be willing to commit to allowing Fine Gael to introduce three budgets as part of a deal to put a minority government in place.
Advisers from the two parties met on Wednesday to put the finishing touches to a deal designed to allow a Fine Gael-led minority government take office next week.
Acting Taoiseach Enda Kenny and Fianna Fáil leader Micheál Martin are expected to sign off on the agreement before it goes to the two parliamentary parties for final approval.
Talks between Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil on the formation of a minority government led by Enda Kenny are due to resume later today.
Party officials redrafted some documents overnight.
Both parliamentary parties yesterday considered the draft agreement on Irish Water agreed by negotiators on Tuesday.