George

Serena

I had just finished a blog and was casting around for another subject when I saw an article on the Serena Williams implosion at the US Open in September. I had kept some cuttings on the subject but hadn’t done anything about it until I saw India Knights piece in the Sunday Times in the same month. Still doing nothing more than digging out the original cuttings I saw the incident referred to once again by Jo Konya in the Mail, Well I can take a hint and I reread the cuttings to see whether my original concerns still valid.

The facts behind the incidents are that in the US Open final Williams was penalised for three code violations, the first for throwing her racket to the ground; the second for receiving coaching during the match and finally for verbally abusing the referee. As the tennis correspondent of The Times reported,

“A read of the grand slam rulebook, something from which players and some pundits would benefit, showed that Ramos was undoubtedly correct n each of the three code violations that he issued…” The Times

We have to stop at this point and decide whether we agree that the rules were, in fact, broken before we enter into the furore that followed. All three offenses were caught on camera with her coach further admitting that he did coach in contravention of the rules. The argument from now on is not whether it was right that she was punished but whether the rules were equally applied. In her post match press conference Williams said, ” I can’t sit here and say I wouldn’t say he’s a thief because I thought he took a game from me. But I’ve seen other men call other umpires several things. I’m here fighting for woman’s rights and for woman’s equality and for all kinds of stuff …. ” (The Times) She went on further to say that the Umpires remark was sexist and that no man had lost a match for calling the Umpire a ‘thief’. Having pressed the gender button we may pause to note that at the time of her outburst, men had been fined 23 out of 33 fines imposed at the Open and that her fine was at the lower end of the scale (The Times). The other thing to note was that she was not penalised for just one offense but for the sum of three violations.

This cut very little ice with The American National Organisation for Women who pressed the racial as well as the sexist button. Both Sue Barker and Billie Jean King joined in with King claiming that, “when a women is emotional, she’s ‘hysterical’ and penalised for it” (The Times) This is a theme that was picked up in India Knights article in the Sunday Times. Her take was that women’s rage was considered unfeminine and out of character by a misogynistic society and therefore had to be controlled. In contrast men who had a ‘short fuse’ were somewhat admiringly regarded as being red blooded and alpha male. I wonder what world India Knight lives in where boorish and bullying behaviour is applauded?

In anyone’s world, “to threaten, with the help of a few expletive, to shove a tennis ball down the throat of Shino Tsurubuchi” (The Times) is unacceptable

This incident occurred during the 2009 US Open when Tsurubuchi called a foot fault. Two years later Williams imploded again,

“I truly despise you” Williams said to Asderaki before later expanding on her thoughts during a change of ends. “I promise you, if you ever see me walking down the Hall look the other way because you’re are out of control. You’re a hater and you’re just unattractive inside.” (The Times)

I wonder what Knight would have said if a man had made the same threats to the same female officials? Note in all of these incidents there is little discussion on the facts of the case but an immediate ‘fall to the ground’ to claim victimhood. There is some equality in the fact that Williams can sink to the level of the worst male offender but I assume that is not something that Knight and the other Williams supporters would choose to celebrate.

Mathew Syed wrote a sympathetic review of the problems that Williams has had to face to get to where she is (The Times). He describes a constant series of overt and subtle forms of racism that she suffered and applaused her championship of equality and woman’s rights. He also understands that sometimes the decisions that go against Williams can appear to be a part of the general discrimination that she has suffered on a daily basis. However, in this case he argues that sometimes, ” … heroes can cross the line in their personal conduct and can sometimes claim prejudice in specific circumstances where non exists.”

Serena Williams comforts Naomi Osaka at US Open presentation

In her tirade against Ramos she said, “I have never cheated in my life. I have a daughter and I stand for what’s right for her.” What lessons should her daughter take from this particular episode? Should it be that any woman can match any man in a race to the bottom? I disagree with the view that a women’s anger is hysterical whilst angry men are admired but I suspect that society holds woman to a higher standard and that may be unfair. Should the lesson be that any unfavourable action against a woman can be attributes to sexism and victimhood? I refer to this as the ‘fall to the floor’ gambit and as Jo Konta says “I’m all for equal rights but I don’t necessarily always agree when you don’t like something, you brush it onto the inequality carpet and say because I’m a woman I didn’t get this,”(Mail Online)

I think that Serena should say to her daughter that she has had to fight hard to be where she is and sometimes all the tension and emotion overspills and she says or does something she regrets. The right thing to do is to lead by example and say that this time she was wrong and she should offer an apology to Ramos however much some of her supporters will see this as a betrayal. In the end her daughter should see the sense of fairness and compassion that was shown to Osaka at the victory ceremony when Williams asked the crowd not to boo and spoil Osaka’s day.

References: The Times, 10/09/18, Stuart Fraser, Umpire was not Sexist – Serena Broke the Rules

The Times, 10/09/18,Mathew Syed , She endured a lot but should apologise

The Sunday Times Magazine, 16/10/18, India Knight, Serena Williams, like all women, is entitled to her Rage….

Mail Online, 22/11/18, Mike Dickson, Everyone is human, including Serenahttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/tennis/article-6423275/Jo-Konta-believes-Serena-Williams-wrong-accuse-umpire-sexism.html

What Are the Chances?

What are the chances that two gay couples go in to two conservative Christian Bakeries on two continents and order two cakes to be inscribed with a message supporting gay marriage? Well you probably know the answer to this but in case you don’t I will continue the tale. Predictably, the two bakeries reject the order explaining that it is against their religious principles to support gay marriage and equally predictably each gay couple take a case against the Bakeries with their respective Equality Agencies claiming discrimination. The cases go through a number of iterations with the governments funding the claimants and the Bakeries having to appeal for funding from the general public to support their defence. What do you think so far, Gay conspiracy or pure coincidence?

Well, as usual, I will go for the middle ground and suggest that this was just a copy cat case, stopping short of suggesting a co ordinated attack on religious beliefs over two continents. How did the respective Supreme Courts decide the case? In both Courts they found for the bakers but there were significant differences in the ratio decidendi of their judgements. In the US the Supreme Court skirted the issue of Freedom of Speech and decided by a count of 7 – 2 that the Equity Agency that first tried the case and defended the plaintiffs, were themselves prejudiced. The judgement was drawn quite narrowly and focussed on the facts of this case and was reported as follows: “Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s majority opinion turned on the argument that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which originally ruled against the baker, had been shown to be hostile to religion because of the remarks of one of its members. “(New York Times,04/06/18)

In contrast the UK Supreme Court found by a unanimous verdict of 5 – 0 that, “Freedom of expression, as guaranteed by article 10 of the European convention on human rights, includes the right “not to express an opinion which one does not hold”, Hale added. “This court has held that nobody should be forced to have or express a political opinion in which he does not believe.”(The Guardian, 10/10/18) The judgement splits the facts of the case into two halves. The Bakery did not refuse to serve the couple because they were Gay. There was no issue in respect to selling any of the goods on display and the Court clearly recognises this.

Ashers did not discriminate against Gareth Lee …. because he was gay. They agreed to make him a cake but refused to decorate it with the pro gay marriage wording he requested. Peter Tatchell

The plaintiffs were not refused service because they were gay and therefore the actions of the bakers was passive. However, trying to make the bakers express a political opinion against their will was an active infringement of the bakers rights. This would appear to be self evident and although the Court went to great lengths to support current equality legislation, it clearly refused to grant superior rights over those who did not agree to promote their ideology. Peter Tatchell makes the point that we need to look at the implications of a ruling against the Bakers, ” If the Supreme Court had ruled against them, it would mean that a Muslim printer would be obliged to publish cartoons of Mohammed and a Jewish printer could be required to publish a book that propagates Holocaust denial.” (Peter Tatchell)

This would appear to be such a common sense ruling that a person on the Clapham Omnibus would have seen the logic very quickly yet the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland spent £250,000 of public money supporting the plaintiffs. A Spokesman for the Commission said, “We are very disappointed. This judgment leaves a lack of clarity in equality law.” (The Guardian) I would argue that the Supreme Court has established an important principal of personal freedom and that the only thing that needs to be clarified is the role of the Commission. Was it establish to promote fairness and equality for all or just the interests of it’s clients?

references: The Times, 11/10/18, Peter Tatchell, Judges Ruling on Gay Marriage Cake is Victory for Freedom.

New York Times, 04/06/18, Adam Liptak, In Narrow Decision, Supreme Court sides with Baker….

The Guardian, 10/10/18, Owen Bowcott, UK Supreme Court backs Bakers ….

A Safe Pair of Hands

I didn’t vote for a second term for Michael D, not because I feel that he is not qualified for the job but that he is too qualified when measured by the old time political metrics. Don’t misunderstand me, at the first election he was the only one who understood the constitutional role and limitations of the Presidency. I had hoped that his promise for a one term Presidency meant that perhaps this was the final fling of the political consensus that sent an old politician to the Aras for a nice retirement, leaving the major centrist parties free to ignore an inconvenient and expensive election. But leopards don’t change their spots, especially old ones. Once Michael D had his feet under the Presidential Desk at the Aras for seven years the prospect of unemployment seemed less inviting. Had either of the two Mary’s made this about face there would have been outrage but because it was Michael D, no one was really surprised. No one was surprised about delaying his decision to run so that opponents had to scramble to seek adoption by councils that were on holiday. No surprise either that they would have no time to build a campaign or, that he was suddenly so busy that he could only debate on his terms. This was old style and typical of the smoke filled rooms that gerrymandered politics of the past.

I had hoped that with the election of Presidents Robinson and McAleese that we had broken with the past and signalled a new approach but the only change was that the smoke filled rooms are now non smoking.

Does it really matter? Michael D is a safe pair of hands and will not disgrace Ireland by choosing the wrong fork at the Heads of State dinners. He occasionally shows his Old Labour affiliation as with the panegyric to his old Soviet comrade, Castro but does anyone really care? After all he ‘creamed’ the vote even with a low turnout and Leo has agreed to shorten the term to five years and look at the cost of the Presidency. The problem was the Casey vote. I have argued in the past (Sinn Fein ) that we are sleepwalking into a situation where support for the centre dissolves and dissipates to the Left and Right extremes.

John Lahart said “The Casey vote has to be heeded and acknowledged or it will escalate into something larger and we will have our own Nigel Farrage style politician in the making” (Sunday Times)

The only thing that I would dispute with the above is that because the right is noisier and they feature in the Press more, that we ignore the extremists on the Left. Be that as it may there is a feeling of frustration in the Country that Lahart has identified. This is not because Casey is particularly popular or has anything worthwhile saying,

as Fintan O’Toole said,” Casey didn’t create an audience – it found him”. (Irish Times 27/10/18)

The Editorial in the Sunday Times (Sunday Times 28/10/18) described the current political status as a,” suffocating consensus that was slowly killing robust political debate.” Indeed the subtext to Michael D’s acceptance speech was that words hurt and difficult and possibly painful issues are best not aired in public and best left in the safe hands of the centrist liberal elite. I have argued elsewhere that this arrogant attitude, together with the breakdown of trust with the political class, has increasingly frustrated the middle ground voters.

The matters raised by Casey were not the main issue but,” … by actually speaking his mind he managed to breach the stultifying political correctness that sanitises most statements made by our career Politian’s,” (Sunday Times 28/10/18)

We always believe that we are different, what happens to others will never happen to us. We should take the lessons from the Presidential election of centrist indifference and frustration of the middle ground and ensure that we do not make the same mistakes as others.

references: The Irish Times, 27/10/18, Finton O’Toole The Sunday Times, 28/10/18, Stephen O’Brien/Justine McCarthy, Higgins Keeps Crown. The Sunday Times, 28/10/18, Editorial, Election shows we need a Party to Break our Consencus.

Road Traffic (Ammendment) Act 2018

I would think that it is fairly rare that one day after the implementation date of a new Act that headlines such as ‘Drink Driving Laws too Weak’ would appear(The Times 27/10/18) . However, this is the Act that Minister Ross introduced to appease public pressure to do something about the mess that are the RTA’s and their policing. It was also a Bill that was heavily criticised, not for the proposed penalties but for any realistic attempt to reform the rickety structure that governs enforcement of the Road Traffic Acts in Ireland. I wrote an essay on the subject in July, using data mainly drawn from an RTE program and the basic issues that were raised were not addressed in any serious way (.At the Stroke of a Pen) In summary the main recommendations were:

A reformed and properly resourced traffic corps.
Consolidate the RTA’s to reduce the possibility of legal loopholes
Ensure equal application of the law in all Courts
Enforce the banning orders. Compliance is currently estimated to be around 35%

Politicians believe that passing a law solves a problem but it is obvious that unless it is resourced and enforced that we are only tinkering with the matter, I would repeat my closing question from my July essay.

How about it Minister? Do you think that yet another Amendment will cut road deaths or, would joined up enforcement make a bigger difference?

Moving Statues

I had downloaded the BBC Reith Lectures, which this year featured Margaret MacMillan discussing the complex relationship between Humanity and War. At one of the Q and A sessions after the War and Art lecture, she was asked her views on the recent campaign to remove prominent Civil War statues in the U.S. She said that this issue can be viewed in a number of ways and that, for example, great art can come from questionable sources citing Richard Wagner and

Roman Art to illustrate this. Interestingly, it was only this year that a piece of music composed by Wagner was played over Israeli radio and MacMillan’s argument was made to people who protested against airing the works of a composer so closely associated with the Nazi regime. Art can also reflect subjects that present difficulties for a modern viewer. The Ludovisi statue (opposite) recorded the triumph of the Greeks over the defeated and subjugated Gauls by showing the double suicide of a defeated Gaul couple who preferred death to capture and slavery. Time is obviously a factor in how we interpret art and the Roman copy of the Greek statue, said to be entitled The Galatian Suicide, is an example where the raw emotion of the piece has been tempered by the passage of time and yet still resonates today.Wagner however, still provokes protest from people who can remember or, are only one generation away from the holocaust. MacMillan suggests a case by case review factoring in the original purpose of the statue. For example, something that commemorated soldiers killed or, past heroes might pass the test but statues erected to reinforce the oppression of a racial minority, particularly those erected in the 1950’s South would not. Of course, this is highly subjective and a review of this kind doesn’t always work in an overheated atmosphere.

Albert Statue in the grounds of Leinster House

Ireland has not escaped the revision of historical monuments and the pictures opposite show two of them. The first , in fairness, only shows half of the original statue after the Nelson Pillar in O’Connell Street was blown up in 1966. The interesting contrast with the intense nature of the Confederate Statues argument was not that it was destroyed, bearing in mind the situation in the North but that it wasn’t replaced by a suitable republican figure. Despite Irelands recent colonial past the Pillar was replaced by the Spire (or the Needle, if you belonged to the illegal substance taking community). There was more annoyance than fervour in the public reaction and the eventual replacement with the Spire was more of an effort to revitalise the city centre than any protest against the past. That there are such sentiments is demonstrated by the petition to move the Statue of Prince Albert, (Above) currently standing in the grounds of Leinster House. That this hasn’t gained much traction was demonstrated by the fact that no one had noticed who it was and that TD’s who attended the Oireachtas on a daily basis, didn’t know where it was until the question arose. The proposal did reach Committee stage until it was discovered that the Parliament didn’t own it and therefore couldn’t remove it. The current thinking is that the previous occupants left it there but there is no political will to progress it any further. The third example of Moving Statues in Ireland is the occurrence of Marian statues that moved spontaneously in the 1980’s which allows me to make a rather weak pun between the text and the title of this essay.

Sir Arthur Travers Harris. Marshall of the Royal Air Force. 1892 – 1984

The most recent controversies in the UK have been related to figures that profited from the slave trade and colonialism such as Cecil Rhodes and Edward Colston but it is the statue of Sir Arthur Harris that I have selected to demonstrate that a statue can mean different things to different people. The statue was erected in 1992 and celebrated the head of Bomber Command in the second World War. Historians are still divided by the Area Bombing strategy that he implemented in the belief that it would shorten the war. This is a complex issue but I just want to take three views that prevailed at the time the statue was erected. The first and noisiest were those that believed the policy Harris followed was a war crime, especially the bombing of Dresden carried out in 1945. They argue that Dresden was a low priority target that was subject to massive raids by the USAF and RAF bombers with high levels of civilian loss. The second view was from the survivors of Bomber Command who felt that the discussion over the Bombing offensive obscured the bravery of and huge losses suffered by the aircrew. RAF Bomber Command suffered proportionally higher losses than the other Services and survivors felt that their sacrifices were overshadowed by the more glamorous Fighter Command and the post war debate on bombimg strategy. Thirdly, Harris often quoted a passage from the Old Testament, “They sowed the wind and now they are going to reap the whirlwind.” (Hosea 8-7) This summarised the view of most of the wartime population who had suffered privation, personal loss both in the Services abroad and at home during the Blitz and V1 and V2 campaigns and the real threat of defeat and conquest.

I haven’t made the morale argument in any of the above and have avoided quoting losses or statistics that can be used to make a matrix or hierarchy of suffering to support one argument or another. I have deliberately taken non US examples as, from this distance, I cannot fully appreciate the depth of feeling of all those who have taken sides in the US Statues debate. I also understand that in most cases where statues have been removed they have been relocated to Confederate Cemeteries or other suitable locations. From this can we assume that the objective is not to eliminate past record but to remove currant flashpoints? It would be interesting

Statue entitled Early Days will be removed from San Francisco Civic Centre after protests

to know whether that assumption can be sustained. What you see on the news are very angry people targeting statues like the one in California, featuring a native American at the feet of a cowboy and a missionary, entitled Early Days. Surely statues like this can have no place in modern life? Yet it took some time for the decision to be made to move it and a defense was made by comparing the removal with the destruction of past icons by the Taliban and the book burning of the Nazis. The timing of the protests may be as a result of other factors coming together such as the #MeToo, LGBTQ and Black Lives Matter movements creating an environment where establishment icons are sought out and challenged. It is interesting that statues are the selected targets and that they still have the power to excite this level of attention. It is this point that Professor Madge Dresser makes in her discussion of the current events. She states the following,

“Statues are lightning rods, symbols of the prevailing values of the society. When those values are not shared a debate needs to be started.” (BBC News Magazine, 23/12/15)

The description of a lightning rod seems appropriate as we attach current issues around racism, in this case, and try to ground them in the past. Why the current protests should be so visceral in the US and relatively calm in Ireland and the UK is a matter of debate. Certainly, the issues around slavery, the Civil War and current politics haven’t been resolved in the States. Ireland has also only recently, in historical terms, had their own War of Independence and Civil War with huge issues still to be resolved in the North but do not seem to have followed the same route as their US contemporaries. This may be down to different historical trajectories and is not the debate here. If we take Professor Dresser’s view that a statue can represent past and present values, then she argues that they should be preserved in most cases (Unsure about the Early Days statue) and the different view points should be expressed in the tablet fixed to the statue. As she says, “To take the example of Colston in Bristol, the current positive plaque on his statue could be replaced by one that made clear that he was involved in the slave trade. Thus a debate could be started. “It’s better on the whole to keep the statues but to recontextualise them.”

In the end there are many variables that make up the debate and the value of these historical icons is that they visually record historical revisionisms that reflect the different values in society over time. That some statues are just bad art I will leave to those with better taste than I have to decide. However, given the ever changing Art scene, perhaps they should also be stored under the stopped clock being right twice a day principle. Professor Dresser acknowledges that keeping statues of Hitler may be too controversial but many of those statues under threat have a different story to tell other than the one portrayed today as is the case with Marshal Harris. At a time when political analysis is made by sound bite and social commentary reduced to single word terms of abuse we have to preserve our ability to rationally debate difficult and complex issues. There is a movement to prevent a statue of the famous Indian pacifist, Mahatma Gandhi being erected in Malawi (Times 16/10/18). Surely this is a man above reproach, yet the ‘Gandhi Must Fall’ group accuse him of racism to black Africans and the novelist Arundhati Roy claims he supported the caste system in India. The lesson to take from all of this is that the world is a complicated place. Good people are rarely good all their lives. Indeed the definition of what is good differs over time and we need to do more than shout slogans and impose our ideology on others to understand the past and the present. Perhaps statues have a bigger role than we thought and by a study of what they meant in the past our opinions, so strongly held today, might be challenged. I suspect that those who shout the loudest do not want to listen to the stories that the statues have to tell, which is why it is even more important that the rest of us take the trouble to do so.

We are not makers of history. We are made by history. (Martin Luther King)

References: When is it Right to Remove a Statue, Finlo Rohrer, BBC News Magazine, 23/12/15, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35161671 The Reith Lectures, 2018, Margaret MacMillian, BBC Radio 4, Producer Jim Frank. The Times, 16/10/18, Jane Flanagan, Gandhi Must Fall. https://www.brainyquote.com/topics/history

An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur? (Do you not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?)

Roman 2000 year old garden fountain discovered at Colchester in 1998

Sometimes you read about a decision by a local Counsel and you want to see the person who made it and ask why. Colchester Council has destroyed a 2000 year old Roman garden fountain because it couldn’t find a suitable home for it. It was discovered in 1998 and has been described as a unique piece of garden furniture (The Times, 10/09/18). The Counsel said that it had been damaged on excavation and that it was too costly to repair but I suppose you could say that about most things that had been buried for 2000 years and then dug up. The Council went on to say, “We have to strike a balance with the level of public funding and storage space available unfortunately, on very rare occasions, exceptionally difficult decisions have to be made.” I would like to ask this Counsel officer how often these difficult decisions are made, by whom and with whose approval. The other question is how hard did he try. Most counsels have more spaces than they can account for where this artifact could have been displayed including, libraries, offices, schools, theaters and Universities. If these are all ‘choc a block’ with Roman remains, what about giving to other counsels who are not so Roman artifact rich. Perhaps, given the garden connection, somewhere like Kew Gardens might be interested. What I suspect is that this was a low level decision, taken routinely in an area where Roman archaeology is common and under valued. There should be a higher level of accountability when these ‘exceptional decisions’ are made and should involve independent archaeological oversight.

It seems that the biggest threat to the survival of Roman history in Britain is not the Saxons, Angles and Scots but local Councils like Colchester.

reference: The Times, 10/09/18, Quotation by Axel Oxenstierna “An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?” = Do you not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axel_Oxenstiernahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases_(full)

Minister for Health

I was out to lunch recently and as the alcohol count went up, the temperature of the discussion increased and the willingness to defend absolutely untenable positions became crucial. The subject matter whipped around current news, visiting matters Trump on a couple of occasions (Is there an equivalent to Godwins Law that encompasses DT?) and for a short time settled on the Health Service. One of the requirements of this sort of discourse is that none of the participants is expert on the subject which gives a certain amount of latitude to the debate. At one point we were each asked, ‘If you were appointed Minister of Health, what would be your first action?” There were a number of responses to this that have been lost in the haze but it was a question that came back to me as I was listening to Simon Harris introducing Sláintecare. I wonder whether his first action on appointment was to wonder what he had done wrong in a prior existence to deserve the Department of Health posting. On the same day that the discussion took place there was more fall out from the Cervical Cancer debacle: more GP’s leaving the country; over a million waiting for hospital appointments; more people on trolleys and so on. The only thing that was consistent was the call for more and more money from all of the stakeholders in the Health industry.

Earlier this year there was the trolley crisis and I remember a lunchtime radio presenter promising to read out the number of patients on trolleys every day until the problem was solved. Perhaps I misunderstood her because I don’t hear her publicising the numbers any more. Today we have new problems that remind us that in simple economic terms we have insatiable wants and limited resources. When the lunchtime program was on the subject of the crisis in A&E we heard a number of theories as to how to deal with it. What I didn’t hear was any in depth analysis on patient through-put, broken down by type of incident. What I kept hearing was the number of patients on trolleys and even this figure was different from that published by the HSE. What I kept asking the radio was for some basic data giving the type of medical emergencies of those presenting to A&E. I heard two doctors interviewed saying that every patient attending had a legitimate reason for being there but we all know someone who has been told by their GP to attend A&E to avoid long delays for MRI scans, for example. It would be interesting to know how many trolley patients were discharged as soon as a Doctor could get to them or, how many just needed to sleep it off.

This is not my normal rant but a genuine doubt as to whether the Minister or the management of the HSE understand the drivers and demands of healthcare today. I understand that the Health Service cannot be run like a business but when we see a long term plan being published without costings it ceases to be a plan and becomes something aspirational and full of good intentions and we know what the road to Hell is paved with. At this point I should say that I have a great regard for those healthcare professionals working at the coal face but I get an impression of an organisation that is rudderless, lacking in energy, accident prone and moribund. I also get a sense of segmental interests fighting against each other for a slice of an ever increasing budget. I hope that I am wrong and that there are current, relevant and robust figures and costings on which a plan can be based and that there isn’t a form of internecine warfare responsible for a black hole into which more taxpayers funds are sucked.

To get back to the original question of what I would do if appointed Minister, I would look for current, relevant and robust data that gave me a good sense of where the organisation is and what the plans are. I am not talking about yet another report from one of the top accounting firms. I am talking about data properly targeted and obtained by multi discipline teams from within the Health Service. There are a number of benefits to this approach firstly, the poacher turned gamekeeper effect where all the old hiding places are known. Secondly, if the team dynamic is good then cross discipline and cross health centre contacts are made and best practise procedures are implemented. If management trust their own staff, implementation of ‘quick wins’ will continue to build trust between them. Of course this will need extra funds and the other front that has to be addressed is the taxpayers view that increased funds go into a money pit that benefits everyone but patients. The Minister and HSE have to have a dialogue with the taxpayer that not only looks for more funding but takes full responsibility for implementation, supports investments with value for money data and publishes follow up audits to ensure that targeted gains are achieved. In the UK the Minister for Prisons has promised to resign if, in a year, improvements are not made in 10 prisons taking part in a pilot scheme to reduce drug taking and violence. (Irish Times 21/08/18)

What about it Simon, prepared to ‘nail your colours to the mast’ and for a change make a meaningful promise to the Health service and its clients?

Reference: Irish Times, 21/08/18, Denis Staunton. World News

“Stick it to the Man” – Really?

There was a snippy news item in Carol Midgley’s Notebook today, headed ‘stick it to the man.’ (The Times, 27/08/18) In summary, the story is that some woman’s rights people had stuck ‘phallus shaped stickers’ on the Iron Men statues on Cosby Beach with the text, “woman don’t have penises.” The usual suspects reacted, the Mayor has vowed to track the perpetrators down; it was declared ‘anti trans’ (presumably by the pro trans people) and the police are investigating. Nothing very unusual there then. The piece ends by saying that we are at a unique point in history when the police are investigating this prank with it’s “woman don’t have penises” message.

I know that it is a throwaway piece but are we really at a ‘unique point in history’ with this rather childish prank? The probability is that the Mayor was caught off-guard for a comment and pulled out the stock, ‘I will track them down’ response. I will guarantee that the police have already consigned the whole thing to the square bin marked, ‘under investigation’ and the only official who might be exercised by these antics is probably the Litter Warden, who has to gather up all the evidence before he gets it in the neck from an outraged Mother on a day out at the beach with her children. ‘A unique point in history’ more like a normal day at the office.

Reference:The Times, 27/08/18, Carol Midgley, Comment

Edmund Burke versus the Right

Image result for journalists

We all know the following quote from Edmund Burke and understand its meaning, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” It was running through my mind as I read an article written by Janice Turner. (The Times, 04/08/18) In it she discussed the current shift to the right in European and US politics and how the Liberal centrist community should approach this phenomenon. She describes the hatred and fury that drives the leaders of these groups that would not have been out of place in 1930’s Munich. There is also a recognition that the left has similar issues with Corbynites weirdly unable to shake off the antisemitism that seems to be embedded in some parts of Labour. The shocking Sunday Times research findings that 24% of UK respondents would vote for a far right anti immigration party gives cause for concern. Even though polls should be treated with some scepticism Questionaires any number in the 20%’s is significant. Turner argues that the ‘new wave’ rightists bypass the traditional media and peddle their ‘truths’ unchallenged on the net, claiming that they have been silenced by the traditional media for one conspirital reason or another.

Turner poses the question how do we react to this seismic change in society? One method is to ignore it and as she says of one of the ‘new rightist’ we could, “Cast him out to the nutty fringes no-platform and ignore him, keep his views off our airways cut the publicity oxygen pipe and hope he chokes.” (The Times, 04/08/18) I agree with Turner that it is wrong to simply ‘do nothing’ in the face of this threat to our way of life. However, what has worked in the past was to bring the extremists into the open where they have to confront issues in the traditional media, especially television. Where I disagree with the article is that it focuses exclusively on the Right and given the antics and sinister organisations representing them, it is easy to see why. However, I think that there is a wider problem that needs to be addressed. The more fundamental issue is to restore public trust in Politicians and Journalists. If we go back to the Sunday Times questionnaire the voters who said that they would vote far right were described as, ‘politically unserved.’ I would suggest that this class of citizens include the 52% white female vote for Trump; those who did not see the benefits accruing from the EU in the Brexit debate and the basis of the People before Profit and the rise of Sinn Féin in Ireland.

The combination of social media, the Bank failures and the shift toward identity politics has left a disconnect between the traditional media, centrist political parties and the people they are supposed to serve. The perception that a class of people at the top escaped the worst effects of the crash cannot be wholly rebutted. There is a further perception that some groups are given victim status at the expense of others and to question either is commit some form of blasphemy. All this, added to other unresolved social issues finds a home where these feelings of abandonment are enflamed. Turner challenges us, ” Do we sit in our self affirming twitter Pods, muting and blocking opinions counter to our own …. ” She thinks that Journalists should go on the offensive and not allow anti democratic forces an easy path. Is the current media fit for purpose? Turner sympathises with entities like the BBC who try to keep a balanced view but end up trying, “in a hand wringing, liberal way to address a significant strain of public opinion without causing offense.” This is part of the problem and Turner and others have to also look at a Liberal ideology that has done much to create the demons that she warns us against. I like her style, especially when she says, “The best weapon against unreason is for journalists to do their jobs.” Are Janice Turner and her like only going to see ‘unreason’ to her right or, is she prepared to look hard at what some would say are the new Puritans of the Centre and Left and take them on with equal fervour.

references: Edmund Burke Quotes, https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/17142.Edmund_Burke The Times, 04/08/17, Janice Turner, We can’t Ignore Cult of Tommy Robinson

A Twist in the Tail

I try to avoid commenting on Brexit as it has been ‘done to death’ a number of times in the media and in political debate. I was rather a weak remainer who hoped that the EU might revert back to it’s EEC roots and that we might actually implement the rules of subsidiarity which were promised, post Lisbon. However, I wasn’t really surprised when the concept was quietly ditched and Brussels supplanted sound economic principle with expansionist doctrine. There are parts of the debate which still ‘raise hackles’ and put the television in grave danger. One of them is that it is all too complicated for the ordinary person to understand and therefore there should never have been a vote.

I take exception on a number of levels. Firstly, when I look at the assemblage of UK MP’s, Irish TD’s and UK and Irish MEP’s all I can say is that the bar isn’t set very high. Of course, in the main, they don’t understand it either but are advised by professionals who do. These are people who share an elite international western culture with their continental bureaucrats. I rather like the following interplay between Sir Humphrey and the Minister on how the elite really see the voters and Politicians, “James Hacker: This is a democracy, and the people don’t like it.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: The people are ignorant and misguided.
James Hacker: Humphrey, it was the people who elected me!
[Humphrey nods] ……” (Yes Minister, 1981) It seems that people can be trusted to vote on issues that are matters of real life and death as in the Abortion Referendum in Ireland. I also seem to recall that people voted on access to the EEC and therefore why are they not qualified to vote on whether to leave? In General Elections people vote for Governments not detailed policies and a large chunk of the UK did not feel the love from the eurocrats. Finally, would you buy a used car from these ‘experts’ who didn’t see the crash coming, even though they were employed to do so and scurried for cover whilst others had to pay the bill.

At this point the PC is in danger and I will return to the article that started this train of thought. Clare Foges wrote an article headlined, ‘EU was always going to Punish UK’ (The Times,7/08/18) making the point that the EU was more concerned with holding the Union together than doing a deal with the UK. I think that there are no surprises there but her conclusion is interesting and worth quoting, “Britain was always going to scrape a deal that would leave us worse off than before, or no deal that will take us God knows where. The writing was always on the wall. That’s why Brexit was always a terrible idea.” One of those foolish Brexiteers might say that with friends like the EU, better out now and take the consequences than to continue until it is too late. Not necessarily my opinion but not as clear cut as Clare Fogas would have us believe.

References: The Times,7/08/18, Claire Foges, EU was always going to Punish UK for Brexit, Yes Minister, BBC, 1981, Anthony Jay and Jonathon Lynn