Archives

OK

Random entry RSS

Loading

  • Posted in:

    Welcome to reality: EU wasn’t serving least well-off

    by

    Last month, the UK referendum on membership of the European Union posited a seemingly simple question and delivered an obviously complex outcome. The vote on June 23 came in with a massive turnout of 71.8 percent, the highest for any UK-wide vote since the 1992 general election. In the end, England voted by a strong margin of 6.8 percentage points in favour of Leave, while Wales voted by 5 percentage points in favour. Scotland opted by a 24-point margin for Remain, and Northern Ireland voted Remain by 11.6 percentage points. Gibraltar voted 95.9 percent in favour of Remain, best in the class, pro-EU. Based on voter turnout-adjusted figures, eight out of the ten largest voting area across the UK posted majority Leave vote, with London (ranked number two in the total number of voters participating) and Scotland (ranked number eight) being two exceptions. The results were divisive. Widely reported results from Lord Ashcroft’s Polls show that only 27 percent of voters age 18-24 were in favour of leaving the EU, with 38 percent and 48 percent Leave support for 25-24 year olds and 35-44 year olds, respectively. In contrast, 56 percent of 45-54 year olds and 57 percent of 55-64 year olds were pro-Leave. 60 percent of those aged 65+ voted against the EU membership. The problem with interpreting the above results is that they are unadjusted for turnout figures. Based on the analysis of voting data, voter turnout strongly increased with age. According to the Financial Times (FT):“The generational divide on Brexit has been common knowledge throughout the campaign, and is apparent in the demographic data, even if only weakly”. The main factors driving voter decisions were socio-economic: education and occupation (with higher educational attainment and occupational position being the two statistically strongest determinants of propensity to vote ’Remain’); followed by the share of people holding a passport. The fourth factor was labour earnings. As the FT put it: “Before the vote several polls identified a common finding: people intending to vote Leave were much more likely than Remain voters to say they felt Britain’s economy was either stagnant or in decline”. In simple terms, the Brexit vote reflects the relatively more complex socio-economic divisions of the modern UK as opposed to the commonly-touted Leave voters’ age-determined anti-immigration sentiments, xenophobia and nationalism. The key forces shaping the anti-EU sentiment in the UK, as much as in other member states of the EU, are rooted in the realities of the modern economy: the post-Global Financial Crisis status quo of income and wealth divisions, and the underlying evolution of the global marketplace for labour and skills. The voter characteristics that defined Leave supporters, according to most economic literature, also determine earnings in the advanced economies. Most importantly, education and occupational choices drive two key earnings-related risks: labour productivity and the degree of worker substitutability by technology. In simple terms: lower-educated and less-skilled workers face more downward pressure on their earnings, higher volatility of earnings, a lower correlation between their own productivity and their earnings and higher risk to their jobs from automatisation, robotisation and technological displacement. They are also more exposed to direct competition from migrants. Based on recent research from the Resolution Foundation, published in February, it is clear UK middle-class earnings have been effectively stagnant since the early 2000s. This development took place during the period of EU enlargement, increased migration, and the push towards political harmonisation, exacerbated by the Global Financial Crisis and the Great Recession. Over the same period, the EU was shocked by the Euro-area sovereign debt crisis and the subsequent external migration crisis. Five out of seven key shocks between 2000 and today are directly linked to European-wide policiy choices. This, in the words of the Resolution Foundation analysts, fuelled the electorate’s “disillusionment at the economic and political status quo”. Since 2002, over half of middle-class UK households across the entire working-age population witnessed “falling or flat living standards [as] two-thirds of the growth in average working-age income has been wiped out by rising housing costs”. For the growing population of renters, the decline in private incomes net of housing costs was larger than increases in earnings. Meanwhile, home-ownership has dropped 16 percentage points for Millennials, compared to Generation-Xers, controlling for age. The bulk of home-ownership decline took place in middle-income households, with ownership trends relatively steady for the poorest and the wealthiest households. In a way, the Brexit vote was symmetric with voter tendencies across a number of countries. In its annual report for 2016, Sweden’s Timbro Institute documented the relentless rise of political populism in Europe: “Never before have populist parties had as strong support throughout Europe as they do today. On average a fifth of all European voters now vote for a left-wing or right-wing populist party. The voter demand for populism has increased steadily since the millennium shift all across Europe”. Which, of course, also reflects the dire lack of resonant pragmatic leadership. After decades of delegation of ethics and decision-making to narrow groups or substrata of technocrats – a process embodied by EU institutions, but also by national institutions – European voters no longer see a tangible connection between themselves (the governed) and those who lead them (the governors). The Global Financial Crisis and subsequent Great Recession have exposed the cartel-like nature of the corporatist systems in Europe (and increasingly also in the US). Again, Timbro notes: “2015 was the most successful year so far for populist parties, and consistent polls show that right-wing populist parties have grown significantly as a result of the 2015 refugee crisis…Today, populist parties are represented in the governments of nine European countries and act as parliamentary support in another two”. The net outrun is that: “…one third of the governments of Europe are constituted by or dependent on populist parties”. The official European (and Irish) Kommentariat are keen on blaming nationalism and xenophobia for these trends. But the causality is likely to flow the other way: the failure of the European political elites

    Loading

    Read more

  • Posted in:

    We’re already doing/not doing it

    by

    You would have to wonder who put this one in the Programme for Government. There seems no intention actually to do it. That, sadly, is not a new phenomenon. This time is different though. They don’t even seem to know what it is. Nonetheless they said they “would develop the process of budget and policy proofing as a means of advancing equality, reducing poverty and strengthening economic and social rights”. Paschal Donohoe, Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, understandably brushed the whole matter aside in answer to a Dáil question from David Cullinane TD of Sinn Féin. He said that, “overall, the analysis and transparency of the decision-making process has been undergoing constant improvement over recent years and I envisage this continuing”. The problem is that proofing involves more than analysis and transparency. It requires analysis and a commitment to change policy to further goals of equality, poverty-reduction and implementing economic and social rights. It requires transparency, but also the participation in decision-making of groups experiencing inequality, poverty and human rights issues. He went on about the ESRI SWITCH model and its “distributional analyses of budget tax options”. He bravely told of his Department’s new Social Impact Assessment (SIA) framework “designed to focus on policy areas that cannot easily be incorporated into the existing SWITCH model”. That was it really, SWITCH and SIA to the rescue. He could have summed it up with either “we are already doing it” or more accurately, since they are not, “we are not going to be doing anything on this”. Political promises continue to depress. The Dáil Committee on Arrangements for Budget Scrutiny, on the other hand, appears for some reason to be taking the commitment seriously. It held a special session to engage with the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (IHREC). However, it all boiled down to a plea at the end from the Committee for IHREC to provide “five or six key points against which Departments can be measured”. This was a disappointing conclusion to what is an ambitious and complex commitment to assess and improve the budget, while it is being prepared, to ensure it contributes to advancing equality across nine grounds, and addresses poverty and economic and social rights. It goes back to the question of who put this into the Programme for Government. Stephen Donnelly, David Cullinane and Tommy Broughan seemed to know what they were talking about in the debate. There was no one on the Government side, which presumably wrote the Programme for Government, who seemed to know what this proofing was about, or who championed the commitment with any enthusiasm. That explains a lot. IHREC made it clear that the proofing had to be done by the relevant Government Departments and not by IHREC. It is worrying that the Dáil Committee seemed surprised at this. Proofing policy for equality has to be integral to the policy-making process. Corrections must be made before the policy is implemented. Nevertheless IHREC indicated it might provide support, having initially suggested its role was one of encouragement only. There certainly needs to be support as there is no evidence of the necessary capacity being available to Government Departments. Stephen Donnelly TD of the Social Democrats raised the important issue of controlling quality during the process. IHREC was not making any offers in this regard. Valid fears were expressed by Tommy Broughan TD, independent, that the process could degenerate into a tick-box exercise. An independent and authoritative setting of standards is vital and IHREC is best placed to play this role. The Dáil Committee had to be disabused of the notion that equality, poverty and human-rights proofing of the budget could be put in place in time for the forthcoming budget. IHREC clarified the scale of change demanded by the commitment not just in the content of the budget but in the systems for developing the budget. It usefully suggested a strategy of evolution where small foundational steps could be taken this year and built on over coming years to develop a more complete proofing process. This approach requires some clarity as to what a fully-fledged process might involve but here there was little clarity on this. There was acknowledgement of the complexity of a proofing process that encompasses equality, poverty and human rights. There is no national or international model for this and no clear direction whether the three areas should be integrated or addressed separately. There was some acceptance that there are differences between the three fields encompassing both ambition and approach. IHREC offered some clarity in relation to human rights. This covers: progressive realisation of economic and social rights; ensuring maximum available resources are invested in these rights; protecting core basic standards in these areas; and ensuring no unjustifiable regression of provision in these areas. Greater familiarity was clearly evident in relation to poverty goals of setting and seeking to achieve targets for reducing the numbers of people experiencing deprivation, the risk of poverty, and consistent poverty respectively. There was no mention of goals for equality. This is the area where most ambition is demanded and the silence was not promising. Achieving full equality in practice needs to be the policy goal for women; lone parents; carers, lesbian, gay and bisexual people; trans people; people with disabilities; young people; older people; and Black and minority ethnic people including Travellers. Proofing should lead to substantive change in the availability to these groups of goods such as income, work, wealth, education, accommodation and health. Little detail was provided in the debate on the different approaches demanded in proofing for poverty, equality and human rights. There was a failure to link the commitment to proofing with the new statutory duty on public bodies since 2014 to have regard to the need to “eliminate discrimination, promote equality, and protect human rights” in implementing their functions. As part of their duty public bodies must identify the equality and human rights issues relevant to their functions. Tracking investment in these issues could usefully

    Loading

    Read more

  • Posted in:

    (Wall)aces it again on Nama

    by

    The charging of another former NAMA official with the leaking of confidential information has added to the already significant pressure on the agency’s chairman and chief executive and on finance minister, Michael Noonan, to concede an independent inquiry into its activities. Paul Pugh (56), from Clontarf Road in Dublin, is charged with disclosing confidential information contrary to Section 7 of the 2009 National Assets Management Agency Act. Detective Garrett Lynch of the Garda Bureau of Fraud Investigation told the District Court that Pugh provided information about McCabe Builders (UK) Ltd to a named individual at Connaught and Whitehall Capital UK Ltd in June 2012. John McCabe was one of Ireland’s top-rung developers until he crashed with debts of more than €230 million in loans and guarantees being taken over by NAMA. McCabe built the Abington development for the rich and famous in Malahide, in north Dublin. His wife Mary hit the headlines in February 2013 after a receiver was appointed over her €150,000, 8.5 carat ‘Brussels sprout’ sized diamond ring and other jewellery when she failed to discharge some €20m in judgments obtained by the agency. NAMA claimed that Mary McCabe with an address at Rath Stud, Ashbourne, County Meath owes it the proceeds from the sale of a €20m property in Park Lane in 2012. John McCabe previously featured as a member of the Maple 10, one of the ten customers of Anglo Irish Bank who purchased a 10% stake in the bank from Sean Quinn in 2008 in a desperate attempt to save the rapidly collapsing institution. Paul Pugh is now accused of leaking information about McCabes’ distressed assets while he worked with NAMA. On the day of his arrest on Thursday 23rd June, Wexford TD, Mick Wallace told the Dáil that Pugh was “an individual who came onto our radar long before now”. Pugh is currently listed as a director of Connaught and Whitehall Capital Ltd. (not the UK entity named above) with an address at Santry in north Dublin, along with Swiss-based Irish businessman, Michael Maye. His arrest follows the conviction of another former NAMA employee, Enda Farrell, who recently received a two-year suspended sentence after pleading guilty to a number of similar offences of passing confidential information from NAMA to external interests. While these incidents have been embarrassing for NAMA chairman Frank Daly and chief executive Brendan McDonagh they are in the halfpenny place compared to intensifying controversy over the 2014 sale of the agency’s Northern Ireland loan book, Project Eagle. Only an extraordinary U-turn by Fianna Fáil saved the government, and Noonan in particular, from acute discomfort when a motion by Wallace calling for a Commission of Inquiry into the Project Eagle purchase and sale was defeated in the Dáil on 29th June last. Only days earlier, Wallace had been personally assured by Micheál Martin, of his party’s support for the motion, not surprising since it was almost word for word identical to one unsuccessfully put by Fianna Fáil before the house last November. Clearly, the unwritten or at least unpublished agreement between the two largest parties precludes supporting dangerous motions which might force Noonan to explain why he authorised NAMA to proceed with the €1.241 billion sale to US fund Cerberus despite information that the tender process had been compromised by “fee arrangements” involving key players connected to the agency in Northern Ireland. In early 2014, Noonan was informed that another US fund, Pimco, had disclosed to NAMA that it had agreed to make payments totalling €15 million to a number of people who assisted it during the tender process including Frank Cushnahan a former member of the agency’s Northern Ireland Advisory Committee (NIAC). It subsequently emerged that Stg£7m had been lodged in relation to the Cerberus deal by solicitor Ian Coulter then a partner of Belfast firm, Tughans, in an Isle of Man account. At least some of it was intended to go to a senior politician or party in Northern Ireland. Cushnahan was to receive some £5m from the deal. Cushnahan also operated out of the Tughans’ offices in Belfast city centre. As reported in Village over recent months, this sensational revelation, first made by Wallace in the Dáil in June 2015, contributed to the decision of Peter Robinson to announce his resignation as first minister and leader of the DUP last Autumn. Gareth Robinson, son of the former DUP leader has also been implicated in the affair. Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams made a complaint to the New York state comptroller who called in Cerberus to answer questions about the claims of side-payments linked to the sale. Since then Cushnahan and Ronnie Hanna, the former head of asset recovery at NAMA in Dublin, have been arrested and put on police bail after their arrest in Northern Ireland as part of the investigation by the British National Crime Agency into the purchase of Project Eagle. Investigations by the Securities and Exchange Commission of the US Department of Justice and the Law Society in Belfast are also underway. Hanna resigned from NAMA in late 2014, six months after the sale to Cerberus, and returned to Belfast where he was previously an executive with Ulster Bank. The new Northern Ireland finance minister, Máirtín O’Muilleoir, has also provided fresh information to the Stormont finance committee about the role of one of his predecessors in the affair. Former DUP finance minister, Sammy Wilson, nominated Cushnahan for the NIAC job and, according to the latest information provided by O’Muilleoir, also proposed that former Anglo Irish Bank official, Neil Adair be appointed. At the time, Adair was registered as a shareholder of PBN Holdings, one of Nama’s largest debtors in Northern Ireland. Adair has claimed that he was unaware until late 2015 that he had been nominated for the role on the NAMA advisory committee. During the debate on the Dáil motion in late June, Wallace repeated his claim that Hanna met senior Cerberus executives on the eve of the tender being awarded, in early 2014.

    Loading

    Read more

  • Posted in:

    Claire as Hillary

    by

    Season 4 of ‘House of Cards’ came out on Netflix earlier this year and was gobbled up in a matter of weeks by its fans. The opening sequence will be familiar to them, a series of shimmering images of Washington DC, first in morning light and ending with the channels of motor traffic pulsing through the darkness of the city, like arteries through a body. The technique is called time-lapse, where a long period of time is replayed in a few seconds, creating effects such as clouds scudding across the sky as if borne on a speedy stream of water. Beneath the clouds and inside the portentous buildings across whose facades the shadows eat away at the sunlight, the dirty business of politics takes place. The city of impassive classical architecture is sinister, devoid of real life, like an enormous timepiece that obeys its own rhythms with no regard for the humans trapped inside. In a show that front-and-centres its soliloquies and its parallels with ‘Othello’, ‘Julius Caesar’ and ‘Macbeth’, the title sequence also evokes Shakespearean tragedy. The cosmic scale dwarfs the vain efforts of the mere mortals who strut the stage and whose merely human perception of things means they cannot escape what fate has in store for them. Chief among the mortals, puffed up with pride about their ability to control the future, are the charismatically likeable villain-hero, Frank Underwood, and his icily remote wife and running mate, Claire. Who actually likes Claire Underwood? While a man wielding power seems to be fully a man, a woman with power is often judged unfeminine, tough and unlikeable. The Underwoods clearly conform to this paradigm. But ‘House of Cards’ dealt itself a challenging hand to play in the last season by making Claire the main character in naked pursuit of political power. A nuanced and prominent female is a rare thing on screen, but, as in the real world, the price a woman pays is in the currency of likeability. The screenwriters seem to be aware of the problem. In Season 4, Claire’s estranged and difficult mother slowly dies in front of her eyes, but the payoff is not so much sympathy for her as much as astonishment at how she (Claire) seems not to suffer. In May this year, the actress who plays Claire, Robin Wright, revealed in an interview that she was forced to insist that she and the leading man, Kevin Spacey, receive equal pay for their work. She told an interviewer, “I was looking at statistics and Claire Underwood’s character was more popular than [Frank’s] for a period of time. So I capitalised on that moment. I was like, ‘You better pay me or I’m going to go public.’ … And they did”. The Hollywood rumour mill pegs their pay at somewhere between $500,000 and $1m dollars each per episode. So perhaps after all there are people who like Claire Underwood, if we take being ‘more popular’ as meaning the same thing. (Though, for example, Darth Vader is arguably more popular than Luke Skywalker, but not more likeable). At any rate, this is clearly good news because Wright is breaking the kind of glass ceiling that stymies women in politics, women like Claire Underwood. Wright’s argument for equal pay displays the sure touch of a poll-sensitive politician. It also displays a politician’s knack for simultaneously controlling her own narrative and cornering her opponent – she threatened to go public with the studio’s unwillingness to pay her equally, and then went public with it anyway when they had coughed up. They won’t try that again. The parallel between acting and politicking is notable too, and not only because public life is a kind of stage play. It is also notable because of the way that women politicians are obliged to act in public life. The norm is that a political leader is a man, and so a woman who occupies this position is perceived to be playing a man’s role. No matter how good a woman is at being a politician (Thatcher, Merkel, Albright, Harney, Indira Gandhi), she is nearly always judged to be performing the role, whereas men are simply being themselves. An effect of this is the tendency to focus on female politicians as actors, performers, and on what they look like (their facial expressions, clothing and hair). Their appearances are scrutinised as usually failed efforts to pass as something else or to conceal some real aspect of themselves. In short, the merciless attention devoted to the appearance of female politicians is due to the fact that they are not considered to be authentic – not authentically women, and not authentically politicians either. All of this is expressed in terms of likeability. When a male politician is unlikeable, it is connected to other, attractive qualities; for example, many Irish people do not like Donald Trump, Nigel Farage or Vladimir Putin, but they probably would credit these men as being strong-willed, independent and impervious to criticism. But when a woman is unlikeable, it is because she is perceived to be mannish, cold and hard. The person most consistently hounded by the problem of unlikeability is Hillary Clinton, who does not compel the charisma and warmth dividends of the three men who have stood alongside her in different ways down the years: Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and most recently, Bernie Sanders. More than ever, the Democrats have put a lot of effort into controlling her appearance in the current electoral cycle. So for the last two years at least, she has consistently worn a tunic-plus-trousers combination that varies only slightly in its colour, and this has taken some of the attention off her appearance. In other words, her clothes have become as invisible as a male politician’s standard dark suit. It is difficult not to draw parallels between the Underwoods and the Clintons, the supreme real-life power-couple. Few people have walked the corridors of power longer than Hillary Clinton, as she now reaches for the presidency.

    Loading

    Read more