General

Random entry RSS

  • Posted in:

    Greens need a wellbeing prenup.

    Quality-of-life indicators guarantee good policies and, crucially, implementation that can save Eamon Ryan from allegations of unrealism. By Michael Smith. The danger: farce When Napoleon III, nephew of the dictator Napoleon Bonaparte became dictator of France himself in 1851, Karl Marx wrote: Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce. The problem: last marriage didn’t work out The Green Party, which was married to Fianna Fáil from 2007-2011 (and the PDs up to 2009) is in danger of entering a farcical re-marriage to Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. If you’re marrying someone you think isn’t into you, you should get a detailed and watertight pre-nup.  Especially if you were married to them before and it didn’t work out; and they’ve been making nasty comments about you for years. Unfortunately, as they endlessly but secretively progress their formal talks not on nuptials but on a programme for government, there is no suggestion on a strategic level the Greens.  have remembered that the age-old and continuing problem with Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael and the environment is they are often happy to make promises and even to provide new measures, it is just that they do not provide for their enforcement. If the Greens do not adjust their capacity for realism there is a danger they will split. Worse, at the moment, the split on offer – between Catherine Martin,  Deputy Leader and Eamon Ryan, Leader – isn’t even on ideological grounds.  The Greens, who can often be soft-minded seem to be  teed up for a silly contest pitting the need for loyalty to a lovely fella on the one hand against the need for someone who’s a woman and not (deepdown) from Dublin 4 on the other; without particular reference to efficacy, radicalism or lessons learnt. The solution: “credible” quality of life indicators The Greens already failed to plant the ball in the open net Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael left them when those parties notably committed in their framework document for coalition of 15 April to “credible” quality of life indicators. Indicators means measurements of success. It has long been established that environmentalists best achieve both a) the full breadth of their quality of life agenda (also known as a wellbeing or sustainability agenda)  and b) its enforcement, through up to 100 of these indicators which replace GDP as the gauge of society’s success. This agenda is well recognised by the UN, OECD, EU and others. The point is that it covers a multitude including reduction of emissions and protection and enhancement of biodiversity; and a full range of other environmental and of social and economic indicators that are established progressively, rendered as targets and systematically monitored. If the targets are flouted the pre-nup kicks in dictating divorce. Environmentally you might have climate, biodiversity, balanced rural development, numbers, quality and mix of new housing etc. Socially you might have equality of income and wealth, employment rates, imprisonment rates, implementation of Sláintecare etc. Economically you might have growth, inflation, household and national debt etc. …A hundred indicators in total. What else? Official buy-in including from Finance Department Through these, enshrined in a programme for government and with buy-in from top civil servants and the Departments of Finance and the Taoiseach, the Greens should establish, and guarantee implementation of, radical policies and standards. The Greens’ current approach: following up 17 questions The letter from Eamon Ryan to the bigger parties of 23 April, following up the big parties’ framework document, did duly outline that such indicators should “shape the economic recovery”. But that suggests he sees them as secondary to the economy and there is no mention of them in the 17 questions included in the letter or, inevitably then, in the nice flexible follow-up letter from the bigger parties of 28 April. Unlike other Green parties, interestingly the Irish Greens down the years, even in their constitution, seem never to have embraced the centrality – promoted by the UN –  of sustainability and quality of life. Then again the Greens also left out biodiversity – remember we’ve lost 60% of vertebrate animals in the last fifty years and it’s supposed to be the second most important issue for them – from their questions. They’re making it up, you know. Many commentators, who know nothing about the environmental agenda, assume the Greens are big policy wonks.  Environmentalism is a bit off the track for the sort of journalists who become respected political commentators in the Irish Times and Business Post.  They don’t want to do any research about whether the Greens have good policies or indeed how they did when they were in government from 2007-11 and they don’t want to be mean to this new agenda and its sunny leadership.  So they assume the Greens are masters of policy. A recent profile of Eamon Ryan in the Business Post and another assessment by Harry McGee in the Irish Times on whether the Greens ‘played senior hurling’ in government, fall into this category. If you have a reputation  for getting up early you can sleep until noon. The Greens were no good at policy when they were in government 2007-2011 and they are not good at it now.  Of course most of the other parties are worse. The Greens’ history: underachievement I’ve been around long enough to be aware how little the Greens achieved in coalition from 2007 to 2011. We need only to look at the statistics on what sort of impression they made on the guts of their agenda. Planning If we had planning legislation that worked we wouldn’t have continued to build one in four houses one-off in the middle of the countryside and allowed  Dublin to sprawl all over Leinster when the ideal, and even the national planning strategies, required channelling development away from Dublin into other cities and rural towns.  Biodiversity and transport We did not arrest cascading

    Loading

    Read more

  • Posted in:

    How the Irish Times got its biggest story of the last 50 years wrong.

    The Assistant Editor of the Irish Times distorted the truth about the Arms Crisis. He was a friend of both the chief of staff of the Official IRA and the Taoiseach, ‘Honest’ Jack Lynch. The Official IRA had a vested interest in manipulating the story. Over time, the journalist portrayed Lynch as the hapless victim of the Arms Crisis. This article will look at his relationship with the Marxist wing of the IRA, the Officials.   By David Burke   Part 1: Dick Walsh and the Official IRA. CATHAL GOULDING AND THE ALDERSHOT MASSACRE Cathal Goulding In February 1972 the Army Council of the Marxist wing of the IRA, the Officials, directed an attack on the HQ of the British Army’s 16th Parachute Regiment Brigade at Aldershot in Hampshire. At the time, the Army Council consisted of Cathal Goulding, Sean Garland, Tomás Mac Giolla and others. On 22 February a time bomb was conveyed to the Aldershot complex in a Ford Cortina vehicle. It weighed 280 pounds (130 kg). The driver alighted and fled the scene with the bomb detonating seconds later. The Officials who had scouted the complex cannot have missed the fact there were many civilians in the vicinity. A few seconds later five kitchen staff were slaughtered: Jill Mansfield (34); a mother of an eight-year-old boy. Her body was identified by a tattoo on her arm; Thelma Bossley (44); Margaret Grant (32); Cherie Munton (20); Joan Lunn (39), a mother of three. So too was a gardener, John Haslar (58) who died from a fractured skull. Finally, a Catholic priest, Gerry Weston (38) perished. 19 others were wounded by the explosion. Not a single soldier died. CROCODILE TEARS AND LIES Goulding and his cronies declared that “initial reports confirmed that several high-ranking officers had been killed [at Aldershot]. British propaganda units then moved into action, and miraculously the dead officers disappeared”. The statement added that the Official IRA’s intelligence department, had ascertained that 12 officers of the Parachute Regiment had been killed in the attack. These claims were entirely dishonest. On 23 February, the Officials explained that the attack had been perpetrated in revenge for Bloody Sunday: “Any civilian casualties would be very much regretted as our target was the officers responsible for the Derry outrages [i.e. Bloody Sunday]”. Stripped of the crocodile tears, Goulding was saying that it was acceptable to kill a handful of kitchen staff, a gardener and a priest in a botched atrocity because his motive had been pure – the murder of soldiers. Stripped of the crocodile tears, Goulding was saying that it was acceptable to kill a handful of kitchen staff, a gardener and a priest in a botched atrocity because his motive had been pure – the murder of soldiers. The Officials also said that the bombing would be the first of many such attacks on buildings occupied by British Army regiments which were serving in the North. In November 1972 Noel Jenkinson from Meath was convicted for his part in the Aldershot atrocity. He died from a heart attack in October 1976. Cathal Goulding The Army Council of the Official IRA remained tight-lipped about the other members of the Aldershot unit and they all escaped justice. I spoke to Sean Garland – briefly – about the Aldershot atrocity many decades later. He acknowledged that the attack was “indefensible”. In fairness to him, he did seem genuinely remorseful. A FUNERAL ORATION FOR A FALLEN OFFICIAL IRA VOLUNTEER Dick Walsh was the political editor of the Irish Times. He died in 2003 at the age of 65. After his death, his former colleagues at the paper described him as someone who was “believed to have used his influence in the left-wing circles in which he then moved to urge the Official republican movement to abandon violent means to settle the Northern Ireland problem”. If he did, he certainly took his time about it. Joe McCann of the Official IRA. The violence continued. Walsh did not shun the Official IRA after Aldershot, nor does he appear to have advocated an abandonment of “violent means to settle the Northern Ireland problem” in the immediate aftermath of the attack. Why can this be said? Because Walsh helped write the funeral oration for an Official IRA volunteer called Joe McCann which was delivered by Goulding. McCann was killed on the streets of Belfast on 15 April 1972 while being chased by soldiers of the Parachute Regiment. He was unarmed. Details of his death can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_McCann. McCann is the silhouetted figure in the main photograph of this article, the man crouching with a gun in his right hand.) There was little sign of a foreswearing of ‘violent means’ in the oration. Goulding said that “those who are responsible for the terrorism that is Britain’s age-old reaction to Irish demands will be the victims of that terrorism, paying richly in their own red blood for their crimes and the crimes of their Imperial masters”. Perhaps blood was still high after the Bloody Sunday atrocity and the murder of the unarmed McCann by soldiers of the Parachute Regiment and Walsh only came around to lobbying for non violence tactics later. Perhaps Goulding added the blood-curdling rhetoric himself. Walsh was presumably strongly in favour of the ceasefire the Officials purported to call on 30 May 1972. I say “purported” because Goulding, Garland and Mac Giolla et al reserved the right to engage in “defensive actions”. Hence, the Official IRA did not go away; far from it in fact. They retained their arms and engaged in murderous feuds with the Provisionals, the INLA and others. The Officials killed 25 people between the calling of the ceasefire and 1983. While the feuding might conceivably be shoehorned into the category of “defensive actions”, the bank robberies and building-site extortion rackets the Officials carried out, could not. Interested readers should purchase a copy of ‘The Lost Revolution’ by Hanley and Millar for further details about the feuding – and much

    Loading

    Read more

  • Posted in:

    The pall is lifting on Northern Ireland’s Legacy stitch-up.

    Proposals to cover up the past breach elementary human rights and received wisdom built up over a generation. By Christopher Stanley. Through the pall of a pandemic Patrick Corrigan,  Northern Ireland Programme Director for Amnesty International UK, wrote in the Belfast Telegraph (19 April 2020), on the current crisis wrought by the coronavirus/Covid-19 pandemic and the importance of learning lessons from it. He noted, eloquently and compellingly, that we could emerge from it into a society where politics and society cohere around human rights.  He concluded: Such a human-rights-based approach to government can help us forge a better, shared Northern Ireland and build upon the strong bonds of social solidarity so evident in our current crisis. When we finally emerge from the curse of coronavirus – and we will – what a legacy that would be. (Belfast Telegraph) Human Rights lie at the heart of the Good Friday Agreement 1998. They are embodied in its letter and spirit. Patrick Corrigan wrote about the commitment to a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland which was contained in the GFA and is now being revisited under the British government’s New Decade, New Approach document which guides the devolved administration at Stormont. Human Rights must be the core of the out-workings of the Legacy of the Conflict in Northern Ireland. The current pandemic will alter the landscape of our jurisdiction when it is finally defeated. It will change our attitudes and perceptions, needs and priorities. It may open a possibility where the violent Legacy of Past in Northern Ireland, which haunts the present and determines the future, can at last be sutured after years of contested narratives of truth about what happened here between 1969 and 1998.For what many of those – relatives of the victims and the survivors and their families – want is truth. Many also want justice and accountability but at the fore is to know why a death or an injury happened. It is not about retribution or reparation. It is about being able to move forward with the past  – bear in mind these dead.   Before the pandemic crisis, the British government published its latest approach to the Legacy of the Conflict. The proposals are a dramatic departure from a) the Stormont House Agreement 2014 (SHA) and b) the attitude towards the Legacy that was taken by the most recent Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Smith). The position of the British government now is to conflate a specific narrative (an interpretation of the Conflict) with a swift Draconian measure to finally sever the present from the past and to protect one particular group of perpetrators/victims – the agents of the state. At present these agents are British Army Veterans but they will inevitably eventually include all members of the British Security Forces, including those from paramilitary organisations used as agents or informers. This political positioning will cause resentment and resistance in Northern Ireland. The intention is to introduce: A new independent body [that] will conduct swift, final examinations of all the unresolved deaths. Only those cases where there is new compelling evidence and a realistic prospect of a prosecution will be investigated. Once cases have been considered there will be a legal bar on any future investigation occurring. This will end the cycle of reinvestigations for the families of victims and veterans alike.This new approach seeks to put victims first with information recovery and reconciliation as the overarching goal – with a way forward that delivers for all those affected by the legacy of the Troubles and enables all sides of the community to continue to reconcile and prosper. In these two short paragraphs, the British government lays bear an intent which has been clearly seen in some sections of the Tory party since the GFA and which has been articulated by some of the inhabitants of Hillsborough Castle (Patterson, Villiers,  Bradley). The end will be swift and final. There is a hierarchy of victims. Veterans (agents of the state and British Security Forces deployed or recruited (as agents or informers) during the Conflict) become victims if they face arrest and prosecution. Therefore they will be granted immunity. The evidential threshold is high;’‘compelling evidence” and “realistic prospect of prosecution”. After years of being consulted, the people of Northern Ireland were faced before the present lockdown with a stark reminder of the way Westminster/Whitehalll saw Northern Ireland as ’good soldier’ and ‘bad terrorist’ – all other contested narratives being ‘pernicious’. In Northern Ireland there was a robust civil society reaction of disapproval.  For example, Relatives for Justice (RFJ) said: These measures will further deepen divisions in society and will certainly not aid any measure of reconciliation – they will aggravate existing hurts and wounds and will be seen as further evidence of a systemic cover-up of British State crimes. This will be challenged on every level by families including in the domestic and European Courts. For example, the Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ) and  a group of academics from Queen’s University Belfast (QUB) analysed the British government’s new proposals against a three-point test: a. The extent to which it is consistent with binding domestic and international human rights obligations, in particular Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights regarding the right to an effective investigation into conflict-related deaths.b. The extent to which it is compatible with the Good Friday Agreement (GFA), the cornerstone of the Northern Ireland peace process.c. The extent to which it is compatible with the Stormont House Agreement. Although the design of that (SHA) is complex, it was arrived at after months of tortuous negotiations between the two governments and the five largest political parties, and it remains the closest we have come to a workable consensus on dealing with the legacy of the past since the GFA of 1998. On each test the proposals of the British government is setting itself up to fail. Just as the English politicians and their Whitehall civil servants knew they would. In the words of RFJ: Throughout the statement

    Loading

    Read more

  • Posted in:

    Looking up in a lockdown.

    An Indian woman’s experience of isolation downs and ups on Irish shores. By Mehar Luthra I was about to leave and take the bus to the university when I got a call from one of my classmates. An older Irishwoman, she asked me if I needed her help with anything and implored me to give her a call if I did. Thoroughly bewildered, I thanked her and asked why she sounded so worried. RTE had just broken the news: Ireland was now officially in lockdown. I had, of course, anticipated this but there was momentary shock still; eclipsed, however, by immense countervailing gratitude that this kind lady’s first thought was concern for a stranded Indian girl. I reassured her that I was well and living in a secure apartment with a nearby grocery store. In a country that had only ever shown me smiles, banter and kindness, I was preparing to hunker down and weather the storm. But still for several days I would sit still in the bedroom of my apartment as the unseen divider raged on outside the curtained windows. I made to-do lists and pondered whether to stick around or go home. Everyone I saw asked me why I had chosen to stay back in Galway and hadn’t raced home to my family in New Delhi.  But one thought recurred over and over: if I did go back home, I would simply be sitting in the bedroom of another apartment (this one shared by my parents and sister) and I would still be doing the same things I am doing here. So why would I drag myself through traumatised airports and risk infection just to go and sit beside a different curtained window in another city ravaged by the same virus?  It’s curious. Before I made my unhasty choice, every person I encountered suggested the same thing: stay where you are. The universe, in all its simultaneously unwavering and perpetually varying wisdom, had decided to nudge me to stay put. But neither did I leave my heart in India. I had feared that I would be crying tears of regret every night into my pillow, missing the company of my oldest friends, weak in the solitude. But no. I did cry into my pillow sometimes in the early hours of the mornings, unable to sleep, heavy with exhaustion and the heartbreak of a carefully planned-out summer shattered. But then I would have done the same into the pillows that I left behind in New Delhi too, wouldn’t I? Regret, I was not open to. Now, hysteria and doom did come in gentle waves slithering through the letterbox studded in my front door. They peeked out from behind windows and verandas and underneath the empty and cold oven in my kitchen. I begrudged my body its daily need to be fed, it’s urgent imperative to be stretched, fed, comforted and entertained. Dating apps were useless and my laptop looked at me expectantly, waiting for me to empty buckets of words into its hungry void on days I could barely formulate coherent thoughts.  Why did I have to eat and shit and breathe and hydrate? It seemed unfair somehow that I could not count on oblivion when so many other things and routines had been wiped out.   And my mouth remained bare of lipstick, my shoes unworn. I spent many days under the covers, simply wishing I could stay under and hibernate as bears do.  During long nights spent willing myself to sleep, the bathroom light from under the doorway anchored me like the North Star and pulled me out of my own head with its swirling thoughts and bubbling worry. Spring came knocking on our doors and tugged at our sleeves, even in Galway. It seemed like the rampant new season hadn’t received news of its cancellation. Flowers bloomed defiantly, leaves latched onto branches and the pathway to the grocery store began to line itself with cheerful tulips. Birds reclaimed lost lands and cats sunned themselves on shining roofs.   I took my coffee on the tiny, square balcony that gives over roads, filled now with car after car passing by in a hurry. Where were these people going? The virus was stalking us – were they running away? I now felt warmth and a gentle breeze in a land that had only ever given me winter.  Some days I was productive and could almost remember routines that had seemed endless to me only a few weeks beforehand. I stretched, and performed sit-ups, push-ups, leg raises and ab-crunches – until my body sang with soreness and the delight of tested muscles. I read great tomes, lost myself in my writing and sucked, as reward and vitaliser, at my coffee until not a drop remained in my oversized, cheerful yellow mug. I waged war with my skin and exiled pimples and blackheads.  Didn’t they know there was a lockdown in place? Go home.  I called people incessantly, perhaps as a reminder to myself that I still had friends and people I could count on. I devoured comedy movies and revelled in the twin pulls of irritation and gratitude when I spoke to my parents who couldn’t help but worry and fret. I embraced moments of sympathy and gushes of affection for my parents. Mothers and fathers must live in a cloud of self-inflicted anguish and anxiety, even without this novel plague.  I retreated into a shell for days on end, reappearing with a thwarted zest for conversation and camaraderie. It was becoming easy to resign myself to the blanket of powerlessness that covered me and my life, a dome which had descended on my hopes and dreams. Much harder was to find joy; and the urge to express hatred, love, ambition. Or even hunger. My anxiety packed a suitcase and settled down to wait in the corners. Its roar began to sound farther and farther away until I could tune it out and go about my dinner. The world was at a

    Read more

  • Posted in:

    The Forgotten Arms Crisis Scoop: how a London newspaper reported details of what became known as the Arms Crisis nearly seven months before it erupted in Ireland.

    Séamas Ó Tuathail was the first journalist to discover details of what was to become known as the Arms Crisis but chose not to report it. Unbeknownst to him, some of the information he dug up was relayed to a British journalist by a talkative senior member of the IRA. The resulting British newspaper article may have exacerbated British Intelligence paranoia about what was afoot in Ireland nearly seven months before the Arms Crisis erupted. Within a few weeks of the report in the English paper, a British Intelligence operation swung into action. A British secret agent nearly lost his life in Dublin during the course of it. He was saved by the intervention of Irish Military Intelligence.     By David Burke Introduction: PART 1: THE UNITED IRISHMAN Fifty years ago this month the Irish public awoke to sensational reports on the radio that Charles Haughey and Neil Blaney had been dismissed from cabinet by the then Taoiseach Jack Lynch. Another cabinet minister, Kevin Boland, subsequently resigned in protest along with a junior minister, Paudge Brennan. This became known as the Arms Crisis. What is not fully appreciated is that an Irish journalist, Séamas Ó Tuathail, now a senior counsel at the Irish Bar, had learnt about the story – and much more besides – some six months previously. He has never been afforded the credit he was due for his investigation. Why? Because he did not publish the full story. Ó Tuathail not only knew that a blind eye was being turned by the State to cross-border gun-running efforts by people ranging from the ordinary citizen to old IRA hands, but also that Fianna Fáil had engaged in a covert propaganda campaign. Ó Tuathail’s perfectly reasonable interpretation was that the campaign was designed to help Fianna Fáil take over the civil rights movement in Northern Ireland. Fianna Fáil never really opened up about the campaign but they would undoubtedly have said that it was designed to bring pressure to bear on the British government to make concessions on Northern Ireland after they had neglected the North for decades and let it turn into a place of institutionalised bigotry. Ó Tuathail went ahead with the the covert propaganda aspect of his investigation in The United Irishman. A graphic from The United Irishman: a modern jet bearing the logo ‘UI’ shoots down an old fashioned Fianna Fáil fighter. The propaganda campaign was run by George Colley with the full support of Jack Lynch but it ran out of steam after a few months and became redundant after Lynch decided to adopt a more conciliatory approach towards London.  It was being shut down in November 1969 when Lynch and Colley received an unpleasant surprise from Ó Tuathail in The United Irishman. Jack Lynch and the head of his ‘truth squad’ George Colley. Even a cursory glimpse at what Ó Tuathail reported about the propaganda campaign in November 1969 raises serious questions about the intrigues that were swirling around Lynch at the time, and of which he was aware. They add weight to the charge that Lynch knew about the efforts by some of his ministers to import arms. THE IRA ARMY COUNCIL Ó Tuathail’s story began one wet dark October night in 1967 when he was driven from Dublin to the ghostly shell of a dilapidated mansion somewhere in County Meath. He was twenty-six at the time and employed at Belvedere College as an Irish teacher. His driver was an IRA volunteer. After a long trip, the driver took a right turn off the highway somewhere between Navan and Kells. They followed a pitch-black narrow lane to the old building where Ó Tuathail was escorted into a former ballroom. An oak tree was sprouting through the roof. Close by the members of the IRA’s Army Council sat around an illuminated table: Cathal Goulding, Seán Garland, Seán MacStíofáin, Seamus Costello, Tomás McGiolla, Ruairí Ó Brádaigh and Paddy Murphy. They also happened to be the de facto directors of The United Irishman, Sinn Féin’s monthly newspaper. Ó Tuathail was escorted to a former ballroom. An oak tree was sprouting through the roof. Close by the members of the IRA’s Army Council sat around an illuminated table Ó Tuathail had come to the publication’s attention as the contributor of a series of Irish language articles to the paper’s former editors Tony Meade and Denis Foley. After a vacancy had arisen for the post of editor, a consensus had emerged that he would be the best fit for the job. Some negotiations had taken place before the meeting in the old ballroom and this was the opportunity to iron out a few details and finalise the appointment. Ó Tuathail told the panel he did not want to join the IRA. This presented no problem to Goulding who was in the process of winding down the military wing of the Republican Movement. While it might have troubled MacStíofáin, he knew Ó Tuathail a little from Irish language circles and did not raise any objection to a fellow Irish language speaker securing the post as editor of the paper. Ó Tuathail justified his stance on the basis that if he became a member of the IRA, he would be subject to possible orders from his superiors and would not be able to enjoy complete freedom as its editor. There were a few exchanges around the table but no disagreement and he was offered the post with independence a term of his contract. Taking the job also meant a 50% reduction in the salary he was receiving from Belvedere. Ó Tuathail left the ballroom while the Army Council resumed its agenda for the night. Members of the interview panel: Cathal Goulding, Seán Garland and Tomás McGiolla. INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST OF THE YEAR Ó Tuathail was a wild success as editor. In 1968 John Mulcahy, editor of Hibernia, awarded him the investigative journalist of the year accolade. He earned it for reporting on issues which the mainstream media was

    Loading

    Read more

  • Posted in:

    Starring in a novel, just for being famous Pól Ó Muirí reviews ‘Actress’ by Anne Enright (Jonathan Cape, €16.99)

    As of a few weeks ago Kourtney has quit Keeping Up With The Kardashians. I do not keep up with the Kardashians but could not avoid the news. I’m embarrassed to say it. I couldn’t escape her fame. Fame, then. Norah FitzMaurice in Anne Enright’s latest novel Actress (Jonathan Cape), is not a media celebrity but is, in Irish terms, well-known for being the off-spring of someone well-known. Her mother, Katherine O’Dell, is an actress who found fame in Hollywood in days gone by but who lived long enough to see that fame become diluted over time. Still, in contemporary Dublin, she was once someone of note and her daughter inherits some of the cachet of being the daughter of someone famous.  The daughter narrates the story and it brings us from Dublin to London to Los Angeles. In between all the travelling, O’Dell’s fame is examined, as is her relationship with her daughter, the poverty of Irish arts (in every sense) is touched upon, religion is ticked, and then there is the student who is writing a thesis on O’Dell and has enlisted Norah for help: “I sit down and write a long email to Holly Devane, who wanted to know about my mother’s ‘sexual style’ (these phrases burn into you slowly, I find)”. Enright’s exploration of Katherine O’Dell’s life is fluent and shallow; her sudden rise from walk-on bit-player to Hollywood stardom; the unimagined fame and money that follow and then the gradual fall from grace and favour as Hollywood finds newer, younger, talent. The theme is certainly one with which contemporary readers will be familiar: there is Gabriel Byrne in Miller’s Crossing, Brónagh Gallagher in Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction and Domhnall Gleeson in Star Wars.  We all know about the Hollywood star factory by now. We know how it can make you and break you and we know how actors from Dublin to Ballymena can become stars.  There is much skimming on Dublin’s literary and cultural life. Various characters and chancers appear, none of whom are particularly pleasant. There is the university lecturer, Niall Duggan, ‘Duggan the Fucker’, with whom Norah sleeps voluntarily once and reluctantly a second time: “Perhaps this is why I helped Niall Duggan with my underwear. The need to sort men’s incompetencies, perhaps. Here let me get that. Even though I was at the time saying no and he was not taking no for an answer”.   (Author’s emphasis.) There is a duplicitous priest and there are other bits and bobs of bohemian flotsam afloat on the cultural current in joyless Dublin. The city’s pubs, hotels and streets feature while the Troubles also encroach on the sad, sad life of the poor “hackette” as she tries to make a living in an impoverished city. In short, a little bit of everything is thrown at a gloomy city’swalls in the hope that some of it might cling.  There are one or two genuinely humorous moments: “There was talk of jobs in the Irish Times or ‘out in’ UCD. Are you out in UCD? A place that was exactly two miles down the road”. A hare is, madly, buried at a television centre. A famous actor has a fist fight in a pub and a plaque is put up to mark the occasion while a Garda at a trial says: “She would only provide answers in the Irish language, he said, but the language that came out of her was not Irish, though she had the feel of it all right. He was from Gweedore himself, he said, which anyone would tell you was the hardest Irish in the world to understand…”.  The light-hearted moments relieve what is a very turgid story; chiefly because neither of the main characters is particularly engaging or charismatic. O’Dell suffers one horrific, and forensically described, episode in her early career which is intended to give her character depth but which occurs so late in the book as to leave the reader wondering why it is there at all. It certainly points to more contemporary events, such as the fall from grace of Hollywood producer, Harvey Weinstein. It is, without doubt, a life-defining event but one which does not seem to have shaded O’Dell’s character up until that point. While Norah is just dull and a bit sour; she belongs to that peculiar class of Dublin intellectual who are really not that interesting but, because of who they are and who they know, dominate the roost, such as the roost is. Kourtney has left the Kardashians. Kourtney may come back. Who really cares? Fame cannot prop a novel. Pól Ó  Muirí is a freelance journalist and writer.

    Read more

  • Posted in:

    Progressive but a little light on policy and not hard-minded enough. The Green Party again tees up its conscience with a somewhat deficient set of questions for the establishment parties.

    By Michael Smith. Green Party leader Eamon Ryan has set out a ‘Green New Deal’ and 17 questions in a six-page letter sent to Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael on Wednesday in response to their framework coalition document The 17 “questions” are: Will you commit to an average annual reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of at least 7 per cent? Will you commit to an ambitious programme of development of, and investment where necessary in, renewable energy infrastructure including off-shore wind, grid and interconnector upgrades and community energy projects? Will you commit to ending the issue of exploration licences for offshore gas exploration? Will you commit to ceasing the construction of new fossil fuel infrastructure, particularly LNG import terminals that could allow the entry of unconventional liquefied natural gas into the Irish energy mix? Will you commit to the exclusive provision of public housing, social housing and cost rental housing on public lands? Will you commit to prioritising urban renewal in line with a ‘Town Centre First’ model? Will you commit to a comprehensive deep retrofit programme as part of a programme for government? Will you commit to convening a social dialogue process representative of all key stakeholders with a view to developing of a new social contract? Will you commit to working towards ending the Direct Provision system and replacing it with a not-for-profit system based on accommodation provided through existing or new approved housing bodies? Will you commit to setting us on a clear and certain path to meeting our UN obligation to spend 0.7pc of our national income on Overseas Development Aid? Will you commit to the development of a national land use plan which will inform both the new national economic plan and the new social contract? Will you commit to rebalancing our transport infrastructure spend, dedicating at least 20pc of infrastructure expenditure in transport to cycling and walking and ensuring that other public transport infrastructure investment is allocated at least two-thirds of the remaining infrastructure budget? Will you commit to establishing a trial of Universal Basic Income (UBI) within the lifetime of the next Government? Will you commit to the revision of the existing National Development Plan so that we can meet our New Social Contract goals and climate change targets? Will you commit to a review of the State’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic, undertaken by the Oireachtas, to enable us to learn lessons for the future? Will you provide a clear and detailed analysis of how your Joint Framework Document is to be financed? Will you commit to publishing and implementing a Green Procurement Policy? The questions posit a remarkably incomplete policy agenda for a Green Party. Greater quality was clearly needed in replying to a very loose document from Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, one which included unacknowledged surprisingly progressive but waffly and incomplete agendas for “a new social contract”, “a new green deal” and “a better quality of life for all”, at its heart. There is no mention of equality in the questions. A basic income is a small part only of any modern equality agenda. It is unclear what a new social contract, a term used in the Fianna Fáil-Fine Gael document means. There is more mention of equality in the document outside of the questions, including a reference to the social contract “addressing inequality for all our people”, but little chance other parties or commentators will treat seriously imperatives that failed to make it into the headline questions. For some time now the Greens have been promoting “social justice” rather than economic equality. That is not the established term for radical movements towards equality. It’s a quainter and more opaque notion than equality, and sometimes rooted in Catholic doctrine. There are references to equality on several lifestyle and sectoral issues such as gender and race, but, despite acceptance of the need for “anti-poverty” “development” there is no reference to redistribution of wealth and income. It’s clearly not a part of the Greens’ agenda. Five of the seventeen questions relate to climate change. Four of them are filler – details on the headline question which is about guaranteeing 7% annual emissions reductions, and which to be fair they have properly emphasised. If the 7% is agreed the four other specific issues would inevitably be part of the means to that end. Their iteration suggests the Greens lack confidence in a fuller agenda. Many other conventional imperatives appear in the body of the text but in ramshackle and unclear forms so they are unlikely to be taken up by the bigger parties in this process. This is confirmed by the fact that the Greens forgot to mention biodiversity, the demise of species – after climate the vital second pillar of a proper green agenda – in any of the 17 questions, though there is an ambitious if airy-fairy reference to it in the body of the text of the letter. On planning they are looking for something that is already in place and not working – a national land use plan. Town-centre-first is scarcely a comprehensive description of a land-use planning strategy for a party for which planning is assumed to be central. They have not suggested how they propose to develop the encouraging willingness of the civil war parties, reported as the lead story in the Business Post of 23 April, to facilitate a referendum on the Kenny Report which dealt, in 1973, with the price of building land. There was no sign the Greens see the scope for a referendum that would facilitate plan-led development as well as simply keeping prices to current-use value plus 25%. In general the Greens seem, voguishly, to be emphasising delivery of affordable housing over planning for quality housing, though there approach remains better than that of other parties on the issue. On an overweening strategic level, there is no suggestion the Greens have remembered that the age-old and continuing problem with Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael and the environment is they provide

    Read more