Month: October 2024

A fundraiser for the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign.  I’ll be exhibiting some Palestine-related posters.

About ten years ago I heard of an event where a large group of people had gathered. A former teacher from the school one of those at the event was there and there was a lot of conversation with them. It was noticeable that others who had been at the same school and had that teacher stayed at another table and didn’t interact.

At the end of it, when the teacher had gone, someone asked some of those at the other table why they hadn’t come over to say hello. The answer was that the teacher – and this was a good 40 years later – had been a vicious so-and-so who had leathered one of the people there that day at the event regularly and there was no way they’d talk to the teacher and neither were their friends. 

Forty years and the anger, and pain and humiliation that had been wreaked on that person had left an indelible mark. 

So I have a lot of sympathy with this. 

The Irish government has been urged to extend the scope of a statutory inquiry into historical child abuse in schools to include corporal punishment, including a practice known as “leathering”.

Survivors of physical assault in Catholic schools have complained they were told there was no scope to include corporal punishment in an investigation into sexual abuse, announced in September.

They have now called on the government to review the decision, saying that beatings by teachers at such schools were “an hourly occurrence” for pupils in the 1960s and 70s, and that the abuse had a lifelong impact.

Generations of children in Ireland grew up with discipline imposed by wooden canes or leather straps used for “six of the best” or “12 of the best”, a reference to the number of times they would be hit. In a documentary, Leathered: Violence in Irish Schools, to be aired on RTÉ on Wednesday night, survivors speak about other serious beatings and the impact such violence had had on them.

The Guardian notes that:

Abuse was meted out in primary and secondary schools. Victims question why it was never taken seriously by school managers, often members of religious orders. The Department of Education recorded 108 allegations of physical abuse by teachers against pupils in the 20 years after 1962, though this is thought to be a dramatic under-reporting of corporal punishment, which was banned in schools in 1982.

In the UK it was only banned in state schools in 1986, and not prohibited in private schools in England and Wales until 1998. Scotland followed in 2000 and Northern Ireland in 2003. 

State-sanctioned violence:

Peter Kane told the documentary makers that he went to school every day fearing he would get “clatters around the head, my face”. He recalled that one day he was dealt “six or 12 slaps” with the leather strap from a teacher.

“I didn’t cry. That in itself was a signal for him to carry on beating you and he did so, and bounced my head off the blackboard, bounced my head around the room, knocked me up against the desk, and at one stage I collapsed. Then he dragged me up, proceeded to beat me. I was in a lot of pain and I was basically sore all over,” he told RTÉ.

I got away lightly, all things considered. Classes I was in had teachers who, I think, were fairly easygoing with the leather. But not entirely so. I remember vividly being hit by the strap multiple times; I remember the principal coming in at least once to deliver the ‘punishment’. It wasn’t a constant but it was frequent enough and it was painful and it had no impact at all as far as I could judge on discipline.

I had a close relative who was a National School teacher and later a principal themselves who had an abhorrence of corporal punishment and refused to impose it. Their own parent had been a teacher too and was, by all accounts, someone who wielded this with little or no check. They got into some trouble with their superiors for being unwilling to use it, at one point having a leather given to them by their principal at the time in a wooden box.

So, yes, it was normalised, but it wasn’t uncriticised – far, far from it. 

Wonder how this will proceed.

Andy Pollak had a post on Slugger O’Toole this week where he quoted academic Ian D’Alton, co-editor with Ida Milne of a genuinely excellent book on Irish Protestants since Independence in this state. D’Alton suggested in a letter to the Irish Times that:

“They still don’t get it,” he wrote. “Northern unionists don’t want Irish unity. It’s not transactional; it’s existential. They do not envisage themselves, ever, as citizens of an Irish republic. And the likes of Leo Varadkar’s call for all-island ‘unity’ as an objective of all political parties will do nothing to change unionists’ minds. It will be as successful as the Anti-Partition League which tried this tack between 1945 and 1958.

“Indeed, it is likely to increase further the sense of siege and cultural colonisation already provoked by the promotion of ‘Irishness’ in Northern Ireland, principally through the language…To get a flavour of what this means for unionists, try turning it around. How would we in the South feel if Northern unionists aggressively started and funded a campaign for the Republic to rejoin the United Kingdom?

D’Alton continued:

“Things should take their course. It may seem boring and agonisingly slow. But for the foreseeable future there will be no Border poll. Despite the demographics, there’s still a sizeable majority for Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom. All we can usefully do is to dial down the rhetoric and excited talk of imminent unity.”

He then quoted Bolton Waller, Anglican cleric and moderate nationalist, who a hundred years ago made a submission to the Boundary Commission. He argued that three things had to happen to allow the island to find peace with itself: “a customs union which would mitigate the worst economic effects of the Border; the satisfaction of legitimate grievances of the minorities, north and south; and cooperation between the two jurisdictions.”

And:

D’Alton says it took until the 1990s for these “three conditions to be met even in part” [although I would argue that the Good Friday Agreement and pre-Brexit joint membership of the European Union by the UK and Ireland largely satisfied all of them]. He concluded that “we still do not have the sort of Ireland that Waller imagined it could be if they had been met in full. And until we do, ‘unity’ as an objective rather than an aspiration is a dangerous chimaera that will only entrench attitudes on both sides.”

My problem with that analysis, though I agree about the implausibility of a poll this decade, is that it doesn’t really accord with the reality of Northern Ireland as is. Which is that, for all the complaints about ‘sectarian’ politics and so on, the polity cleaves to basic divisions within the population over the nature of the state.

It is entirely true that a modus vivendi is possible. Indeed we see it more or less in action today with the Executive and Assembly in business, to whatever effect, again. But all those involved take positions on the broader constitutional issues – indeed they are defined by them. The clue is very much in the names: Democratic Unionist Party, Ulster Unionist Party, Sinn Féin and so on. The SDLP is very slightly different in respect to its name but that would be to ignore the reality that it too represents a certain segment of the population. And those that don’t, or refuse at this point to do so, are in a sense also defined by them, Alliance being an obvious example.

In a way it is impossible to move beyond the constraints or framing of the situation because the situation remains contingent. All the talk about ‘normal’ politics, or a left/right approach, crash on this particular rock. It’s not that aspects of ‘normal’ politics or left/right politics cannot emerge, it is that they cannot pre-dominate within the political structures of NI.

I think to worry about ‘unity’ is to ignore the reality of union. The Union exists. It is a pervasive reality even if it has been reshaped in ways that are most certainly not to the liking of unionism and many unionists. For those who are not unionists, this is an ever-present reality. Those who are nationalist and republican live within a polity that (for all the changes ushered in by the GFA/BA) is not the polity they wish to live in. Curiously, of all commentators, it is only Newton Emerson who has alluded to this in any real sense (to my recollection). Is that the end of the world that there is this subtle or none-too-subtle alienation? Of course not. But it does mean that those who argue republicans and nationalists must bite their tongues are asking a very great deal. Far too much, in my view.

Perhaps a little more recognition that the GFA/BA gives support to both/all political orientations in the context of the eventual shape of this island might be no harm. 

It is entirely legitimate for those who are republican or nationalist to seek unity and to do so publicly, not least given that such unity does not exist as against the reality of the Union. Of course, superheated rhetoric around Border polls tomorrow does no one any favours, but superheated rhetoric is far from the sole provenance of those who seem a Border poll. To be honest, some of us with longer memories might think that rhetoric over a Border poll is a vast improvement over non-political approaches taken in the past. 

It’s worth noting too the following: “Indeed, it is likely to increase further the sense of siege and cultural colonisation already provoked by the promotion of ‘Irishness’ in Northern Ireland, principally through the language.” This is a very strange piece of analysis. ‘Cultural colonisation’ is a particularly loaded term given that the public sphere in Northern Ireland sought to ignore any expressions of ‘Irishness’, as he puts it, from its foundation (as well as the context of broader Irish history). Could D’Alton imagine writing that about, say, Scotland or Wales, where bilingualism is the order of the day? Or indeed this state where it would be near unthinkable not to have two languages evident in the public space.

Again, this framing is deeply strange given the reality of a dominant political and other culture across a century, one which allowed for a very specific identity to be promoted in Northern Ireland, and where the rather mild efforts to allow a greater use and evidence of the Irish language simply cannot compare.

Focusing in on another angle, note what D’Alton writes about ‘To get a flavour of what this means for unionists, try turning it around. How would we in the South feel if Northern unionists aggressively started and funded a campaign for the Republic to rejoin the United Kingdom?’

A number of thoughts arise.

I think first and foremost people here would be very amused. Pollak in the rest of his piece makes a lot of noise about supposed anti-Englishness in the Republic but I suspect that is hyperbole. People are still irritated by the heat and noise and lack of light around Brexit, and specifically how that undermined the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement, but that is a very different thing to toxic anti-Englishness. Yet I also think that such an idea is not entirely without merit (though roping in the rest of the island is perhaps too ambitious a step).

How about if political unionism started a campaign along the lines of Ireland’s Future, extolling the virtues of the actually existing Union and how they sought to strengthen it and what their pitch to those who were non-aligned or unity-curious or indeed nationalist and republicans might be? How about a discussion about how those from latter cohort might be convinced that, while in no way excising their national identity, the Union might accommodate it and see that it was respected and given a place that would be sufficiently congenial to allow them to (on the constitutional issue) remain with the UK with all the GFA/BA elements functioning fully? 

I’m not a unionist, granted, but if I was seeking to support the Union the very first thing on the list would be making sure that the Union supported those visibly who were not unionists. All this raises a question too: why is it that unionism hasn’t even started to make such a pitch, or seems it cannot even conceive of such a thing? 

Andy Beckett’s overview of curiously good Tory morale is well drawn here in the Guardian. Despite a terrible election and a problematic rival to their right they seem in good heart. Then again, the winners of the election didn’t exactly do brilliantly despite the very solid majority they won.

Anyhow, the Tories at their conference appear convinced that they’ll be back in power in a couple of years. It could be that the Tories think the pattern of chaos this last eight years or so since Brexit is going to map over to Labour which suggests an internalisation of instability that they themselves have wrought that sits oddly with their perception of themselves as harbingers of stability. Not sure that that will happen. Labour is dug in for the duration. 

He argues that in some ways this certainty is borne of recurrent electoral success, of class privilege and networks and finally of ideology, the latter being the sense that they are ideologically correct and others are not. Still that raises contradictions, as he notes. Banging on about deregulation and other Thatcherite tropes seems oddly beside the point when they’ve been in power for many years since the 1980s – I mean, what have they actually done if the problem is as bad as they suggest? Of course this also sends them into the more problematic Truss pseudo libertarian territory which, as we’ve seen, the markets are not fond of. Similarly with Brexit. If matters are so bad in terms of growth, productivity and so on, and Brexit has been ‘achieved’ then that suggests that the proscriptions are simply wrong. Again they can’t own this so, as Beckett notes, they simply ignore the contradictions. 

In fact he suggests that for all Labour’s faults (and he is a somewhat sceptical observer of Labour),that party is more adaptable to changing realities. Though I was struck by this:

One big shift in Britain that the Conservatives seem too complacent to face is the longterm decline in their electoral potency. Since the late 1980s, they have only won one substantial majority, in 2019, while Labour has won four. Younger voters, urban voters, Scottish voters and Welsh voters: all have become ever more alienated by the Tories, in part by their apparently unshakeable confidence – commonly seen as arrogance – with the result that only unusually favourable political circumstances, such as the Brexit election of 2019, produce the sort of crushing victory that the party used to achieve routinely.

 

True enough that Labour has won four substantial majorities. The problem though is that in the period since the late 1980s (34 years, yikes!), Labour has been in power for just 12-13 years. Does it much matter about the size of the majority if it only occurs infrequently?

It’s Budget Day in the UK. Labour’s first in fourteen years and one that seems to be a long time in coming given Labour came into office earlier in the summer.

Bloomberg notes three issues – first ‘don’t blow up the gilts market, as Liz Truss did in 2022. I assume that that is one trap the BLP will avoid. Secondly pushing to a less complex tax system, despite the reality that taxes are about to go up in the UK. We shall see. Finally, and this is Bloomberg, ‘Pragmatism wins over ideology’. You can bet the house on that with this Labour government. Here’s an outline of some of the expected measures. For a different and illuminating take the BBC has this, recounting individual experiences.

Meanwhile, that Tory mess? Where would one start? Here’s a reasonably good example (though local government is funded in an ad-hoc manner by central government in the form of grants with council taxes, and other smaller revenue streams also in the mix), but the point remains that Budget or not this is yet another area that requires immediate attention.

This last February 19 councils in Britain required exceptional financial supports, that is additional funding in order to allow them to balance their books. But this only part ameliorated a situation driven by a decade and a half of underfunding and in some ways contributes to the overall problem:

This granted councils unusual permission to borrow money and sell land and buildings, which the LGA warned provided “temporary financial relief” but could overload “already struggling councils with further debt and costs in the future”.

And:

The LGA’s survey shows that about one in 10 councils have already discussed receiving emergency support with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, with 25% likely to apply in 2025-26 and 2026-27, a figure that rises to 44% for councils with social care responsibilities.

The survey shows that the biggest pressures come from social care, followed by special educational needs and disability (Send) services, school transport and homelessness. The LGA says this is due to inflation and wage pressures, alongside rising demand for services.

The survey also shows that councils are considering reducing hours of operation and services, cutting frontline staff numbers, extending waiting times and increasing fees.

Two-thirds of councils said parks, green spaces and sports would be affected (62%), while almost eight in 10 have identified services and support for disabled adults and older people for cuts. Two-thirds also said services and support for children, young people and families would be affected (63%).

In other words, the situation – already dire with 26 of England’s councils alone stating they may have to declare bankruptcy in the next two years – is about to get worse. And keep in mind that this is because they are doing what they are meant to do – provide services at a local level. 

Having seen first hand the way in Birmingham library services were constrained, none of this is a surprise. The question is what happens next? 

Dublin Communities Against Racism (DCAR) have today condemned recent Government statements and are warning of increased hostility towards immigrants from politicians seeking election. With polling day just a matter of weeks away, we have already seen signs of mainstream parties playing the ‘race card’.

According to Damien Farrell (South Inner City Community Activist and DCAR spokesperson) :

“As the election date approaches, it is certain that members of the government parties, racists and far-right candidates will stoke tensions and scapegoat immigrants to gain votes”.

We have already seen Government figures echo the sentiments promoted by racist rabble rousers.

Taoiseach Simon Harris recently stated that “homeless figures are heavily impacted by those seeking protection in our country”, while former Taoiseach Leo Varadker stated that the “immigration numbers have risen too quickly”. These comments are in effect little different than those made by the openly fascist National Party who have ridiculously claimed “There is no housing crisis, it is an immigration crisis”.

These comments are designed to deflect from the fact that the housing, rental and homeless crisis have all worsened during Fine Gael and Fianna Fail’s years in power and are caused 100% by the economic policies they have consistently promoted. It is surely no coincidence that these comments have been made in the run up to an election, where it seems most likely Fianna Fail and Fine Gael will return to power, ably assisted by the racists who have conveniently targetted opposition parties and independents rather than the Government.

Diarmuid Mac Dubhghlais (longtime homeless activist and DCAR spokesperson) :

“These comments were made very publically by senior Fine Gael leadership figures. One can only imagine what their candidates will be saying on the doorsteps while electioneering. Sadly we know they will be exploiting anti-immigrant tensions in both their canvassing and election material”.

Dublin Communities Against Racism (DCAR) will be monitoring and highlighting those using these tactics to boost their own vote, and we will pay particular attention to Government party candidates who are echoing the hate and venom of the violent racists and committed Far-Right candidates.

Helena McCann (DCAR spokesperson) :

“We call on all voters who are genuinely concerned about the issues affecting our communities, our families and our country not to be fooled by these tricks, as they are a cheap political ploy. They are designed to guarantee more of the same policies for the next five years, and an increase in division in working class areas”.