Normal service

I'm back. My work related constraints have been removed. Normal service, such as it is, will resume shortly.

A little bit more on parliamentarian's expenses

This time it's in Ireland, and it's something that may ring true in the UK, too.

Mr Tom O'Higgins, the highly respected chairman of the Oireachtas (Irish parliament) audit committee, is quitting in anger and frustration at the lack of will of politicians to reform their expenses system. More background appears in the Irish Independent, and its lead article today.

You may have read my opinions on MPs' expenses in previous posts. The principles I mention should apply anywhere. The inertia in Ireland, which may yet also happen in the UK, should be a source of shame to those politicians who let it happen, and that includes those who didn't abuse their system, but who stood by, and did not lead.

Apart from basic matters of honesty, there is a question of leadership. The people of Ireland are enduring massive tax hikes and cuts in services. Principled leaders should not just lead, but must be seen to do so.

There are many people of principle, including Tom O'Higgins, who are willing to serve because it is an honour, and not because of financial gain. It is a great pity that too many of the people we elect don't recognise that it is a privilege to serve and lead.

Homecoming 2009

I've just seen some of the Reporting Scotland news programme. It was leading on the triumphalism in Tripoli following the arrival of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, the man convicted of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing. But it was bizarre.

Firstly, there were the badly made saltires, then the appearance of country & western singer Billy Ray Cyrus, then Alistair Darling, commenting from a car showroom. Unfortunately I missed what these two were saying, but no doubt they both contributed to the current stampede of comment in their own valuable ways.

The justice minister, Kenny MacAskill, approved the release of the convicted bomber on compassionate grounds, for which there is precedent. He acted within the competency of his office, although I wonder why he visited personally al-Megrahi in Greenock prison. However, he made the right decision, albeit crudely. What disappointed me were the lobbyings from the US, and today's outrage. The man is due to die very soon. He is not running the risk of re-offending. These representations were based on a desire for vengeance.

Nonetheless, I was disappointed to see the celebrations. It was a sad occasion of spin in Libya - where could they have learned to do that?

Gary McKinnon & others - the problem with our extradition laws

The recent court decision to extradite Gary McKinnon should highlight some concerns about our current extradition laws, introduced hastily, as a reaction to terrorist attacks.

McKinnon is no terrorist. He is a highly intelligent man, with Asperger's syndrome, which may have contributed to his determination to hack into US defence computer systems. My immediate question is why should the US authorities want to prosecute this man? Shouldn't they offer him a job, challenging the proven weaknesses in their security?

But I remember this article from the New Statesman, from a year ago. Prospects weren't looking good even then. But read it through, including the comments. McKinnon's case is not isolated.

In fact, the case of the Howes, from Bo'ness, near my home town of Linlithgow, gives me even more cause for concern. This is because they were imprisoned without trial for over 200 days. Remember the fuss about detainment without trial for 42 days? Well this just blows it out of the water. Check this report that Kerry Ann Howes is at suicide risk if extradited.

Whatever about the rights or wrongs of what the Howes, or Gary McKinnon, may have done, the UK-US extradition law is being used for purposes for which it was not intended. The Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, could intervene, but he's ducking the issue. Sadly, there's no sign of him proposing to fix the inadequate and abused 2003 Extradition Act.

16: Too young to vote ?

I've just been watching this programme on BBC3. It was interestingly done - various vox pops, asking people young and old about their voting intentions, and why they voted the way they did, or why they wouldn't vote.

At 16 I was already a member of a political party. I had grown up with an awareness of politics, and its influence on how I was living. This ranged from why and how Ireland became a republic, to what was influencing the economics of the day. I still remain of the view that it was because too many of the politicians were living in the past, rather than thinking of the future.

I had the piss taken by my friends, but that was never a problem - perhaps part of the role of friends. They respected my social liberalism, we all despised the policies of Margaret Thatcher, PW Botha and Ronald Reagan, and some of us picketed the Soviet Embassy about the invasion of Afghanistan. Most of our debate was about employment, the economy and the future. Not much different now, perhaps?

Watching the programme, it seems to me that 16 & 17 year olds are no less apathetic than their seniors. It's their future, so I firmly support their right to vote. I hope they get it, with broad and sweeping reform of the voting system, and I hope they use it.

More woes for Jim Devine MP

As a union representative, you would expect someone to have at least a basic working knowledge of employment law, and how it affects workers. On top of this, there are some quite prescriptive elements on the exercise of employment law. Jim Devine MP should really have known better.

According to this report in the Scotsman, a former employee has won a case for unfair dismissal against Mr Devine. This follows a default judgement against him, as his response was not presented in a specific form, so he's appealing the decision.

And the last paragraph in the article:
"Another tribunal hearing against him is scheduled to take place in Edinburgh later this year."

Sadly, doing things the right way just doesn't seem to be his strong point.

A parliamentarian who won't represent

I had a recent holiday in Ireland, where I grew up.It's the country which shaped most of my political principles. The Republic of Ireland has a sophisticated, proportional voting system, which I would love to see in Scotland and the rest of the UK. It has advanced in its pluralism and social liberalism in the last 20 or so years, but there are still aspects that dismay me. This in particular.

A Fianna Fail TD (member of parliament) Ned O'Keefe declared:

"I’ll prioritise, as a politician, my own area and the areas I think are right and are necessary and where I get my support from. Because I won’t be in Dáil Eireann if I don’t get that support.
"... I have to look at my situation and I will not be in Dáil Eireann representing my political party if I don’t get support"

This is what I think is disgraceful - the man had been asked to represent his constituents' requirements for improvements to a primary school basically said No, because that part of his constituency didn't much support his party at the local elections.

Party allegiances don't matter - elected representatives work for their constituents. They must represent them, regardless of how they voted. Otherwise the constituents are disenfranchised.

There is good news, though. At leat the people of Rathcormac have three other TDs to represent them, including David Stanton of Fine Gael, and Sean Sherlock of Labour

More details are in this Irish Examiner article.