Spike island jail closed [article]

star gazer

The ineffectual political Opposition has meant that the closure of Spike island is completed without a whimper. Even if the Minister succeeds in winning the debate with prison officers, morale itself will be crippled in the prison service. Even at the best of times a prison warders job is highly stressful, dealing with people who could be your best friend one second and walk over your body to get out of the place. Maybe there is a new policy to empty prisons and treat criminals in the community.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0209/prisons.html

Spike Island jail closure complete

February 9, 2004

(15:27) The closure of Spike Island prison in Cork has been completed with the transfer of the final 13 prisoners to Limerick.

Staff at the jail have also been transferred to a new wing of Limerick Prison, which can accommodate up to 100 prisoners.

The Minister for Justice, Michael McDowell, said Spike Island will now be kept out of use pending the outcome of talks with the Prison Officers' Association.

Sparks

Originally posted by star gazer
The ineffectual political Opposition has meant that the closure of Spike island is completed without a whimper.

What are they meant to do to be effectual? The FF/PDs have a majority in the Dail.
Short of actually topping a few of the government TDs, there's nothing that can be done.

star gazer

Well they could talk about it, release statements about concern for the morale of the prison service. Question whether this is more about privatising the prison services than sort out spending on prisons. Of course, at the end of the day the dail is controlled by the government but if the media hear about things worth reporting they will and this can impact on public opinion and there are elections coming up so the government is more sensitive to criticism than usual.

bonkey

Originally posted by star gazer
The ineffectual political Opposition has meant that the closure of Spike island is completed without a whimper.

Just as a matter of interest....did the opposition oppose the closing of the prisons in principle to begin with?

(I'm asking this cause I genuinely don't know).

If so, then the allegation of "ineffectual" is dead on.

If, on the other hand, they agreed with the government's actions, then there is nothing ineffectual in them sitting quietly by and seeing what they approve of being done.

jc

star gazer

originally posted by bonkey
If, on the other hand, they agreed with the government's actions, then there is nothing ineffectual in them sitting quietly by and seeing what they approve of being done.

That unfortunately depends on whether agreeing with government policy is effective opposition policy in this matter. It's not surprising that you or i don't know that there is or isn't opposition from political parties, this points to them sitting on the fence on this issue. The job of opposition is to oppose to maintain a balance between government and it's opponents in a situation like this, it's why cross-party consensus is so unusual in the major issues of the day. IMHO i don't think it is in the best interests of any group of wokers to be brow beaten into submission on industrial relations. It could lead to terminal morale problems and will lead to temporary morale problems. €60 million over time seems to be too much, but at what cost will it's reduction come about?

Originally posted by star gazer
The job of opposition is to oppose to maintain a balance between government and it's opponents in a situation like this,

Well not necessarily.
Opposition, just for the sake of it is plain silly and unproductive.
What is fine Gael and labour policy on the issue and did they oppose the closure of the jails in speeches by spokespersons in the Dáil?
I actually don't know either, I haven't been following this issue.
If they supported the closures, then they must have had a reasoning behind it?

star gazer

I've been following it in passing and i don't think there is an opposition policy on it, as i say it looks like they are sitting on the fence. Opposition, by definition are there to oppose, it gives them a function in political debate and writting legislation whereby they can see things from a different perspective and ensure better decisions at the end of the day. Giving the minister support when he is closing jails at a time of heightened public fears around crime and the revolving door syndrom in the justice system that sometimes occurs.

the reasoning behind the closures on the surface appears to be a simple industrial relations dsipute over prison officers over-time. There are rumours about privatising some parts of the prison services and that may be a part of it too. Outsourcing a certain amount of anciliary services seems reasonable, but the danger is prisons will be privatised and the motivation of staff will be money making, not rehabilitation (probably).

bonkey

Originally posted by star gazer
Opposition, by definition are there to oppose,

Really? So even when they agree with teh action the government is taking, because it fits with their political ideals as much as the governments, they are supposed to stand up and say "no, we disagree"???

Are you not glad we have moved away from the days where parties roasted each other in every way possible to say how stupid a piece of proposed legislation was....only to offer an almost-identical version of the same thing themselves when the power shifted?

What is the point in opposing something you agree with?

jc

star gazer

Just because you agree with a certain line the government are taking doesn't mean you can't put in amendments and bring in other arguments for the sake of debate and getting out the ideas into the public consciousness. There is the relevant point where the opposition agree with certain government legislation but because of the guilotine which cuts short debate they oppose the legislation. Where would our democracy be if opposition just had something to say on contentious issues. Sure opposition can vote with government at the end of debate, but the debate itself is what is important for good law to tease out possible problems and gaps.
"No we disagree, there is a lot more that can be done in this piece of legislation" for example

originally posted by bonkey
Are you not glad we have moved away from the days where parties roasted each other in every way possible to say how stupid a piece of proposed legislation was....only to offer an almost-identical version of the same thing themselves when the power shifted?

actualy no, i think having a strong opposition is vital for our democracy and the electorate in 2002 probably thought the same when they voted Fine Gael out of opposition. With regard to hypocrisy, obviously that always annoys me! Sanctamonious opposition and arrogant governance isn't unique to ireland.

bonkey

Originally posted by star gazer
"No we disagree, there is a lot more that can be done in this piece of legislation" for example

Sure...if you actually believe there is a lot more which can be done.

Look...lets say FF propose something which FG agree with 100%. What possible incentive do they have to bring up debate? Hell, what would any critic of the government say if and when a spokesman for the opposition came out and said "well, fundamentally we agree with what the government is doing, but we believe it is our job to delay the process and cost the taxpayer more money on our debating it and the delay in implementing it whilst we force a debate on something there is no real disagreement over".

I know what I'd say. I'd say that this was more typical time-wasting from a government who doesn't sit in session for long enough to be wasting time on issues where there is no real disagreement and therefore where there is not going to be any real change resulting from the debate.

A debate is needed where someone feels they disagree, or that not enough research has been done, or that all other avenues have not been properly explored. To have one of those thoughts, you must already disagree with the proposal....for those very reasons. Conversely, to agree with the proposal automatically excludes these reasons for wanting a debate.

Hence my question....did the opposition actually agree with the government?

With regard to hypocrisy, obviously that always annoys me! Sanctamonious opposition and arrogant governance isn't unique to ireland.

So it annoys you, but you are also saying it is both necessary and good to have?????

Opposition for opposition's sake is - in my opinion - a waste of time, money and resources.

jc

star gazer

originally posted by bonkey
I know what I'd say. I'd say that this was more typical time-wasting from a government who doesn't sit in session for long enough to be wasting time on issues where there is no real disagreement and therefore where there is not going to be any real change resulting from the debate

You actually expect the government to consciously be facilitating of debates where the opposition can impact real change on the government line???

If the opposition could dictate change, they wouldn't be in opposition, they would be government, the only thing that opposition can do is try to influence public perception and eventually by weight of public opinion, force changes to decisions/legislation. If the opposition have a track record of agreeing with the government on one thing one week and support them and suddenly the next week vehemently oppose the government on something else, the perception can be of inconsistency. An opposition needs to build momentum in scrutinising government if they want to be able to to affect change every once in a while, without at least some momentum, the government will win each debate unless they go way over the top.
Even in agreeing with the government general policy doesn't mean that there can't be improvements to the line and hence amendments put to legislation (for eg) which might have to be fought for (ie opposition!).

bonkey

Originally posted by star gazer
You actually expect the government to consciously be facilitating of debates where the opposition can impact real change on the government line???

No, I'm expoecting the opposition not to get involved in debates where both sides want to get the same result, which therefore nullifies the entire reason for the debate in the first place.

In other words....if you don't oppose something, pretending to oppose it is nothing but a waste of time.

jc

star gazer

originally posted by bonkey
No, I'm expoecting the opposition not to get involved in debates where both sides want to get the same result, which therefore nullifies the entire reason for the debate in the first place.

Perhaps both sides want the same result, all parties in the house want what's best for the people of Ireland (in theory) but that dsoesn't mean they should all follow the government line because the government wants what is best for the people. Part of the process in parliamentary representative democracy is the role of opposition to oppose, why else call them the opposition, pointless debate is one thing, but debate where points are teased out in important national issues are not a waste of time.

Sometimes it's not the result but the method that is contentious and needs to be opposed, some pieces of legislation need more scrutiny than others as evidenced by the immigration legislation (because of ministerial order) that was struck down in court. Now the opposition might support the government legislation, but who would be to blame if there was no debate and the opposition just accepted and said we don't oppose this and we are not going to pretend to oppose this because it would be a waste of time?

bonkey

So you do believe that , when both parties are in agreement, one party (the opposition) is remiss in its duty if it doesn't lie about its position and fight for a result which it doesn't want???

Maybe I'm just old-fashioned, but I always thought that honesty was an attribute to be cherished...not discarded when inconvenient to the process.

jc

star gazer

originally posted by bonkey
So you do believe that , when both parties are in agreement, one party (the opposition) is remiss in its duty if it doesn't lie about its position and fight for a result which it doesn't want???

rubbish

I think that no two people think exactly alike as you seem to think political parties do. I think there is almost always room for a second opinion on major issues and small issues. I think in a representative democracy it is the oppositions job to give us an option to the government, this does not mean opposing every point the government makes it means but if there is a topic of the day it is the oppositions job to always be asking the questions that the people want to know. To close shop whenever there is an issue when there is broad agreement is ludicrous.

There is broad agreement among the larger parties over what is necessary for the economy to be managed, low income taxes, low corporation tax etc. This does not mean that the opposition would believe that the government is doing the best job possible and so they see to debate economic issues to tease out the issues and to get a picture as to what is going on in the government's decision-making therein.

Honest opposition will put the spotlight on the government to ensure they are acting in the best interests of the public, it's only when the opposition sits there as if everything is great when they do dishonour to their position. It would be less than honest if the opposition becomes a rubber stamp to government policy. Certain issues are not in dispute and therefor there is cross-party support for them, without question eg someone that steals something should be punished. However if the law was to be changed on punishment forms, then the opposition is there to make sure the options are looked at and heard.

This is about democracy and informing the people about issues of the day, sweeping important issues under the consensus carpet is dangerous for democracy and the ability of the people to make an informed choice on polling day.

bonkey

Originally posted by star gazer
I think that no two people think exactly alike as you seem to think political parties do.

Could you go back and read the first post I made on this topic, because you clearly seem to have forgotten that I started by asking whether or not the two groups were in agreement.

Honest opposition will put the spotlight on the government to ensure they are acting in the best interests of the public, it's only when the opposition sits there as if everything is great when they do dishonour to their position.

And I have never said otherwise. I am saying that if and when the opposition agree with the solution to a problem then it is ridiculous to expect them to stand up and say either "we disagree" or "we agree, but we still feel the need to delay this bill".

In otherwords, taking a single bill in isolation - as this topic has done - and criticising the opposition for not opposing it is unfair. You would need to show that the opposition are doing this despite not being in agreement, and I started out by asking whether or not this was the case.

jc

star gazer

originally posted by bonkey
Could you go back and read the first post I made on this topic, because you clearly seem to have forgotten that I started by asking whether or not the two groups were in agreement.

see my third posting.
What my thought on this is, that if the minister has a free hand in dealing with an important issue like the closure of prisons as an industrial relations tool, then people will not find out about the whole story. The problem arises when there is no debate, where people can find out the full story (or as much as possible). IMHO i thought there should have been more debate before the prisons were closed so that we, the public got a say in whether it was wise to reduce prison capacity, particularly the smaller, stereo-typically more rehabilitative prisons. The argument then went from a specific point on prison closures to the general point of debate time and prioritisation which seemed fair enough.

There may come a time when an issue much closer to my heart or your heart would come up for decision by government, what if there is no debate and we disagree with the decision, what if the majority of people disagree with the decision, without public debate by politicians, we might never get to hear our opinions voiced. if the issue is big enough, it should be debated, regardless of the consensus that might exist. The public has a right to know what is going on that will be affecting our lives and be able to have their say through consultation. If the political elite decide something but the public would not support and there is no debate, then there would be very little chance for the public to do anything about it. having to focus minds for debate means that issues that might not have been thought of could come up and better law and decisions be made.

bonkey

Originally posted by star gazer
IMHO i thought there should have been more debate before the prisons were closed so that we, the public got a say in ....

Now you've lost me. How does the opposition questioning the actions of the government give the public more of a say???? How does the opposition not doing this give the public any less of a say????

The opposition and the public are two seperate groups....which don't even have that much in common. After all, more of the public supported the governemnt than the opposition.

So surely the government should put more weight in the public's voice than in the opposition representing the public?

There may come a time when an issue much closer to my heart or your heart would come up for decision by government, what if there is no debate and we disagree with the decision, what if the majority of people disagree with the decision, without public debate by politicians, we might never get to hear our opinions voiced.

Really?

How much opposition did the opposition put forward to the government supporting the use of Shannon airport by the US army? I don't remember much, if any.

That had the largest demonstrations since the inception of the state, and none of it was dependant on the opposition demanding a debate in the Dail. The people were informed of the decision, disagreed, and protested. They had their say and made their point as loudly and as forcefully as is legally possibly in a democracy such as our own.

The public has a right to know what is going on that will be affecting our lives and be able to have their say through consultation.

You might as well say that the government shouldn't be able to make any decision without offering it to the public for mob-approval. Democracy doesn't work like that. We elect representatives to make decisions on our behalf, and if they do a bad job, we choose to support someone else next time round.

It is not opposition's job to throw their own ideologies out in favour taking a stance which may be anathema to said ideologies....but your "their job is to engender debate" could require them to do just that.

Their job is to push the agendas and ideologies for which they were chosen to represent those who support their party - the exact same as for the parties in govenrment. If they support something ideologically, then it makes no sense for them to oppose it or delay it purely on the grounds of some altruistic belief that its in the best interest of the public.

Or do you believe that the government get elected to stick to their ideology, whilst the opposition must discard theirs and work altruistically for all of the people? WHy not just suggest that the government become altruistic instead? Its about as realistic.

If the political elite decide something but the public would not support and there is no debate, then there would be very little chance for the public to do anything about it.

There would be no chance.....just as there is when there is a debate. I can't think of a single instance where the lack or existence of debate in the Dail has actually had any effect on whether or not the public's voice was listened to.

Oh - and the only reason they're a "political elite" is because the public - those people you want to have more power - consistently elect the Usual Suspects, election after election, whilst spending the interim time complaining about how those people they gave their support to are letting them down again like they did last time.

We made them a political elite. To complain that they are abusing that to run the country in a manner which is not in our best interest strikes me as overlooking who put them there and why we voted for them.

Ultimately, this just sounds like a case of "the government made a decision I disagree with, ergo someone must be to blame" to me. Maybe I'm wrong, but thats how I see it.

Had the government made a decision you agreed with, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be here saying that this should have been opposed and delayed, costing more money in the process, etc. etc. etc.

So is the system only wrong when it produces a result you don't like, or do you also believe that the results you agree with are equally wrong and appalling if achieved through lack of debate?

jc

star gazer

originally posted by bonkey
Ultimately, this just sounds like a case of "the government made a decision I disagree with, ergo someone must be to blame" to me. Maybe I'm wrong, but thats how I see it.

Almost accurate, i'd word it slightly differently, the government made a decision i disagree with, therefor i want to know why there was no opposition to it. Maybe i'm in a tiny minority of one in the whole country who isn't connected to a prison officer that objects to this, but i thought that the dominance of the minister for justice needed a counter-weight and that counter weight could have been the opposition (should have been imo).


Granted, if i agreed with the decision made, i would find it hard to go to the trouble of starting a thread here.

How does the opposition questioning the actions of the government give the public more of a say???? How does the opposition not doing this give the public any less of a say????

if the public don't know what is going on, then they certainly can't do anything about having a greater say, but if the oppposition kicks up a stink and get an issue into the papers, people will know about it, suddenly they can do what it is that people can do to influence politicians and store memory of arguments when in voting booth.
It's about accountability, if people don't know what went on for five years before an election and at election time, the government say they did a great job, how will people know whether that is true or not? Even in poor economic circumstances the government can say how great they did to keep the economy from falling apart and the other crowd would have it fall apart.

You might as well say that the government shouldn't be able to make any decision without offering it to the public for mob-approval

you mean like the swiss form of democracy?
had you added the sentence before this you would have, 'if the issue is big enough'. technically i should have been more precise, but...

How much opposition did the opposition put forward to the government supporting the use of Shannon airport by the US army? I don't remember much, if any.

they did debate it and it was the only place where bertie had to face questioning, granted he was able to sit on his fence, but it was a focal point for the anger people had when they saw Bertie sitting on the fence.

Oh - and the only reason they're a "political elite" is because the public - those people you want to have more power - consistently elect the Usual Suspects, election after election, whilst spending the interim time complaining about how those people they gave their support to are letting them down again like they did last time.

i agree.