Is living on the dole a nightmare or a holiday? Sean O’Grady looks at what being on social welfare in Ireland means today.

The 1^st of February saw the publication of an article in the Irish Independent in which a Polish woman identified only as ‘Magda’ spoke of the easiness of living her life on social welfare. Originally having been written for a Polish newspaper, the English translation contained several quotes from Magda (later revealed as not being her real name).  ‘What’s my life like? Wonderful. I can grow as a person, I can breathe. I get a welfare payment; €188 per week plus €59 for rent,’ and ‘Work for the minimum wage? It’s not worth it,’ and, most disparagingly, even compared living on welfare to a ‘Hawaiian massage’. Rightly so, the article, as well as the woman in question, drew harsh criticism from the media and the general public. Soon afterwards however, it was discovered that the original Polish article had been severely mistranslated and much of what Magda was quoted as saying had been taken out of context. As it turns out, she does not believe drawing the dole is a holiday she can exploit, and later stated she is currently seeking employment. Nevertheless, the article does raise inevitable questions about the current state of social welfare as it stands in Ireland today.

There often seems to  be a general consensus among many Irish people that those on welfare were simply ‘lazy’ good for nothings who are taking tax payers’ money. However, when you factor in the mass unemployment that Ireland faces today, how true can this really be anymore? The most recent unemployment rate statistics, released last November, show that a massive 14.6 per cent of Irish citizens are currently jobless, and 100 people on average emigrate every day. While the stereotype of the perceived laziness of those in the dole queue may have carried a degree more weight during Celtic Tiger times, nowadays, even the most qualified of college graduates can find themselves on welfare.

Most unfortunately, at a time in which recipients are their most vulnerable, welfare budgets are slowly decreasing. In 2007, Ireland’s unemployment benefits for those who were jobless long term, in several different categories, was the third highest in the OECD. However, with the announcement of the new budget cuts in 2012, €475 million has been taken out of social welfare. While not the highest number that was expected, this is still a very significant change.

To put it in more individual terms, €8 will be cut from the dole and €10 for each child benefit. There is also talk of reducing the eligibility of those on Lone Parents Allowance. Although when put into those terms, the cuts in social welfare may not sound very significant, for those it affects directly, they feel the significance of it all too well. For many, that €8 will be the difference between having a dinner one evening and nothing the next, or going from a warm house to one which has no heating since they just cannot afford it.

This, however, presents only one side of social welfare. There is another side that people have a problem with. While many believe that people who are on welfare receive too much, as discussed, they generally do not. Still, there are rare cases were those who live on benefits earn more than those with paid jobs. Late 2011 saw the release of a story of a Bosnian family with four children living in Ireland who receive up to €90,000 per year in benefits. While having four children certainly makes the case for needing additional aid from the welfare office, to give that amount to people who do not make a living is ridiculous. Many couples who are both employed will not make that much in a year, and it is a wonder how things like this are let happen. The move for a decrease in the welfare budget seems to coincide with this view, that benefits should be given a cap so as not to let another case such as this Bosnian family happen again.

One of the key arguments espoused by those opposing purportedly ‘extravagant’ benefits to disadvantaged families is because it may lead to the creation of the so-called ‘welfare class’, a group of people who welfare opponents believe will be encouraged to become lazy and apathetic when it comes to seeking employment. After all, when being given a wage every week without having to do anything for it, why work?

But we must not forget all the good that social welfare can do. Lower income students can afford college, newly unemployed people can still support their families. It seems the best option would be to implicate a strict cap on the amount of benefits given; not only will people be able to get by in difficult times, they will also be that more determined to better their lives.

There has been much discussion recently of the possibility of Scotland becoming independent from the United Kingdom sometime in the next few years, a trend which many attribute to the recent success of The Scottish National Party, a social democratic party that has campaigned for Scottish independence since their formation in 1934. In last year’s Scottish Parliamentary election the party won a landslide victory, gaining a majority with sixty-nine seats. Much of their recent success has been attributed to their leader, Alex Salmond, who has led the party since 2004.

Salmond recently met with Prime Minister David Cameron in order to discuss plans for a referendum on independence. Cameron and the Scottish First Minister have clashed over the possibility of Scottish independence, with all three of the UK main party leaders; Cameron, Deputy Prime Minister and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg, and Labour’s Ed Milliband opposing the proposals. Alistair Darling, the former Chancellor in Gordon Brown’s government, and currently an MP for Edinburgh South West, recently warned that independence could carry a “huge economic risk”. He stated in an interview with the The Observer that if the Scots voted to leave the Union, the country could plunge into economic uncertainty.

Darling has been seen by the Unionist camp as the most qualified to spell out the possible negative consequences of Scottish independence passing in the UK. Much of this is due to the general unpopularity of the Conservative party, and of David Cameron’s government in much of Scotland as well as his now famous, and correct, warning of Gordon Brown regarding the gravity of the economic downturn facing the UK and the world. While he does not support independence, Cameron has been careful to stress that he does not mean to suggest that Scotland could not survive independently, but has stated that it would be ‘best’ for Scotland to remain in the Union.

Many in Scotland, including the SNP, have been pushing for the a third option to be included on a referendum of Maximum Devolution, or ‘Devo Max’ as it has been dubbed by the media. This would essentially keep Scotland in the United Kingdom, while allowing the Scottish parliament to take a large amount of power away from London, including full fiscal autonomy, essentially handing over all powers to Scotland with the exception of defence and foreign policy. Polls have indicated that a majority of Scots would prefer this ‘Devo Max’ option, although both coalition parties and Labour have opposed it.

For this these parties have been accused by Unionists of ‘gambling’ with Scottish independence, by possibly re-enforcing nationalist sentiment in the country. The current system of governance in Scotland has been criticised for not allowing enough power to the Scottish parliament, and for Scottish MPs in London voting on purely English issues that do not affect their own constituencies. Cameron has pushed for the referendum to be carried out in 2013, while Salmond would rather it wait until 2014, when the possibility of achieving a yes vote would be more likely. Salmond recently criticised Cameron for the ‘bullying’ nature he has adopted. Stewart Hosie, a Scottish Nationalist MP, recently stated at Westminster that “every step the anti-independence parties have taken since Cameron’s chaotic intervention … has done nothing but boost support for independence and ensuring that the people of Scotland are able to see decisions taken about what’s best for Scotland in Scotland.”

While a majority voted for the SNP, according to a recent ‘YouGov’ Survey, most Scots (sixty-one per cent) oppose independence, although a majority of fifty-eight per cent indicated they would like the Scottish Parliament to have control of its finances. Many support the party, but not the cause, thanks to Salmond’s charisma and the party’s ability to attract non-nationalist voters due to their popular stances on other issues, as well as presenting themselves as a centre-left, electable and moderate nationalist party.

The Unionists’ biggest problem is that their opposition to an independent Scotland focuses entirely on the negative connotations associated with, and not the positive aspects of, remaining in the union. DUP councillor Lee Reynolds criticised the Unionist opposition to Salmond as being weak and unable to effectively argue their case, despite the fact that remaining in the union has consistently polled as more popular than independence. While Reynolds may have a point, he like other Unionists fail to understand the view many share that the status-quo is no longer working, which has been shown by the support for maximum devolution of power from London to Holyrood.

The pro-union camp refuse to acknowledge how the current economic situation has diminished voters’ belief in large economic structures such as the United Kingdom, which has also led to recent rises in Euroscepticism across the UK. This is likely to be an advantage for Salmond and the SNP, as recently in Scottish politics anything negative is more often than not attributed to participation in the union. If Cameron eventually backs down from his staunch opposition, it is entirely possible that Scotland will acquire fiscal autonomy. As for full independence, that will remain to be seen.

The word charity is defined as ‘the voluntary giving of help, typically money, to those in need’ but charitable organisations, however, can often end up being something slightly different. By the very nature of charitable and voluntary bodies, they are non-profit unions. For many people this is a misleading title as it gives donors a view that charities do not keep a penny of their income for themselves. The fact is, they do. While this certainly doesn’t make a charity’s actions any less altruistic, it can be somewhat unexpected for people who were led to believe that all of the hard-earned cash they donated would be given to the cause itself.

If a charity wants to be successful and well-run, a considerable portion of the money they receive from the public will have to go into areas such as fundraising and administration. Although this is a necessary tactic if a charity wants to be a success, it can also be disheartening for donors. A common issue with many voluntary organisations is that the money they generate doesn’t go exactly where they had promised it would. It is not unheard of for charities to make donations to other organisation that their relatives or friends may run. They also have the ability to spend their donors’ currency on salary perks and other ventures separate to the cause they promote.

It is completely fair to say that nowadays, the modern face of charity is not the organisations themselves, but the omnipresent street fund-raisers known as ‘Chuggers’, or ‘Charity Muggers’. These overly friendly clipboard holders can regularly be found ambushing people on Grafton Street to donate to their cause of the week. Although such campaigners are promoting a good cause, to call them irritating would be a gross understatement. We have all been made to feel guilty because we ‘don’t have any spare change’ to hand when they suddenly appear in front of you of out nowhere. What many don’t realise however, is that they are not just doing their job out of the goodness of their heart, but because they are being paid. In the UK and Ireland, fundraisers often earn well over the minimum wage and they also receive additional cash based on how many signatures they collect. Street fundraisers usually do not work for the charity they claim to support, but are working for a fundraising third party.

Most surprisingly, the fundraising companies that chuggers work for can often charge up to ninety-five per cent commission in the first year for the charities they are supporting. This means that just five per cent of the money that a charity would earn would actually be donated to their cause, the rest all going into the upkeep and promotion of the organisation. It is no wonder that voluntary companies do not make this fact clear to their donors. This massive percentage generally drops down the longer a charity is active, and it is advisable to be cautious of charities that give over fifteen per cent of their income to administrators.

Charities such as the Red Cross have come under fire recently with claims that they are misrepresenting their assets. The criticism revolves around the diversion of donations from the Haiti relief fund, and allegations that €160,000 raised for the tsunami relief in Asia was held in a bank account in Co. Tipperary for several years. The story has forced the company to redraw its constitution and introduce new codes of conduct to prevent any similar happenings. The Red Cross has also come under fire in China, where a controversy came about in July 2011 after a senior member at the Chinese Red Cross blogged about her expensive clothes and luxurious lifestyle. Her actions ignited a firestorm in China and led to intense paranoia about corruption and political interference within Chinese charities. Philanthropy in China is still in its developing stages and has been seriously hindered by this woman’s seemingly harmless blogging about her life.

While it is clear that charities can lose sight of what they originally wanted to achieve from time to time, it should not discourage anyone from donating to a cause they feel passionate about. It should make them more eager to seek out organisations that they know will use their donations to assist worthy causes. Many people seem to give to charities that they, in fact, know little about. If those in need are really to be helped then those donating need to do their research and ensure that they know exactly where their money is going.

YES – Elizabeth Beecham

Is UCD’s membership of the Union of Students in Ireland worth the €125,000 it cost us last year? I believe UCD can provide the advocacy, support and representation outside of USI that we so desperately need at this time to protect our welfare and education. I know it is easy to build a straw man debate about the futility of UCD’s USI membership by highlighting just how much is spent on it, but it is perhaps the most pressing consideration when evaluating how we as a student body are benefitting from our membership.

Austerity and budget cuts have become the white noise that infiltrate all of our university experiences. UCD is struggling to educate its ever-growing student population with less funding from the state, and its international recognition slipping ever lower. I, like many, believe that every cent should be utilised in a way that improves the student experience, and USI membership is not delivering to UCD students to justify this cost. That €125,000 has almost endless potential uses on campus.

UCD is strong enough in numbers and student leaders to have a pivotal role in any governmental negotiations without needing the banner of the USI to advance our aims and grievances. At a student population of nearly 25,000 it is difficult to see how we could be sidelined, especially considering our respected place within Irish academia and UCD’s contribution to every aspect of Irish life and society. Some have even argued that being so large we dominate the USI, reducing its benefits as a forum for smaller colleges and institutes of technology.

Through its Students’ Union, UCD already has the internal structures to better facilitate student engagement on a greater level, and earlier on in their university education. It is far better placed then the USI to work with residences, clubs and societies and departments of the university, to respond more dynamically and effectively, and to do so in tune with the mood on campus on a certain issue. Take for example the mental health initiative Please Talk, which began in UCD and spread to twenty-seven colleges across the country. Please Talk was UCD’s way of starting to tackle an issue in a sensitive, powerful way and enhanced the sense of community within the University. Regardless of one’s views on the SU or its Sabbatical Officers they are an engaged, visible force on campus and as such are less remote both metaphorically and geographically than the USI. If one wants to encourage real student participation, even activism, then surely the UCD Students’ Union can achieve this more effectively than the USI. Leaving the USI would not result in a dilution of core student messages such as arguments against fees, as the media seeking the opinions of both the USI and the UCD student leaders would instead strengthen the power of the message.

The only argument for remaining within the USI is that it is easier for the government to negotiate with one umbrella organisation than with UCD as an outsider, yet this argument isn’t compelling enough to justify every cent of our USI affiliation costs. The USI has activated the student movement against fees in recent years and for this it has to be applauded. Apart from this, to me, an average student, the USI merely represents a bureaucratic level far removed from my university experience and unable to enhance it.

Rebuttal – Lauren Tracey

While I do agree that UCD is a formidable force in the academic world and we are the largest university in the country, this is not a question of our student population and our high status in the university world. The Irish government refuse to co-operate with academic institutions nationwide; primary education, secondary education and third level budgets are all being slashed, while social welfare and the health services have taken severe hits. Minister Noonan and his colleagues are determined to take money from wherever they can, and the strong united voice of not one, but forty united colleges and universities around the country would be heard much better and make much more of an impact than forty individual voices.

It must also be considered that leaving the USI would make it much easier for the government to insist on only speaking with just that organisation, therefore eliminating nearly 25,000 students and their representatives from discussions.

It is ridiculous to argue that the ability to negotiate as a team with the government on key issues, such as student fees and the expansion of third level education budgets, is not ‘a good enough reason’ to leave the USI. We university-goers are not the Celtic Tiger generation, we haven’t got the money to spend on these extortionate fees and if the USI can help us avoid paying them, and represent us well while doing it, then I am very much in favour of remaining standing alongside them.

NO – Lauren Tracey

Over the past number of months Ireland’s student population has been faced with some incredibly difficult circumstances. With registration fees set to rise, maintenance grants at risk, and the prospects of securing employment as graduates becoming bleaker by the day, now the students of University College Dublin may be asked to consider the possibility of leaving the USI, the sole national representative body for students in Ireland.

At a time when the rights of students are being progressively chipped away by a government intent on skimming money from every department and sector they possibly can, how can it even be considered that UCD should leave the USI? The acknowledgement must be made that the idea of UCD’s Students’ Union moving out on its own and establishing itself among the larger student representatives is appealing, but leaving the USI altogether brings the old African proverb to mind; “only fools test the water with both feet.” There are many benefits to be gained from remaining within the organisation, and students should be aware of the enormous gains that come from ties with the institution. The USI, at its very core, was conceived to represent those who had been placed in the points race and made it to their chosen universities and colleges.

According to figures on the official USI website, presently the USI represents 250,000 students from forty colleges around Ireland. They stand with the Student Unions’ and fight for the key issues of financial support for all students and ensure that there are appropriate standards of living in place, particularly for those who are vulnerable and living far from home. They tackle issues in conjunction with the Students’ Unions, and strengthen the voices of those we elect to represent us. Withdrawal from the USI would severely weaken the voice of UCD’s Students’ Union officials. Without the backing of such a major force in student politics, UCD runs the risk of being left out in the cold during both discussions with the government and campaigns for student rights. In times such as these this could only prove a disadvantage for the students attending UCD.

Representing the amount of students that the USI does makes the organisation a strong presence and voice in Ireland. It is through its vast array of media links and contacts that our Students’ Union receives the publicity they require to make their campaigns known countrywide. Losing such an important media link would badly damage UCD’s ability to publicise important issues. The student march against fees in December highlighted how a connection with the national representatives of students is a positive one for UCD’s Students’ Union. Student opinions are aired on national programmes such as Prime Time and RTÉ News through USI officials.

It is also important to consider that one of the services the USI offers is training events, which allow our Students’ Union representatives to “fulfil their roles as efficiently as possible throughout the academic year.” The USI has been running successfully since 1959 and is choosing to pass on their knowledge and skills to Students’ Unions across the country so that the student is represented to the highest standard on all platforms. The links with the USI provide UCD’s SU officials with a degree of credibility, with the skills to represent the students of their university with responsibility and knowledge, and with tools to have their issues raised accurately and adequately.

A break with the USI is not the right choice for UCD students at this current time, when the possibility of even attending university next September is fading fast for many. Now more than ever, the students of University College Dublin need to be represented, not only by their own SU, but at a national level by a body with as much experience as the USI.

Rebuttal – Elizabeth Beecham

The degree of media attention garnered by the USI-led protest on fees and student supports is undeniable, yet I fail to see how leaving the USI could hamper UCDSU’s capability to promote and highlight these issues through the diverse media outlets at our disposal. The role of Campaigns and Communications Officer is dedicated to this, and persons who are nominated and elected to this position should have the skills and ability developed to advance our concerns. They do this through acting as class reps and working with clubs and societies, and don’t require professional media training paid for by us.

Recent proposals to amend the USI constitution announced could exacerbate this problem, with officers remaining in their roles for more than two years. USI has a dual role to play: representing our views as third level students in Ireland, and advocating and articulating these views to the educational establishments and government. The USI fails to truly represent UCD students meaningfully as it is seen as a preparatory school for would-be politicians, all paid for by our Student Registration Fee.

Prisoners’ rights are not something a lot of us think about on a daily basis. One recent article on thejournal.ie on temporary release saw a particular commenter say “if you want to commit a crime, do it in Ireland … You’ll be educated, fed and given room and board. Great little country!” Although it is true that many in our prison system have been found guilty of heinous acts, it is more often that they have committed minor crimes. Regardless, they are still deserving of their basic human rights. Their punishment is losing their freedom, not their dignity or an acceptable standard of living.

RTÉ has reported that Director General of the Irish Prison Service, Michael Donnellan is currently working on a three-year plan that he hopes will drastically ease prison overcrowding and help improve conditions. This comes in the wake of a recent report from the Inspector of Prisons in which graphic details were given of in-cell sanitation, prisoner numbers and other major problems in Limerick Prison. There are aims to work with the Minister and the judiciary to allow those serving sentences of twelve months or less to serve them in the community. It is hoped that this will allow proper community integration, which in turn will cut down on recidivism, which currently stands at sixty per cent within five years in Ireland.

Donnellan is seemingly a breath of fresh air for the Service and his presence at a recent seminar by the Irish Penal Reform Trust, the main Irish prisoner advocacy organisation, is a testament to his commitment. Actions like these speak much louder than words and so he must show true leadership in order to ensure this enthusiasm is matched by all those working with some of the most vulnerable in our society.

‘Slopping out’ is one of the single most degrading activities of prison life, and yet it is still practiced in the majority of Ireland’s fourteen institutions. This was highlighted by Judge Michael O’Reilly in the Limerick report and accompanied low-level intimidation of prisoners by some prison officers, overcrowding, filthy cells and broken windows. Minister Alan Shatter has said he was “disappointed and indeed shocked” at the findings, which have been classed as some of the worst in the system. According to the report, the continued incarceration of prisoners in certain wings that lack in cell sanitation and basic levels of cleanliness is “inhuman and degrading.”

That is not to say that this is entirely commonplace, however it still should not be occurring at all. The core aim of the Irish Prison Service is prisoner care and rehabilitation, but if conditions in any of our places of detention leave these men, women, and teenagers feeling less than any other citizen, how can we really demand full re-integration and adherence to codes imposed by people who didn’t care about them as long as they were locked up? A serious issue whenever people in prison are allowed access to novel and ostensibly “fun” initiatives is the public perception that they are being rewarded instead of punished.

Erwin James, a former inmate and author of A Life Inside, wrote in The Guardian recently that “for real change to happen, people in prison need to be challenged, helped, motivated and encouraged to believe that they can live a better way.” The article refers to studies completed in a young offenders’ prison in the UK that showed a reduction in recidivism in those who participated in some form of meaningful activity. Proposals have also been made for participants “to meet with victims of crime who would explain the impact that crime had on them and their families.” This is a novel idea, one that should absolutely be considered by our Prison Service. If rehabilitation and a ‘brighter future’ is what we are truly aiming for, we must let those in prison see this future and strive for it.

Expressions of shame, guilt, remorse and embarrassment are abundant amongst prisoners, as are good intentions for life after prison. Ninety-seven per cent of those who responded to a prisoner crime reduction survey carried out in 2010 expressed a desire to stop offending. But always in short supply has been the means to heal troubled and troublesome lives. Prison represents justice to many victims of crime, but it also has a duty to serve the potential victims of released prisoners. There must be a commitment on all sides to allow for reform and rehabilitation. One wrong turn in life does not mean that a person deserves to be punished for eternity. If prisoners aren’t shown basic humanity, we cannot expect them to change into the sort of people that everyone, including themselves, wants them to be.

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has condemned sexist attacks by ultra-orthodox protesters

While much of the world’s attention is focused on the freedom movements in countries in the Middle East, oppression in Israel has been overlooked. Evan O’Quigley explores the rise of extreme religious groups in Israel and the conflict with secular forces

There has been some recent debate in the media over aggressive protests by ultra-orthodox Haredi Jews in Israel. The extremist faction has been protesting, often violently, against the ‘immodest’ dressing of women within the country. Haredi Judaism, the most conservative of all forms of the religion, makes up a small minority of Israel’s community (approximately ten per cent), although there are larger concentrations in cities including Jerusalem, the nation’s capital.

Israeli President Shimon Peres recently spoke out against the protesters and urged the nation “to save the majority from the hands of a small minority” amid ongoing tensions between the country’s religious and secular communities. Thousands of Israeli citizens have gathered to protest against these events, including a recent attack on an eight-year old girl by the extremist faction for dressing “immodestly”. Haredi protesters have spat and shouted “whore” and “Nazi” at schoolchildren and their mothers.

Israel is regularly celebrated as being liberal in relation to women’s rights in contrast to its Arab neighbours, where there has been alarm over newly elected Islamist leaders enforcing Hijabs and banning immodest clothing, but it is now is under threat of becoming embroiled in religious conservatism from a small minority of Israelis.

Earlier this month Haaretz, an Israeli paper that publishes in both Hebrew and English, reported that businesses in the small town of Sderot signed up to a modesty agreement over the past several months that guarantees that their female workers will dress modestly. More than twenty businesses have signed this agreement. The agreement has been described as “religious coercion” by members of the ultra-orthodox fringe by a local clothing store owner, who also stated that many of his co-workers are unhappy with this. The shops and businesses worry that by not agreeing to the modesty dress code they could harm their business interests.

Israel’s Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has recently condemned sexist attacks by ultra-orthodox protesters, as have Haredi leaders. It is generally accepted that extremist protesters are a small minority within the Haredi community and most Haredis do not support the minority right-wing faction. The protesters have also caused alarm over religious pronouncements that men should walk out of army ceremonies that host female singers, as well as attempts to remove advertising in order to erase women’s faces from advertisements and billboards.

Jewish women, both within Israel, and in Britain and the US, have been urged to send in photographs of themselves holding signs saying “women should be seen and heard” by the New Israel Fund (NIF), who have been particularly vocal in their opposition to the extremist Haredim. The NIF plan to compile these photographs into advertisements that will be placed in parts of Jerusalem to fight back against the vandals. The mayor of Jerusalem, Nir Barket, has also publicly opposed this Haredi campaign and stated “We must make sure that those who want to advertise [with] women’s images in the city can do so without fear of vandalism and defacement of billboards or buses showing women.”

Of course, gender segregation within the ultra-orthodox community has always been evident, but it is only recently that there has been a rapid increase in stronger expressions of their views and the demands that those views are imposed on others. This is further adding to the ‘culture-clash’ that is now taking place within the Jewish state.

There is concern that the rise of Haredi violence is damaging Israel’s image abroad. “The violent clashes show Israel in a horrible light and cause a great deal of damage to its image in America,” one Hasidic rabbi said recently in an interview with Haaretz. The Jewish communities in Brooklyn’s Borough Park, in which ninety-five per cent of its residents are Hasidic Jews, feel that the violent extremists in Israel’s Haredi camp are giving a bad name to the “virtue of modesty” and have also denounced the somewhat tepid response of the Israeli authorities. This could be particularly problematic as the United States is Israel’s closest ally, being the largest cumulative recipient of US aid since World War Two.

This could be potentially damaging to Israel’s image as a “democratic, Western, liberal state” in the words of Netanyahu, and added that the current situation is much of a social issue as it is a legal one. Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, also criticised the Haredi’s demands for gender segregation and the exclusion of women in the public sphere last month. At a private meeting in Washington, Clinton argued that the vilification of women was reminiscent of extremist regimes, and compared the practice of separating women and men on public buses (which is being heavily advocated by the orthodox groups), to racial segregation in the American south before the Civil Rights Act.

Netanyahu was right to point out Israel’s place as a liberal democracy. After the state was first accepted as a member of the United Nations in 1949, the ‘Labor Zionist’ movement led by David Ben-Gurion dominated Israeli politics in its early years. Ben-Gurion’s Israel was largely secular, revolving around the revival of Hebrew culture and the creation of a state for the Jewish Diaspora, many of whom had been the victims of anti-Semitic crimes in Nazi Europe, and in Arab lands, rather than on religious grounds. If Israel is to maintain its reputation as a liberal democracy, it will be necessary for its government to stamp out this theocratic coercion from extremist protesters.

However, this is not to say that the Israeli Prime Minister is entirely without criticism. Netanyahu himself has been attacked in the Israeli press for including extreme right-wing Haredi parties in his government coalition. While his own party, Likud, represents the Israeli liberal-right, Shas, which holds four cabinet posts in government, align themselves with religious conservatives. Many members have been recorded previously attacking homosexuality, Palestinians, and have shown excessive leniency in punishing mosque burning and attacks on Arabs. Some have argued that this has strengthened the position of extremists, which has led to the recent problems.

This clash between the secular and religious communities should not be taken lightly, as not only does this situation affect the women who have been demonised and protested, but also the many followers of Haredi-Judaism who do not represent the minority extremist faction. The protests and violent attacks by the extremists have led to demonisation of all ultra-orthodox followers, general fear of Haredim in the Jewish state, and a divide between the secular and religious communities.

Along with both his father and Bertie Ahern, Kim Jong-il had that lucky knack of knowing when the right time to exit is. On the 17th of December, exactly two weeks before his declared deadline of making the DPRK a “strong and prosperous nation”, the Dear Leader finally succumbed to his suffix and died. Whilst blue flashes blinded, ice exploded, storks sympathised and a holy mountain glowed, the world woke up to the fact that the hermit state was in unknown hands, and they didn’t like it.

Kim Jong-il was a known enemy. He was wildly eccentric in the way only a totalitarian dictating megalomaniac can be. A film fanatic, he ordered the kidnapping of South Korean film director Shin Sang-ok in 1978, who, during his eight years in captivity, was charged with the creation of a North Korean Godzilla. Despite propagandist assertions of a diet of potatoes and rice-balls, his former chef claims Kim had a penchant for roasted donkey, caviar and fresh Thai papayas. The world’s greatest golfer, he shot thirty-eight under par in his maiden round including five holes-in-one, or so attested seventeen of his bodyguards.

His hubristic behaviour could be confined to the realms of real-life comedy if one was to ignore the ground level suffering that it resulted in.

Google satellite pictures of the DPRK at night would produce a bewildering darkness. That’s not censorship, it’s the result of no electricity. North Korea faded to black during the early 1990s. Power stations rusted. People stole electrical wire to exchange for food and Kim Jong-il became the leader of the first industrialised country to lose the capacity to not only light itself, but feed itself too.

An estimated 500,000 to two million people died during this famine, a direct result of Kim’s obstinate promotion of the Juche Idea, which advocated complete self-sufficiency. His noted fearlessness in the face of international sanctions was an indication of either complete delusion or an utter absence of human compassion, as his subjects perished.

The Communist state failed with the food crisis. Many DPRK defectors noted that it was the good and loyal citizens that were the first to succumb to starvation, whilst illegal markets and small businesses sprung up out of necessity for everyone else. Even in 2011, long after the famine’s formal end, the average official monthly income was less than €2. A further €10 came in on the side, as capitalist practices are employed to keep families alive.

The increasing inequality is dashing Southern hopes of successful future reunification. The South’s economic power is at least thirty times stronger than the North’s. This is equivalent to four times the disparity that existed between East and West Berlin when the wall fell. The average North Korean is three inches smaller than their Southern counterparts due to malnourishment.

Apart from the welfare of its citizens internally, the huge international concern is in regard to the nuclear weapons held by the state. In his eulogy the songun, or “military first” policy adopted by North Korea was the most praised achievement of the elder Kim, whilst the issue of the economy was avoided in almost a “don’t mention the war” manner. Parliament chief Kim Yong-nam instead gushed that his legacy was the foundation of a “proud nuclear state”.

Pride is certainly a distinguishing factor in a personality-cult fuelled nationalistic regime. The North has conducted two nuclear tests, and could have a working nuclear missile in as little as one or two years. This poses both a threat to regional security, and supplies the DPKR with a powerful bargaining tool to use when seeking aid for its economy.

As the action rises, a pudgy Swiss-educated twenty-eight-year-old with very little political experience enters central stage, and instead of a double rainbow, a huge question-mark hangs over his head. Kim’s older sons were rejected for the leadership role, one after embarrassing his father by being arrested in a Japanese airport using fake passports to gain access to Disneyland, the other for being “too feminine”. Kim Jong-un brings new hope.

One move that should be wished for is the decriminalisation of the currently underground private economy. Another is that the younger Kim will be more willing to make concessions in international negotiations.

Both his international education and his experience as a basketball team player may make him more open to change than his father, according to the former deputy governor of the North’s Korea Reunification Development Bank. But with his uncle Jang Song Thaek supervising the transition period and the new Supreme Leader being encouraged by the rest of the military elite, this is far from a certainty.

Meanwhile, millions pray to the new leader for another kind of mercy. It is likely that he will be the last man with the power to reunite estranged families that still hold memories of each other. Countless relatives were torn apart during the Korean War in the early 1950s, and with no postal, email or telephone service between the two factions, many do not know if their long-lost are still even alive.

Family reunions were agreed to at the landmark summit in 2000 and so far 20,000 Koreans have been allowed once-off face-to-face or video contact with their parents, children and siblings on the other side. Fathers have faced elderly offspring that have a lifetime of their own completed. Brothers and sisters have strained to recognise each other after sixty years apart.

Of the 130,000 South Koreans that signed up for reunions, a third have since died without even this satisfaction. With the war fading from memory, connections are extinguishing and the severance of Korea has reached the final stage of completion. Whether his compassion will extend beyond propagandist reportings is questionable. And so Koreans wait, as they have done for sixty years.

The fiftieth anniversary of the establishment of Raidió Teilifís proves that after half a century Irish broadcasting is, in many ways, still in its infancy. As part of RTÉ’s semi-centennial celebration they will add to the current online archives on their website to provide an enhanced insight into events that have shaped Irish society, and to depict how the lives of Irish people have changed throughout the fifty years of the station’s existence. The availability of this archive is just one of the initiatives launched by RTÉ as part of its TV50 campaign, which encompasses a year-long celebration of fifty years of RTÉ that commenced on New Year’s Eve.

RTÉ currently has an archive section on their website that contains extensive footage and radio clips of notable events over the last fifty years. It is not clear as to whether this section will be enhanced in a way that users will be able to access material based on the year it was filmed or whether it will be divided into further categories of sport, news or Late Late Show episodes. This may depend on the volume of material RTÉ intends to issue to the archives. One of the most valuable features of the enhanced archive access will be the addition of a TV50 classics player, which will be launched in spring of 2012. The classics player will be available on the RTÉ website and will operate using the same format as the existing RTÉ player, allowing users to access some of the great moments in drama, sport and news in Ireland over the last fifty years.

TV license payers may be wondering why this facility was not made available to them by the state broadcaster many years ago. The simple truth is that RTÉ only began a scheme of digitising material in the mid 1990’s and this is set to continue for at least another decade. Up until now, viewers could only get access to RTÉ archives through the limited amount of footage placed on their website and through programmes such as Reeling in the Years, Léargas and Arts Lives. The majority of the material in RTÉ’s archives was captured on large open reels using analogue technology, usually magnetic tape. The drawback of analogue recording is that large amounts of space are needed to store the old reels and the quality of the footage on the reel deteriorates quickly over time. Converting the existing archives to digital format ensures that the quality of the footage will not deteriorate any further over time and allows the archives to be shared with the public in an online environment.

Many viewers will be excited by the prospect of trawling the classics player for news broadcasts and episodes of the Late Late Show in the hope of spotting a relative on the news or a son or daughter’s claim to fame on the Late Late Toy Show. The reality of the situation is that a large amount of reels were wiped in the early years of RTÉ in order to facilitate the recording of new programmes; production budgets were small and it was too costly to use new reels every time. This has, unfortunately, resulted in various pieces of footage being lost forever. Luckily material now produced by RTÉ is stored in digital format and catalogued so that future generations will be able to look back on high quality footage depicting the trials and tribulations of twenty-first century Ireland.

The release of RTÉ’s archives fits in with the current trend of nostalgia featured in Irish media and film in recent years. Many people are yearning to bask in the glory of times gone by; evidence of this is the success of Reeling in the Years and its DVD. There is no doubt that many people will use the TV50 classics archive to relive childhood memories of Bosco and The Den and watch famous events that RTÉ news covered over the years, but what about the even younger generation? It is hard to see many students of today ditching their usual helping of television to watch programmes documenting decades gone by. Those that do watch may mostly get a kick out of the dodgy hairstyles and fashion disasters. Many will be surprised to see how vastly Ireland has changed and advanced since fifty years ago, when the country was reliant on an agricultural economy pre-EEC membership. “Tied to the tail of a cow” is an understatement. At the very least, the RTÉ archive will bring an increased awareness of the past to younger generations and it will also provide a laugh or two along the way.

The National Health Service (NHS) is interwoven into the social fabric of modern day Britain; it is a system practically unique in the modern world due to its scale and core tenet of being a system which focuses primarily on clinical need and not ability to pay. Established in 1948, it is seen as an institution of the state and high degree of politicisation is apparent whenever change is mooted. The current proposals being advanced by Andrew Lansley MP, Secretary for State for Health are a plain example of public service reforms being introduced amid a bleak climate of economic austerity and debt reduction, and aim to reduce the NHS administrative budget by a third by 2014. The Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties that form the British coalition government may have convincingly beaten Labour in the 2010 election on a ticket of faster debt reduction, and seem resigned to achieving this by greatly reducing state spending on public services. Yet any measure that could impact on the ethos underpinning the NHS will face strong suspicion and resistance from organisations representing health care professionals and the public. Considering that overall the NHS employs 1.7 million people directly, this represents a challenge even for a relatively experienced politician such as Lansley to encourage positive reception by those directly affected to the proposals, and support has thus far been lacking. One of the reforms is to permit foundation trusts to increase the amount of revenue they can earn from private work to a maximum of forty-nine per cent.

The NHS operates as four systems in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, with the service in each region functioning under a devolved trust model. The trusts are charged with managing specific areas of health care system in a region such as mental health, or primary care consisting of visits to the doctor or dentist. Foundation trusts, introduced under Labour, have a greater degree of managerial independence then other NHS trusts and set their own caps for the income they can receive from private patients, which generally tend to be low, at around two per cent. What the new flexibility to increase private patient income will mean for the ideology of the NHS and the impact on the quality of care that public patients receive are highly contentious concerns and will provide the main arguments against the introduction of the reforms.

Virtually all sections of the British political establishment propound the NHS’s virtues. Former Labour health minister Frank Dobson claimed that the proposals contained in the Health and Social Care Bill 2010-11 were in essence diverting “people in the NHS from the job of looking after people, they are privatising the NHS, they are fragmenting the NHS and they will cost us a fortune and do little or no good for anybody.”

Even British Prime Minister David Cameron made a point of praising the care that his late son, who was severely disabled, received from NHS staff. He highlighted these experiences as impressing upon him the value of the NHS and to assure voters that the Conservatives weren’t going to undermine or damage the institution. During the divisive public debate on Obama’s health care reforms in America in 2009, Cameron was quick to distance his party from comments made by a Tory MEP criticising the system and reiterated a bold statement made during a Conservative party conference “you can sum up our priorities in three letters: N. H. S … It is one of our greatest national institutions.”

At heart of the dilemma for Conservatives handling NHS reforms is the desperate need to free up public spending to meet their budget reduction target, yet they are wary that measures may be blocked due to a public perception that the Government is commercialising the NHS.

Former Labour Health Minister Frank Dobson claimed that the proposals were in essence, diverting “people in the NHS from the job of looking after people, they are privatising the NHS, they are fragmenting the NHS and they will cost us a fortune and do little or no good for anybody.”

A real risk that could manifest itself if the new rules increasing the percentage of private patients are implemented is an elevated list of private patients receiving a more expeditious approach to their care. This could prove to be as flimsy a reality as a Ryanair priority boarding queue or, as argued by groups such as the Royal College of Nursing, could significantly impact those who rely most completely on the care of the NHS; the poorest in society. Lansley points to an inbuilt protection in the legal mandate of foundation hospitals’ core duty is to care for NHS patients, yet it could be argued that this will have little impact on practical decisions about day-to-day care. With all NHS hospital to be run by foundation trusts by 2014, the significance of allowing increased numbers of private patients could greatly shape the delivery of NHS care in the twenty-first century.

The British public are fiercely protective of the ethos and delivery standards that the NHS lives up to, and one also cannot undermine the ‘public good’ as a tangible source of motivation for NHS staff. Given the profound interactions the NHS has had with the British public in moments of illness, death and vulnerability for over sixty years, NHS reform is a difficult tightrope for any British government to seek to balance upon.

Economy

We have learned a new vocabulary in Ireland over the past year. The so-called troika, comprising of the EU, the ECB and the IMF, have control of our pay strings. We have become aware that paying bondholders maybe isn’t such a wonderful idea. The yield given on ten-year bonds shouldn’t exceed seven per cent for a country or they face big trouble. The financial contagion that began with Greece, a peripheral nation, has spread to the Eurozone’s third largest economy, Italy, and threatens France. Merkozy, comprising of Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, are now the two leaders in Europe and any decisions made at European summits in the future will have already been made by them beforehand. €6 billion was taken out of the Irish economy in the 2011 Budget, while €3.8b billion was taken out of the economy in the most recent Budget announced at the start of December. This is following a policy of austerity measures that the troika has laid out for us. If the emigration figures of a thousand people leaving every week and rising unemployment are any benchmark to go by, it is clear that this policy isn’t working.

General Election

February 25^th 2011 will go down in history as the day that one of the greatest and most dominating political parties in Western Europe saw their support base decimated. Fianna Fáil only regained a quarter of their seats, ceding power to Fine Gael and Labour and joining the ranks of opposition for the first time in fourteen years. Few expected the outrage of the public to be so clear, with many expecting the traditional voters to save Fianna Fáil from such an embarrassment. Yet many jumped ship to Fine Gael, allowing them to form a government and become the largest party of the state. It was the day that the voters rejected the failed policies of Fianna Fáil and poured scorn on the party that had brought the country to its knees economically. The fact that the party won only one seat in the county of Dublin shows how low their support is amongst the electorate. The demise of Fianna Fáil wasn’t the only story of the election as Fine Gael almost won enough seats to govern by themselves, Labour and Sinn Fein had their greatest election results, winning thirty-six seats and fourteen seats respectfully and there were nineteen Independents elected. The Green Party did not win one seat, thanks to their time in government with Fianna Fáil. The future is uncertain for Irish politics, with the government having a majority big enough to ensure they will see out their five years in office.