05.14.06
Hanafin complains to the ST
Mary Hanafin wasn’t a bit pleased with my article last Sunday and her letter of complaint was published today. I am raging that the ST don’t have a practice of allowing the subject of the complaint to respond because Hanafin seriously plays with the facts to make it look like I was in error. Here’s the letter
“NO MATTER how queasy Sarah Carey’s gut feels (Hanafin’s facts make me sick to my stomach, News Review, last week), I deal every day with facts that make a huge difference to the lives of our young people.
It is incorrect for her to claim that St Michael’s CBS in Inchicore was losing half of its teachers as a result of the new action plan on disadvantage, DEIS (Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Schools). St Michael’s already had a much more favourable pupil-teacher ratio than would be available under the DEIS scheme, and in the coming school year was to continue with a pupil:teacher ratio of about 10:1.
 |
Following my meeting with the Christian Brothers’ trustees last week, they decided to postpone the closure of the school for another year, a move I welcomed.
This government has made enormous strides in targeting resources towards children with special needs and those from disadvantaged backgrounds. This year alone over €650m is being spent tackling educational disadvantage and we are making real progress, with increasing numbers of young people from disadvantaged areas going to third level.
Carey neglects to acknowledge that this September there will be 4,000 more teachers in our primary schools than there were in 2002. “
I spoke to the Principal of St. Michael’s who confirmed that everything I wrote in my article was “exactly” right. They were losing 5 out of 9 teachers and at least 2, but possibly 3 of their Special Needs Assistants. I suspect Hanafin’s phrase that the school was not losing teachers ” as a result of the DEIS scheme” was carefully chosen. They are losing the teachers but there must be a technicality which allows her to claim it is not as a direct result of the DEIS scheme. But isn’t it clever the way it appears that the school isn’t losing half the teachers when they are?
Her other very carefully chosen phrase is that “in the coming school year” the pupil:teacher ratio will be 10:1. The Principal explained how the Minister is able to say this. Since the school is closing, they are not taking in a new class of pupils in September as it would normally do. Furthermore some of the parents have found schools for the pupils and want to move them now to get in ahead of the main pack when the school does close in 2007. Therefore, as a result of the decision to close, they have less pupils, which has brought the ratio down from 15:1 to 10:1. But Hanafin allows you to believe that the teacher loss in itself would have meant a 10:1 ratio. Very sneaky.
Niall said,
May 14, 2006 at 4:20 pm
Well she is a TD. It’s her job to be sneaky. You don’t make it in politics by being honest.
All the same, it would have been nice if the ST had published this beside the letter of complaint. You’ll have to address it in your next week’s column.
Daniel K. said,
May 14, 2006 at 5:51 pm
There has been apparent increase in government TDs especially Billy Kelleher, Tom Kitt and Eamon O’Cuiv in the last few weeks and months using the letters pages of various newspapers to arguing back at points raised by columnists and more significantly members of the public. TDs have a platform afforded them by the electorate in the Dail for speaking out. Their press releases will be dutifully published by the media, often without any attempt made to check the facts by the members of the fourth estate. Members of the public have few opportunities to get a message out. It is frankly bizarre that TDs and more so ministers get afforded such a chance to take space away from the ordinary member of the public who doesn’t get all the assistance that they get.
And yes, I acknowledge that I have personally used the letters pages in the national and local media and that I would be regarded by some as an aspiratant pol’, but as someone on the outside my chances of getting a letter published are no better than those of any other member of the public. So, I have to depend on the merit or timeliness of my point. Ministers are I think, and I’m sure many would agree with me, are getting favourable treatment.
Keep at it, Sarah.
Sarah said,
May 14, 2006 at 7:41 pm
I have always observed that it is in interests of FnFers to promote the “all politicians are at it” school of thought. It helps to remove attention from the fact that when a tally is taken, FnFers top the poll of corrupt and devious politicians.
Niall said,
May 14, 2006 at 10:09 pm
Yes, but isn’t that mostly because they’ve had the most power in this fine country of ours?
With great power comes great opportunity!
Sarah said,
May 14, 2006 at 10:16 pm
I prefer to think that while “people” claim that there is no difference between political parties in Ireland in terms of policy, the real division is a cultural one. FF believe they are the natural party of government and what’s good for FF is good for the State, for example, saying and doing dishonest things so that they get to stay in power, but they don’t see that as dishonest cos they think its for the greater good that they DO stay in power. Some of their members confuse this and take it one step futher – what’s good for them is good for FF and good for the State. It’s an insult to the integrity of other politicians to say that they would all behave in the same way given the same opportunity. I don’t believe they would. To be absolutely fair I think that most members of the current cabinet are personally honest but still a bit confused about public honesty.
Pat Moore said,
May 15, 2006 at 5:00 am
Well Sarah, Surely her comments should be of great joy to you….I mean you must have wondered if the money being spent on the spin doctors for the Government was well spent….and there in front of you is evidence that it is. I mean if they can actually make that story seem genuine they are fantastic, which coincidentally is the same as all their stories..) By the way I could not find your piece in the ST today, were they trying to sneak it past the FF watchdogs, or were you on a break with your unbrushed hair…..:)
Sarah said,
May 15, 2006 at 9:18 am
hee hee. I confess, I didn’t see the paper myself yesterday so not sure in what obscure spot the Brits stuck me. However, I did read an interesting piece in the magazine about the dearth of great columnists in Irish newspapers and how it’s important to groom new ones. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,2774-2174981,00.html
I couldn’t help but wonder, as Carrie used to say, if I have the capacity, if sufficiently “groomed” to be a great columnist. Only time and a few extra IQ points will tell I suppose.
Copacetic » Blog Archive » Sarah is getting Mary Hanafin’s back up… said,
May 15, 2006 at 2:52 pm
[...] You know your doing something right when the Government feels compelled to respond writing. [...]
P O'Neill said,
May 15, 2006 at 3:16 pm
The whole thing reeks of modern political consultancy and in particular the Rove idea of “permanent campaign” — that you stay on the attack even when there’s no election, and of rapid response, to cast doubt as quickly as possible over awkward facts. And of course the media sense of balance — tilted towards people with official titles — cooperates. There’s a Paul Krugman joke in the US context that if the Republican National Committee put out a press release claiming that the earth was flat, the New York Times headline would be “Opinions differ on shape of earth”. Politician disputing facts = controversy, even when the facts are not actually in dispute.
Sarah said,
May 15, 2006 at 9:14 pm
Tell me about it! Hugo Chavez visits London today and received by Ken Livingstone. Bob Neill is described by ireland.com as “leader of London’s conservative opposition”. I am not sure if this means he is a member of the Conservative party. He says about Chavez “The mayor’s action today was disgraceful. I believe that this man should be shunned by every moderate regime in the world, not wined and dined like a legitimate world leader,” he added”. Eh, last time I checked Chavez had decisively won an election and had a referendum on the constitution passed. He also overcame an attempted coup. How does this make him “like” a legitimate world leader. He IS a legitimate world leader.
Gerry said,
May 16, 2006 at 10:54 am
Bob Neill is leader of the London Assembly Conservatives. he is not a particularly serious figure. the branding of Chavez as a “dictator” is disgraceful and Neill’s siding with the “dissidents” of Venzuala (i.e the dispossed owners of the oil wealth) is unlikely to find much favour with the new green Tories.
Gerry
Sarah said,
May 16, 2006 at 12:27 pm
so the London Assembly Conservatives are not Tories then? Isn’t it ridiculous then of ireland.com to publish a story where the status of the subject (Neill) isn’t clarified and yet, which casts doubt on the legitimacy of Chavez? I think PO’Neill’s point is more than proved. Journalism actively aiding and abetting the spinmeisters. The least they should have done was point out that Chavez has been democratically elected.
Rob C said,
May 17, 2006 at 11:12 am
I cannot understand the appeal of Chavez. Ok he’s a darling of the left and vehemently opposed to US foreign policy and capitalism, etc. Oh how original of him! This earns him brownie points among champagne socialists and other head-in-the-sand types in Ireland and elsewhere. Despite Venezuela’s historical problems of gross inequality, Chavez’ brand of nationalisation and redistribution will make Venezuela poorer and more desperate. And his support for Saddam, Mugabe and other tyrants speaks volumes. That he was democratically elected doesn’t mean he is a guy to be feted.
Sarah said,
May 17, 2006 at 12:30 pm
It does mean he’s a democrat. That at least should be acknowledged by the White House instead of supporting the attempted coup against him. If the right are going to defend the use of force to introduce democracy then they don’t get to complain when that same democracy throws up results they don’t like. If Chavez fucks up Venezuela the people will only have themselves to blame. That’s the beauty and horror of the democratic system.What pisses of the left is the right supporting dictators when it suits them and complaining about democratically elected left wing leaders when it doesn’t. Make up your minds boys! Do the people rule or not?
tom said,
May 17, 2006 at 1:20 pm
Rob C
Where is the evidence that Chavez “supports” Saddam? I believe he met him once. So did Donald Rumsfeld (to sell him weapons). So what?
In what sense will Chavez “make Venezuela poorer and more desperate”? Venezuela is getting richer, better educated, and healthier. Do you deny that? Please tell us what is going to happen to change this picture.
Gerry said,
May 17, 2006 at 1:53 pm
there is a strange reaction to chavez, mostly racist. People like Rob C cannot believe that a local leader elected by popular mandate in Latin America can be anything other than venal, corrupt and on a heading stright to disaster. Ignore for the moment that years of being ruled by leaders from a small (white) elite in thrall to American oil companies has left their country desititute (these are the dissidents). Rob C and his ilk bellieve this is where Chavez should lead them back to as these are producer countries not entitled to control their own output.
chavez may be a darling of the left, but traditional left:right axes are irrelevant in the correction of what was essentially a klepotocracy. Is it right in a period of unprecedentedly high oil prices that the profits would have left Venezuala to swell the profits of companies based in Texas, Amsterdam and London?
There is no doubt some correction needed in Chavez’ policies in terms of protection of property rights so that longer term investments can be made in the private sector. But it pisses me off that kneejerk reactionary morons cannot see past their own prejudices to believe that perhaps there is a correction possible in the blighted history of South America and it can regain its position at the head table that it held a centruy ago before it sold the rights to its wealth for some hard dollars and false promises. viva Chaez – I wish him the best of luck.
Rob C said,
May 17, 2006 at 2:00 pm
Sarah, yes the US can certainly be accused of double standards. Supporting Saddam was a collossal error, as was leaving him in power in 1991. It was a terrible betrayal of the Iraqis and the Kurds. But administrations and policies change and there is at least an attempt to rectify the situation now. It is interesting that in the right/left debate many on the left support the invasion of Iraq. The more traditional right wing approach would be to retreat into splendid isolation and ignore the rest of the world.
I accept that Chavez is democratically elected and I would not support a US-backed coup. But as you say, if he f**ks up the Venezuelans will have only themselves to blame.
Tom, I cannot think of one truly socialist economy that has succeeded anywhere. Just ask an Eastern European or a Cuban about this. They are not in the least bit romantic about socialism. It is on this basis that I predict Venezuela will go backwards.
tom said,
May 17, 2006 at 3:02 pm
Well, that won’t be a problem because Chavez is not a “true socialist”. You’ll be waiting a long time before he introduces a soviet style command economy. Or do you know different?
Sarah said,
May 17, 2006 at 3:51 pm
have you guys seen the documentary about the coup? http://www.chavezthefilm.com/html/home.htm
It’s amazing. I used to half-know one of the film makers, Kim Bartley in college. They showed how the television companies in Venezueala edited footage to show Chavez supporters supposedly firing on peaceful protestors. Instead it was the other way round…Chavez enemy snipers firing on Chavez supporters. Mad stuff. Film is a must see. Especially, Scott McClellan welcoming the “new” government of Venezuela, and then oops! trying his best to not acknowledge that it was a failed coup. I followed the White House press briefing transcripts for days after Chavez got elected. There was a little ritual where the journalists would ask for congratulations that he was elected and then Scott trying to not to give the congratulations. Would’ve been funny if people hadn’t died…
Fordprefect said,
May 31, 2006 at 5:46 pm
I wouldn’t listen to a word Hanafin says. She is the minister for teachers, not the minister for education. Working for a party whose last name is fail is all I need to know. Politicians speak outof both sides of their mouth and play to the gallery.
All this minister is any good at is speaking patronisingly on the TV with a furrowed brow talking about “multifacteded coordinated initiatives”
Ignore the doublespeak because the people aren’t dumb. The can see who is and isn’t the truth and a journalist should be able to shout the the king has no clothes.
Irish people live their lives in spite of the government and hope that they don’t get caught up in their sticky, messy and plain dangerous incompetence. If it were not for the housing and multinational boom people would realise that we live in a failed state. The government exists to protect itself not the citizens of this banana republic.
Tony Allwright said,
June 4, 2006 at 11:20 pm
Small point about “Tom’s” remark that Rumsfeld sold weapons to Saddam.
According to no less a body than the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, of the arms imported by Saddam’s Iraq over the period 1973-2000, just1% came from the US, the UK and Australia (combined). So Rumsfeld was not a very effective salesman.
Guess where 82% came from? You got it – Russia, China and, of course, France. Isn’t that a surprise.
Have a look at “Of
Arms and Oil“.