Anyway things were looking OK when the delegation got a meeting with the Bahrain Minister for Health. However today’s Irish Times report on their return home refers obliquely to “the breaking up by pro-government medics of a press briefing they attended in Bahrain.”

The Bahrain News Agency website has today an equally oblique reference to the event –

Bahrain Journalists Association (BJA) strongly condemned the verbal and physical attack on doctors by journalist Rim Khalifa.

This attack is in breach of the precepts of journalism, it stressed in a statement today adding that a letter of complaint by President of Bahrain Medical Society (BMS) Dr. Nabil Al Ansari, in which he claimed that he was verbally assaulted by Rim Khalifa during a press conference held by the Irish delegation at Ramada Palace Hotel, was considered seriously.

The journalist has also attacked verbally and physically Dr. Hind Fayez and Dr. Hanen Harith.

This immoral behaviour can never be accepted under any pretext and does contravene ethical and democratic journalism which respects all opinions, BJA asserted.

A little digging around determines that Rim (Reem) Khalifa is the wife of an opposition leader and she apparently had led the resistance when the government loyalists showed up (with cameras) to disrupt the news conference.

[picture: Averil Power meets the pro-government visitors to the news conference; photo REUTERS/Hamad I Mohammed]

Although the Irish delegation of course had little control over what government goons might get up to during their visit, hasn’t it now created a 2nd round effect not just for the imprisoned doctors but also for Ms Khalifa? Maybe the best solution is for the Irish government to take on the cause more formally, but the semi-official approach was open to risk from the start.

UPDATE 17 JULY: There is now an extensive statement from the Bahrain Medical Society which ups the temperature in the accusations made against the Irish delegation and Reem Khalifa. The fact that the delegation was travelling without the formal backing of the Irish government or RSCI is seen as an issue:

The association cast doubts about the true agenda of the Irish delegation which expressed its intention to investigate incidents in Bahrain and come out with recommendations – although their visit did not exceed 48 hours.

The association defended its right to meet the Irish delegation and expose its own narrative of incidents in Bahrain, pointing out that the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland – Medical University of Bahrain had distanced itself from the visit.

The Bahrain Medical Society slammed the haughty attitude of the Irish delegation, whose members announced openly their firm intention to step up the pressure on Bahrain until detained doctors are released – Thus flouting basic diplomatic, legal and human norms. The association released details of journalist Reem Khalifa’s aggression on several Bahraini doctors, accusing them of being traitors and mercenaries. She went even further describing them as being “spinsters looking for men” and “cheap women” – all that happened I presence of Bahrain TV camera. The journalist hysterically assaulted Dr Hend Al-Fayez and aggressed Dr Nabeel Al-Ansari verbally. Her husband, former Al-Wasat editor-in-chief Dr Mansour Al-Jamri, did not ince his words used racist nd sectarian words in addressing doctors telling them, particularly: “I belong to this country. We are staying here. You will leave!”.

2nd UPDATE: Thanks to commenter Ateekster, I’m adding a Twitter hashtag for the visit. It might be best to wait for the delegation’s report before returning to the issue.

FINAL UPDATE: Irish Medical Times article about the visit and response from the Bahraini Minister for Social Development, who they met.

While the diverse computer systems and difficulties experienced in retrieving the data are relevant, the failure to accurately summarise these data in tabular form suggests a lack of attention to detail by the bank.

Well, congratulations Irish taxpayer, you’re already invested up to the hilt in this bank — Bank of Ireland – despite its lack of attention to detail.  And that diagnosis in the department’s own report!   Let’s hope their loan book is in better documentary shape than their HR system.   The short version of the report:

 Bank of Ireland has, shall we say, a legally creative interpretation of the word “performance” as in performance-related bonus, and both the Department and Arthur Cox (who did the due diligence report on B of I prior to the previous recapitalization) say they were misled by it.   Yet the fact remains that substantial bonuses were paid out and more are due in 2011.

Consider some other snippets from the report –

As long as the Government operates at arms’ length from the running of the bank, the Department does not have access to the raw data underlying replies to PQs and is reliant on the completeness, accuracy and factual nature of the information provided by the bank.

In other words, because we don’t run the bank, we can’t be expected to know what’s going on there.  Which is the same argument they could make for all the non nationalized banks.  Yet even if the face of that lack of information, they’ve allowed massive fiscal liabilities to pile up in these banks, both through the direct recapitalizations and the liquidity support from the Central Bank and the ECB for which we’re all on the hook.

Note: we wouldn’t have this problem if we’d nationalized the banks.  Brian Lenihan used to like sneering at that proposal but he mightn’t be so confident about that position any more. 

Finally, vis-a-vis the Arthur Cox due diligence, the department is in the strange position of saying that Arthur Cox was effectively misled by Bank of Ireland in putting together that report, but …

Arthur Cox have advised that the due diligence report accurately reported the information made available by the bank and met the report’s agreed scope and materiality thresholds in the context of the €3.5 billion State investment in the bank and the Department accepts that this is the case.

So if the due diligence was just a write-up of information given by the bank, what was its added value?  And note the logic: because the investment is so large, the odd ten million here and there doesn’t matter.  Would any other part of public spending be allowed to escape with such a materiality dodge?

More generally, one can look at this as either an astonishingly long approval process – 10 years –  or as proof that these projects eventually happen no matter how stiff the resistance: “you can’t fight City Hall” as the Americans say.   As you look through the documents and see words like “foreshore licence” it’s also a reminder of the still unresolved Poolbeg incinerator row, which now must be seen in the light of Enda Kenny’s proclamation that Ireland is open for business.  Not clear that you’d send Shell and Covanta packing after such a pronouncement.

Candidate	Pty.		% 1st Pref	Count 1	Count 2	Count 3	Count 4	Count 5	Count 6	Count 7
HEYDON, Martin (01)	FG		33.3%	12755	12755	12755	12755	12755	12755	12755
*WALL, Jack (01)	LAB		27.8%	10645	10645	10645	10645	10645	10645	10645
*Ó FEARGHAÍL, Seán (07)	FF		11.8%	4514	4961	5097	5177	5315	5552	8707
KENNEDY, Paddy	IND		7.3%	2806	3825	4081	4387	5156	6841	7710
*POWER, Seán	FF		9.9%	3793	4307	4445	4542	4650	4888	-
TURNER, Jason	SF		6.0%	2308	2610	2822	2904	3253	-	-
REID, Clifford T.	IND		2.4%	926	1410	1644	1873	-	-	-
CUMMINS, Vivian	GP		1.4%	523	944	1045	-	-	-	-

In Kildare South Fine Gael ran one candidate Martin Heydon. He polled 12755 votes over 3,000 over the quota. with nearly 13,000 first preference votes in the constituency  a second candidate here splitting the  12,755 also gaining a few local votes from what ever part they are from would have been in a very strong position to beat FF for the third seat. It would depend on transfers and whether a second FG candidate could have gained enough transfers to over come the 3rd FF candidate. But this is the stuff that wins you an majority.

1.  The increasing strangeness of constituency boundaries.  The constituency map inevitably dilutes the role of the county despite the fact that county identification is still strong.  It’s one thing to split a county when it grows but there are also the odd creations when towns are shuffled between the constituencies with little clear logic other than getting numbers right, and especially when those adjustments cross county lines.  Cases in point: Kells moved from Meath West to East and parts of Meath East near Drogheda moved to Louth, Kerry North now with bits of Limerick.  This doesn’t seem like the right way to build up local government.

The flip side of this are the multi-county constituencies where the vote dynamics are still highly local — many references this evening to “the Laois candidate”, the “Carlow candidate” etc.  The alternative: rather than shoe-horning the voters into 3, 4, and 5 seaters, do we find a way to strenthen the county basis or else move to much larger constituencies with more room for regional or national profiles?

2.  It’s impressive the way that the pundits are able to keep track of so many local candidates but it’s not perfect.  The RTE panel seemed surprised by Sinn Fein’s individual successes outside Dublin, even though people following local politics knew that SF were building up at the local level for years, with payoff obscured by SF’s poor showing in 2007.  Which brings me to …

3.  The slow-acting poison of Fianna Fail’s string of bad local election results.  It’s been a case of attrition with each local election but the party seemed to have its modus vivendi with local government: as long as it was on the central government revenue drip-feed and as long as TDs had their own operatives on the councils to feed the political machine, it didn’t matter that much.  And anyway, they won the 2007 general, so what was the problem?  Well, now we know.  Political bases for the opposition were being nurtured, even if they took time to cash in.  One consequence of this: as the national pundit panels contemplated the likelihood of nearly 20 independents, they had trouble naming who they were, beyond those with a media profile like Shane Ross and Mick Wallace.  Yet these now less anonymous TDs could have a big role in determining what the government and opposition looks like over the coming years.

4.  We need to talk about social partnership.  Brian Lenihan is sitting on a report — the evaluation of the Department of Finance — that apparently (going by the bits he has leaked) makes a damning indictment of social partnership and its impact on the economics and political governance of the country.  Of course, it also likely makes a damning indictment of the department itself.  But if we couldn’t have an election at least informed by the arguments in that report, how about now when crucial decisions are being made about how to run the country, especially given the complex relationship between the unions and Labour, now likely to be in government.  So, over to you caretaker Minister Lenihan.

5.  Do FF really believe their comeback challenge is of the same order of magnitude as what FG faced in 2002?  That was one of the favourite talking points yesterday.  It seems like a generous interpretation of their predicament, and even on its face, it should note that FG’s comeback included the 2007 disappointment.   Although if there was ever an election to lose …. but that’s another story.

6.  Who are the young guns on which FF can build … and yes I hear several voices raised saying “Averil Power”.  Well we can allow for count night pressure but still, one has to note that the FF spokesperson on political reform didn’t  have much to say last night about political reform, and couldn’t seem to handle Vincent Brown’s banter challenging her for an admission that FF wrecked the country.  And it mightn’t be a bad idea if every young person now working up the FF ranks was asked what concrete concerns they had about Bertie Ahern’s conduct as party operatives and why, assuming they had concerns, they joined anyway — a question that that the now exiting Cowen generation never faced despite their Haughey-era vintage.

7.  With the count on a weekend, we don’t yet know the opinion of … “the markets”.  It might be worth letting them indicate what they think the next government is going to do before making any rash decisions.  Sell on the rumour, buy on the news, or something.

Mr Justice Peter Kelly was told today that the [M1] tolling company is claiming it had a legitimate expectation, including a promise from the Minister for Transport Noel Dempsey, that tolls would go only up. The court heard that the Minister told the Dáil in June last year that the by-laws provide for an upward only review of tolls.

The authority says that the by-laws do not make any express reference to an upward only toll system and, in fact, provide a mechanism to allow for a decrease.  Senior Counsel, Shane Murphy said the company was advocating an interpretation of the by-laws which would insulate it from all external realities. He said that the Minister’s statement could not be regarded as a ‘promise’, as it was said after the contract between the NRA and the company was finalised in 2004.

4 days before the election, it’s worth remembering that it’s not just about the financial crisis and its aftermath.  It’s about the insanity of everything goes up and all our top people are worth it that went before.  Even now we don’t know for sure the guarantees on tolls and minimum usage that the tolling companies on M1, M3, M4 etc were given.  It’s a shame that Minister Dempsey is not running so that at least the voters of Meath West and (indirectly) East could have passed judgement on his tolling policy implications for the county.   Note incidentally that the argument used by the NRA — that laws can’t be interpreted as providing insulation from all external realities — applies in spades to the question of paying off bondholders in insolvent banks.

Look at 1985.   This is when all the Unionist MPs resigned — as it was then freely described in the media — to protest against the Anglo-Irish Agreement (an outrage that they shared, although not for the same reason, with Fianna Fail).   Led by James Molyneaux — now a real Baron, unlike Gerry Adams — and Ian Paisley (Baron Bannside), they resigned to … to run again for their old seats in by-elections!  So if we’re having a laugh at the need to take these procedures seriously, note that the title would have been held for just a few minutes by each of the Unionist MPs to process their resignations, whereupon they set about disregarding their office of profit under the Crown.  Hopefully the subjects of the stewardships were not insulted by the revolving door nature of their 1985 overlords.

Final footnote: Jim Nicholson, who resigned as MP, lost his seat to Seamus Mallon when he ran again.  But there’s no indication that the title curses subsequent election prospects.

As earlier posts have noted, he has never had a good sense of separation between the two roles and as Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin pointed out, the critical sentence was delivered as Gaeilge — “a united organisation is the most important thing”. So much for the Country First tone of a week ago.  Also to note at this stage, there is apparently a second bill that the government intends to pass before the election, there was a reference to the “NAMA amendment bill” which is the first I’d heard*.  Finally (for now), the FF leadership battle will pit several of the 7 FF Cabinet members against each other — a Cabinet that is already perilously close to the constitutional limit 7 and challenged in its constitutional requirement to operate as a collective.

Historical footnote: Richard Mulcahy as leader of FG served as Minister for Education in the interparty governments of the late 1940s and 1950s.

A Green Party quote to keep in mind –

A Green Party spokesman said last night that a general election was now only weeks away and the party’s TDs and Senators would consider the Labour motion on Tuesday.  But Green Party sources described the Labour motion as a “stunt” and said if Eamon Gilmore was serious about an immediate election, he would have put down a motion of no confidence in the Taoiseach rather than the Government.

FG have now supplied the former.

*The NAMA amendment bill is in the announced legislative program with a possible typo in its description.

A great sequence on RTE Radio 1 News at One just now. Brian Lenihan said his position has always been that there is no vacancy for leadership so the question of his interest in it did not arise. Right afterwards, John McGuinness said that Lenihan had encouraged him and other backbenchers to create a vacancy by rustling up the 18 signatures needed for a leadership contest. One thing to note: Lenihan’s wordgames were similar to those he played in the interview regarding the interest rate on the IMF/EU loan. He claimed that Michael Noonan had in mind a unilateral revision of the interest rate when Noonan had clearly referred to negotiation, which is what Lenihan said he is now doing. As George Bush said, Fool Me Twice … Won’t Get Fooled Again.

Among other quotes: McGuinness said FF backbenchers will be shocked at what Lenihan had to say, that it was not what he had told them.  That it was a matter of honesty and integrity to say what it happened  (when he first used the integrity word, I thought he was setting up a comment about Golfgate, not Lenihan).

The problem for Brian Lenihan now is the risk of Et tu Brian? from two sides of the party.