The KPMG Girl and the Anonymous Bully

Less than a week into the New Year, and the first big web story from Ireland has done the rounds on Twitter and Facebook. A video of a young blonde teenage girl, with a slurred but assured middle class Dublin accent, appeared on YouTube on Friday, with the subject of the five-minute piece berating a young male, with a working class Dublin accent, in a fast food restaurant. The video has been taken down and re-uploaded on YouTube on a number of occasions, with the Google-owned company declaring that the video contains "content designed to harass, bully or threaten". Having seen the video, I fully agree and so will not provide a link to it. One can be sure that it will reappear somewhere online over the coming days and weeks, a sad reality, given that, regardless of what the girl says in the video, she is an unwilling participant in its' filming. I'm not a fan of censorship, but freedom of speech is not absolute, especially when the primary motive is the ritual humiliation of the video's target.

For the benefit of those who either have not or do not want to see the clip for themselves, I can provide a synopsis. The girl, clearly inebriated and (according to rumour) a fifth-year secondary school student, is in the middle of a rather heated exchange with the young male operating a camera phone. She boasts of her father's high status within the professional services company KPMG, in contrast to the less glamourous lifestyle of the people engaging her from the next table, exclaiming that the budding cameraman is "not fucking a partner (within KPMG), you're a pleb". The decision to emphasise the class divide in such a manner is a poor one.

It's fair to say that the young lady doesn't cover herself in glory. She tells the male in no uncertain terms that he is a loser who will "never get anywhere" in life, after mocking him for his balding ginger hair. Asking "how much money do you make in an hour, like €10?" is considered rude at the best of times, but incredibly snobbish when done in the midst of an extended recession where at least a quarter of the workforce would be delighted to get such a wage. She sounds obnoxious, and the clever strategy for her on the night would have been to quietly ignore the wind-up merchants, finish off her takeaway, and leave. However, hindsight is 20-20 vision, and the fact that she is evidently drunk may partly explain why she chose to speak her mind so freely, while her youth could explain her lack of maturity, which might have pause and consider the risk of mouthing off in an environment where rogue filming is going on. After all, how many stupid things does any person say or do while intoxicated?

Looking outside of the actual content of the video for a moment, it becomes apparent that there is an issue about context surrounding this clip. The fact that the video's subject appears agitated from the outset suggests that she may have been harassed by the phone's operator before filming begins, given that one simply does not walk into a takeaway and start verbally assaulting a person at another table that they don't know, while simultaneously trying to be pleasant to everyone else at that table. Although we aren't provided with the context leading to the video, it would be absurd to assume that the young woman deliberately targeted an individual for abuse in a takeaway without any reason to do so.

More worryingly, when one again looks at the footage, it becomes evident that the young man is not merely interested in recording their conversation. Barely twenty seconds into the video, he films the girl's legs at close range for a number of seconds, a process he repeats several times more over the five-minute period. This creepy aspect of the filming adds a deeper dimension to an event that is already of questionable legality. One or two brief, incidental shots could probably be dismissed as accidents or poor camera control, but the sustained close-ups suggest a deliberate attempt to get as close to an "upskirt" shot as possible, a seedy level of effort by the anonymous moviemaker. Given that she expresses shock at the exchange being recorded at the end of the video, she obviously did not give permission for anyone to record footage of her legs; the fact that she may also be underage (since a fifth-year secondary school student would be 16 or 17) only serves to make this illicit filming all the more sinister. Four minutes in, he jokes that "every time this bitch says KPMG, we have to take a shot"; indeed, he goads her into repeating the name of the company, mocking her by insisting on how great the company is. The man sounds somewhat worse the wear for drink himself, but it is clear that he is still somewhat in command of his faculties, given his ability to both operate a camera phone and  to continue winding up his target.

To make matters worse, he willingly uploaded the video to YouTube, meaning that he had time to consider his actions but chose to ignore his own sexism, the blatant attempts to make the girl angry and, most disturbingly, his obvious filming of her legs and efforts to inch the camera higher, and upload the video anyway. The most noble reason I can think of for wanting to upload such a video is to provide an illustration of an opinion held by the children of the élite of the "lower orders" in Irish society, a view quite possibly engendered by that child's upbringing and their more privileged background. However, the reality is that this video is clearly designed to mock a drunk teenager, who was the target of some form of unwanted attention, and to "take her down a peg" by humiliating her on a global video-sharing website.

It cannot be underestimated how upsetting this must be for this girl. It is difficult to condone her method of engagement with the cameraman, and even more difficult to agree with her opinion, but it would be a heart of stone to not feel even slightly upset for how devastated she must be. Regardless of class or sex, a 16 or 17 year old is trying to find their place in life, desperately wanting to be accepted by their peers and heavily inclined to feel embarrassed by even the slightest mishap that occurs to them. If you're lucky enough to no longer need ID to get into a pub, try to remember something from your teenage days that still makes you cringe, something that you'd laugh off had it happened today but that still causes red cheeks because you were a teen. Now imagine that incident being recorded, without your knowledge, and placed online for worldwide distribution, without your permission. That girl probably spent the majority of Friday bawling her eyes out, and will dread returning to school on Monday, where she will have to face her peers knowing that they probably all saw the clip over the weekend. She was provoked into a reaction, yet will garner the lion's share of the attention for what she says in the video. She has been, and will continue to be, vilified for her reaction instead of being treated for what she actually is, the victim of cruel social and sexual bullying by a faceless coward who hides behind a camera and uses the footage to further torment his target.

Even if she was obnoxious, was this really worth it?

More Questions Than Answers: The Greeks Journey So Far

This article was originally posted on www.teaandtoast.ie on Monday, June 18, 2012. Information accurate as of midday Irish time on that date.

People might well have forgotten that there was also a parliamentary election in France on Sunday, given the scarcity of column inches devoted to it in newspapers and websites outside of France. Tomorrow’s European papers may mention the electoral success of the Socialist Party, together with the fall of three big names in French politics, the Socialist Party’s Ségolène Royal, three-time presidential candidate François Bayrou and the National Front’s Marine Le Pen, all of whom failed to win seats in the new parliament.

But the main political news over the weekend was the latest election in Greece, coming six weeks after an inconclusive election which failed to see a government formed. The three parties that had formed a government of national unity late last year (PASOK, New Democracy and LAOS) suffered at the hands of a public that was more than angry with five years of recession, very high unemployment and a series of austerity budgets that had done little to improve the economy. After the May election, the centre-left PASOK (Panhellenic Socialist Movement) party haemorrhaged support, plummeting from the 44% it won in 2009 (which allowed it to win an overall majority in parliament) to just 13%, as voters punished the party for imposing strict austerity policies without any improvement in the national economy.

PASOK was not the only party to endure the wrath of angry voters in May. The centre-right New Democracy had also supported continued austerity measures in order to secure further Greek access to the European Stability Mechanism. However, though it lost nearly half of its voting share, New Democracy managed to gain an extra seventeen seats, as the party took advantage of Greek electoral rules of reinforced proportionality that give fifty extra parliamentary seats to the party that wins the most votes. LAOS (The Popular Orthodox Rally), a right-wing populist group, lost all sixteen of its’ seats in parliament as a result of its support for the unity government, even though the party withdrew it in April, in protest at a further package of austerity measures.

The big winners were the parties that rejected the continuing austerity programme and who wanted either a renegotiation, or a complete scrapping, of the country’s bailout programme from the European Central Bank, the European Commission and the International Monetary Fund (the famous ‘Troika’). SYRIZA (Coalition of the Radical Left), a coalition of centre and radical left parties, surged from less than 5% of the vote to securing one-sixth of public support, taking advantage of widespread dissatisfaction with PASOK to quadruple its number of seats in parliament, while the euroskeptic, communist KKE also increased its share of the vote. The Independent Greeks (ANEL), formed after a split in New Democracy, and Democratic Left (DIMAR), formed after a split in PASOK, together won over fifty seats after campaigning on anti-austerity platforms, while the far-right Golden Dawn entered parliament for the first time, as its share of the vote exceeded the mandatory 3% needed to claim seats.

After attempts by the leaders of each of the three largest parties to form a government failed, as well as a final, neutral attempt by the President of Greece, Karalos Papoulias, another election was called for June 17. The pro-bailout New Democracy and PASOK had fallen one seat short of an overall majority, and the anti-bailout SYRIZA refused to join a coalition that would continue with the existing austerity programme.

The second election campaign of 2012 focused on Greece’s relationship with the rest of the European Union and the Troika, and on the country’s continued presence in the euro, as economic reality meant Greece required more bailout money to service its debts and balance the national budget. The leader of New Democracy, Antonis Samaras, portrayed the election as a referendum between staying in the euro or leaving the common currency and returning to the country’s legacy currency, the drachma, an assessment that was supported by the Finance Minister of Germany, Wolfgang Schäuble, who told reporters after a European finance ministers meeting in Brussles that “If Greece -- and this is the will of the great majority - - wants to stay in the euro, then they have to accept the conditions [of the bailout programme between Greece and the Troika]. Otherwise it isn’t possible. No responsible candidate can hide that from the electorate.”

SYRIZA, under the leadership of Alexis Tsipras, rejected this analysis, stating that the election was really about choosing which economic policy would help Greece exit the continued situation of recession and high unemployment. The party would keep its pledge to tear up and renegotiate the bailout programme, which had planned for a total of €240 billion to be given to Greece, in return for severe budget spending cutbacks and increased taxes.

Following the close of polls on Sunday evening, the exit polls released immediately afterward did not give much hope for the formation of a stable government from either side of the austerity divide. The exit polls declared the result to be too close to call, with New Democracy and SYRIZA both expected to poll somewhere between 26% and 29%, with PASOK lagging well behind in third place.

The exit polls were proven largely correct, as is their habit, with New Democracy winning a plurality of support on 29.66%, with SYRIZA a close second on 26.89%. As the leading party in parliament, New Democracy will claim the fifty seat bonus given to the largest party, and Mr. Samaras will have the first opportunity to form a government. But both parties can claim success, as they both enjoyed big gains compared to their results in May, while every other party lost voting share, with the exception of DIMAR, which increased its vote marginally, but still dropped seats.

Between them, New Democracy and PASOK, both supportive of the bailout programme, will have enough seats between them to form a coalition in the new parliament. Unfortunately, two major problems stick out. The first, though minor in the context of the severe economic straits Greece finds itself in, is that New Democracy and PASOK are traditional rivals, from opposite sides of the political spectrum, and were the two big parties in Greek politics for four decades, from the restoration of Greek democracy in 1974 until PASOK’s trouncing at the polls last month. On the other hand, both parties are supportive of the bailout programme and have shown willingness to work together to continue the painful process.

The second, more difficult, problem is that PASOK do not want to enter into a coalition without SYRIZA and DIMAR also taking part. A cynical view of this would claim that this is to help restore PASOK’s fortunes at a future election; if the other left-wing parties also took part in a coalition government, they would lose support at the next poll, with PASOK standing to make most of the gains as traditional supporters return to the party. In any event, this expressed wish is fanciful because SYRIZA have frequently stated that would not join or support any government that wanted to continue with the bailout agreement as it currently stood. On Monday, SYRIZA said that it would become the main opposition party, committed to opposing the bailout programme. In effect, the fundamental conflict between the parties on what was the key issue of the election means that someone has to make a complete concession in order for a grand coalition to be formed. Should attempts to form a government once again fail, Greece faces the prospect of yet another general election, possibly as soon as late July.

This nightmare prospect is still in the middle distance as of now. For the moment, the results have partially soothed international markets and politicians. Ahead of the vote, there had been genuine fears for the stability of the euro, as political uncertainty in Greece threatened to derail attempts to restore faith in struggling European economies, as well as relations between Athens and the rest of the bloc. At a rally in central Athens on Sunday night, in what could be described as a victory speech, Mr. Samaras declared that “The Greek people have voted for a European future for Greece. There will be no doubt about the position of Greece in Europe”. Opponents could well dispute this assertion by pointing to the election results, which showed that three-fifths of voters in fact cast ballots for parties which rejected the bailout programme.

Hopes for some market stability proved very short-lived, as on Monday morning the yield on Spanish ten-year government bonds climbed above the 7% mark which economists view as being unsustainable. Greece had been the main difficulty facing the euro over the weekend, but other issues remain in place.

Politically, New Democracy’s narrow win was welcomed by leaders across the world. German Chancellor Angela Merkel telephoned Mr. Samaras to congratulate him, but reaffirmed her repeated statements that Germany expected Greece to “respect its European undertakings” and continue implementing the austerity programme. Other European leaders have also remained firm on Greece’s future, insisting that continued adherence to the bailout programme was mandatory in order for Greece to remain within the eurozone. But the overall picture of Greek politics still as polarised as it was after the May elections. Even if New Democracy and PASOK were to form a coalition on their own, the government would have a very small majority, certainly less than ten and perhaps little more than five, hardly a strong enough government to last very long should continued austerity and increased public anger make backbench government MPs nervous enough to withdraw their support. The people of Greece may have just spoken for the second time in six weeks, but they may have to repeat themselves later in the year.

Euro 2020 and the Celtic cousins

After a (very) long break, I'll try and get the blog moving again, with a look into a news story that has really intrigued me over the last few days: the declaration of interest in hosting UEFA Euro 2020 by the Football Association of Ireland, the Scottish Football Association and the Football Association of Wales. The three associations were at pains to state that the declaration, passed on to UEFA in advance of a deadline on Tuesday, was a preliminary move rather than a concrete plan to launch a bid for the tournament. Turkey and Georgia also submitted declared an interest in hosting the championships in eight years time, though other nations are still able to submit bids, with more than eighteen months to go before European football's governing body picks a host (or hosts). There had been speculation that Scotland and Wales would try to run a bid on their own, but the expansion of the European Championships to twenty-four teams from 2016, with the number of suitable stadiums demanded by UEFA also increasing, the FAI were brought in to strengthen a possible bid.

Getting to see an outfit like this in your own back yard?

A potential stumbling block to the three associations had been the number of hosts involved in a Celtic nations bid. In UEFA's list of regulations for bidding for Euro 2016, two member associations presenting a joint bid is permitted, but the idea of three members proposing a joint bid is treated rather more tepidly:

"UEFA may consider, under exceptional circumstances, joint bids comprised of three (3) member associations if and only if the relevant group of member associations submits to UEFA together with its confirmation of interest a clear and convincing argument regarding the measures to be taken to ensure the smooth and successful organisation of UEFA EURO 2016 in such a manner."
This particular article is presumably to prevent a logistical nightmare regarding transport of teams, officials and (especially) fans moving from between several countries over the course of the tournament, rather than any official disdain for tournaments being held in more than two countries. The issue of having to deal with different tax systems, currencies, police forces and governments probably makes things more difficult for UEFA too, but they have clearly gotten used to the concept as (including the upcoming finals in Poland and the Ukraine) three of the last four competitions have been hosted in different countries with different currencies. What's more, possible stadiums in Ireland, Scotland and Wales are much closer geographically than the two most distant grounds in 2012: the City Stadium in Poznan and the Donbass Arena in Donetsk are 1,793km apart, or a full day's driving up the E40 motorway to you and me. Meanwhile, SFA chief executive Stewart Regan revealed this week that an undertaking by UEFA to properly consider bids with more than three parties was the reason the SFA, the FAW and the FAI were keen to submit a declaration in the first place.

After all, given that the Euro finals will expand to accommodate twenty-four teams from 2016, having three hosts doesn't make it any more difficult to qualify for an expanded tournament than it was to make it to a sixteen team tournament hosted by two nations. There were few complaints about a lack of qualifying spots available when Belgium and the Netherlands hosted in 2000, or when Austria and Switzerland were picked to host Euro 2008, or in the recent campaign to reach Poland and the Ukraine. Indeed, with fifty-three members in UEFA, the percentage of spots left for qualifiers remains the same with three hosts of a twenty-four tournament as it is when two nations hold a sixteen team competition: 87.5% (21 qualifying from 24 finalists, or 14 out of 16). A nation looking to qualify would still have a greater mathematical chance of qualifying for a twenty-four team competition hosted by three teams than they did qualifying for Euro 2012 (21 spots for 50 teams is a 42% chance, 14 spots between 51 is 27.45%. This increased likelihood of qualifying is precisely why UEFA wanted to expand the number of finalists to twenty-four).

Turkey had been strong favourites to win the rights to host the tournament, especially after narrowly losing to France in the race to host Euro 2016 two years ago, while also having failed to win hosting rights for Euro 2008 and Euro 2012. But the fallout of widespread corruption and match-fixing in Turkish soccer has caused major embarrassment to the Turkish FA, with the scandal leading to the 2010-11 league champions, Fenerbache, being withdrawn from this season's Champions League on the direct order of UEFA. The resulting whispers of serious concern among the top brass at Europe's football governing body has opened the door for an opposing bid. In addition, Istanbul is applying to host the summer Olympics in the same year, the fifth time the city has sought to host the event in twenty years. Since the host of the 2020 summer Olympics will be known by September next year, Turkey's bid to host Euro 2020 could be terminated before UEFA gets a say in the matter: despite some tacit support from UEFA President Michel Platini, the President of the International Olympic Committee, Jacques Rogge, stated that no country was allowed to host the Olympics and another major international tournament in the same year. In short, Turkey could have Euro 2020, or Istanbul could have the 32nd summer Games, but they couldn't have both.

The other country to have declared an interest in hosting Euro 2020, Georgia, is likely to lag well behind should it decide to submit a formal bid. The Georgian FA had hoped to enter a joint bid with its neighbour Azerbaijan, but the latter decided not to proceed, as it's capital city, Baku, is also looking to host the 2020 summer Olympics. The main difficulty for the former Soviet republic is, with a population slightly larger than the Republic of Ireland, it could severely struggle to provide the minimum of nine all-seater stadiums expected by UEFA, of which two must be able to hold at least 50,000 spectators, another three capable of holding 40,000, and at least four more able to accommodate 30,000. This is before thinking of the infrastructure needed to provide adequate hotel space for the hundreds of thousands of potential fans travelling to the tournament, on top of the twenty-four teams and their delegations. A second issue is continued tension between the government of Georgia and Russia over Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Following a full-scale war between the two states in 2008, Georgia considers the Russian military presence in the two regions as "an illegal military occupation", a sentiment that would leave people at UEFA headquarters nervous at the thought of giving their prize pony over to a state with a perpetually strained relationship with a major political and (growing) footballing power.

Of the larger European nations, France are already hosting Euro 2016 and Russia will run the 2018 FIFA World Cup, so neither would be allowed to bid for Euro 2020. The English, German and Spanish FAs all ruled themselves out of the running, while Italy continues to struggle both financially and in footballing terms, with their bid for Euro 2016 failing to win a single vote and their stadiums, fine for the World Cup in 1990, gradually requiring more and more renovation.

So, what of a Celtic collaboration? The existing ban on the sale of alcohol in Scottish grounds would not be a problem, given that UEFA expressly forbids it at its events, for security reasons.  The quality and quantity of venues in Ireland, Scotland and Wales is cause for good cheer: Lansdowne Road impressed the governing body after the successful hosting of last year's Europa League final between Porto and Braga and is barely two years old, while Glasgow's Hampden Park hosted the 2002 Champions League final and the decider of the 2006-07 UEFA Cup. For its part, Cardiff's Millennium Stadium, though it would be over twenty years old by the time Euro 2020 started, would need minimal restructuring work and boasts a capacity of over 74,000, easily exceeding the 66,000 capacity of Kiev's National Stadium, which will host the final of Euro 2012 in June. Glasgow also has Celtic Park and Ibrox, both capable of holding over 50,000, while the GAA could be persuaded to host some matches at Croke Park, in light of the bumper pay days they enjoyed while the Irish rugby and soccer teams played home internationals at the Dublin 3 venue while Lansdowne Road was being rebuilt.

In economic terms, hosting a month-long international football tournament would certainly gets dollar symbols rolling in eyeballs. Dublin City Council estimated that the Europa League final generated something in  the region of €25-30 million for the city; how much could be generated from the hosting of fifty-one matches over a few weeks is anyone's guess at this juncture, but it would certainly pique the interest of people working in the business and political spheres in Cardiff, Dublin and Edinburgh.

There are still a number of concerns to be worked out. Scottish officials are said to be worried about getting enough funding to properly fund both a bid and the tournament itself. While there are three fine grounds in Glasgow, and Edinburgh's Murrayfield would certainly feature on any bid documentation, the SFA would be looking to other cities to bolster its chances. Aberdeen's new stadium has received a green light, but will have a capacity well short of the minimum required for a European Championship match, though increasing the proposed stadium's number of seats would probably not be worthwhile, given the club's average attendance at home matches this season was under 10,000. On the other side of the Irish Sea, that early dismissal of the Euro 2008 bid remains something of an embarrassment, given that then-Taoiseach Bertie Ahern tried to convince UEFA that Ireland could host matches in a Croke Park which the GAA had recently refused to open to "foreign" games and his Abbottstown project which quickly sank when the Progressive Democrats took one look at the price tag for building a new 75,000 seat stadium, while a rapidly ageing Lansdowne Road was presumably going to be either left to rot or demolished to property development.

For the FAI, the use of Croke Park hinges on the support of the GAA, who might be a little concerned about the timing. Although the European Championships wouldn't disrupt the All-Ireland football or hurling championships, with Euro 2020 almost certainly finished by early July and the All-Ireland series not starting until the end of July, Dublin's football team does play Leinster Championship matches in June, making things more than a little awkward since Dublin are well able to fill out the stadium, international soccer tournament or not. Nonetheless, following GAA President Liam O'Neill's refusal to rule out the use of Croke Park in the event of a successful Celtic bid, the FAI can at least approach the possibility of using the ground. A secondary issue is, while Dublin could provide two locations, where else could the FAI find an all-seater stadium with at least 30,000 seats? Limerick's Thomond Park, recently improved and within easy reach of Shannon Airport, would be a great venue, but the ground's capacity is a major issue. 25,600 can fit in, but only 20,000 of this is seating, meaning major work would have to be carried out to bump capacity up to UEFA's minimum standard. Cork's Páirc Uí Chaoimh had been given the green light for much-needed redevelopment by Cork City Council, with Cork GAA looking to turn the ground into a 45,000 all-seater venue, but how much redevelopment would be enough to satisfy UEFA demands is more than what would justify the expense involved, while even the scale of refurbishment for GAA matches alone is being questioned.

For the Welsh, only minor refurbishment of the Millennium Stadium would be needed to ensure some plum ties that would draw huge crowds, while Cardiff City's new home ground, the Cardiff City Stadium has room for just shy of 27,000 spectators, with the ability to easily add a tier to bring the capacity above the magic 30,000 mark. High-flying Swansea City's Liberty Stadium, opened in 2005, can hold 20,500, meaning significant work would have to be carried out in order to host any matches.

The single biggest problem facing a potential Celtic bid is the number of candidate cities with more than one available stadium. Three of Scotland's major stadiums, the SFA's own Hampden Park, Celtic's Celtic Park, and Rangers' Ibrox are all located within Glasgow, a factor which counted against a joint Scottish-Irish bid for Euro 2008, given that the successful Austrian-Swiss bid boasted eight venues in eight different cities. The Western Mail was eager to point out that UEFA likes having venues spread out, rather than in close proximity to each other. The pile-up of large grounds isn't confined to Scotland's second city alone, with Ireland's Croke Park and Lansdowne Road both in Dublin, while the Millennium Stadium and Cardiff City Stadium are less than three kilometres from each other in a city of under 400,000. Such proximity of grounds in all three capitals is a situation bound to raise eyebrows at UEFA when they begin looking at issues like transport and accommodation for teams and fans of different countries attending different matches within a couple of days of each other.

Yes, there would be some major issued that the three football associations would have to look at before even thinking about launching a joint bid. It's also true that such a bid might not even get off the ground, with the FAI, SFA and FAW insisting that Tuesday's exercise was little more than a statement of interest in holding the tournament; Ireland, Scotland and Wales hosting Euro 2020 may prove to be little more than a dream. But for those of us who love their sport, the opportunity to see some of the finest teams on the continent come to our shores for a festival of football, what a dream it would be.

The Census and the Next Dáil

The Central Statistics Office released the preliminary results of the census, which was taken on April 10 last and, as always, it makes for some interesting reading. The total population increased some 8.1% nationally, from 4,239,848 in 2006 to the 4,581,269 recorded on census night. Every county and city increased their numbers with the exceptions of Cork and Limerick cities.

An interesting quandary raised by the census, at least one which is directly applicable to politics, in the distribution of TDs and the shape of Dáil constituencies in the future. One notable constituency which will have to be split is Laois-Offaly. This constituency has existed since 1921, and has returned five TDs at every election since 1923, a remarkable level of consistency and solidity in light of nine decades which saw a national haemorrhaging of population for much of the period, followed by a large increase in recent years. Indeed, the main reason why this constituency will be split is that Co. Laois experienced a boom in population in the last five years, with an astonishing 20% rise, the best percentage performance in the country. Overall, the constituency now has more than the legally-allowed 30,000 persons per TD, meaning the long-lasting political marriage of Laois-Offaly will soon undergo a velvet divorce.

Kildare South has also breached the prescribed 30,000 maximum, but won't have to be split, since it only has three TDs at present. Of course, it will have to be given an extra representative, so it will be interesting to see where that comes from. In addition, there are a further five constituencies where the average TDs represents between 29,000 and 30,000 people, meaning that these will have to be looked at sooner rather than later too.

What makes this necessary addition of TDs to constituencies in the Midlands and Dublin commuter belt more difficult is the desire to actually reduce the number of people sitting in the Dáil. The western seaboard will lose a number of TDs, as many areas have deputies acting on behalf of fewer than 27,000 people. The two Kerry constituencies may well be joined together, at the expense of one TD. One of Cavan-Monaghan's five seats  might be targeted, as might one of the five in Mayo, a potential problem for one of Taoiseach Enda Kenny's three party colleagues come the next election.

Every political party promised political reform in the weeks leading up to the general election, with one pledge from Fine Gael seeking to reduce the number of representatives sitting in the lower house by around twenty. Coinciding with the interim census returns, the Fine Gael-Labour government established a new Constituency Commission last Thursday to see where deputy numbers could be scaled back. The government stated an expectation that somewhere between six and thirteen seats would be abolished, far fewer than the twenty or more envisioned before the election. Phil Hogan, the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, and therefore the person responsible for legislation covering political reform, has realised that the increased population makes it more difficult to cut a large number of TDs without breaching the constitution. The constitution demands each constituency to have between three and five deputies, with each deputy representing at least 20,000 people, but no more than 30,000.

This raises a question over the government's true desire to implement real political reform. Mr. Hogan denied that the government was performing a U-turn on the issue, but the potential reduction of only six TDs would surely fail to impress a general public which had hoped for more wholehearted attempts to slimline Irish politics, certainly in light of pre-election promises on what had being a recurring issue on the campaign trail. Reducing the number of TDs will mean someone, or somewhere, will lose out at the next election, but will the reduced representation be dismissed as minuscule by a public looking to see the Oireachtas cut costs in its own house as well as elsewhere in the public sector?

“How much is seven in France?”: A Eurovision Special Continued

Had they sung last instead of first, poor Karin
might have had an easier time with the translations

Voting in the Eurovision is the most exciting part of the night, or at least it is until one song trounces the rest into submission with a dozen countries still to vote. Anyway, the awarding of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and the famous "douze points" was introduced in 1975. However, the points were awarded in the order in which the songs were performed, rather than going in order from a jury's 10th favourite to most favourite. This must have made for a number of anti-climactic results, as the winning entry that year, "Ding-A-Dong" by Teach-In of the Netherlands, was sung first, and got the top score from six countries. The night's host, Karin Falck, doubtless the only one confused by the odd method of awarding 12 votes, then 2, then 6, then 4, as opposed to going in order from tenth favourite to most favoured. Having struggled between English and French translations through the voting, she hit a blank when the United Kingdom gave seven votes to Sweden, and couldn't remember the French for seven, prompting her to ask the scrutineer from the European Broadcasting Union "How much is seven in France?". The awarding of votes in numerical order, rather than the order in which songs were performed, was first done in 1980.

André Claveau: the 1958 Danish jury
really liked his effort, except one guy,
 who thought it was only "alright"

Before 1975, a number of scoring systems were used, though the most popular one involved each country having ten jurors on a panel, with each juror giving a vote to their favourite song. Of course, that theoretically meant one jury could give all ten of its votes to a country, or one jury could give a single vote to ten countries. This never happened, but in 1958, Denmark gave nine of its ten votes to France while, in the same Contest, Sweden gave four votes to Switzerland and one vote to each of Italy, France, Denmark, Belgium, West Germany and Austria. In 1970, Belgium helped Ireland to victory by giving Dana's "All Kinds of Everything" nine votes.

From 1964 to 1966, each jury voted privately, as normal, but only awarded points to the top three songs, with the favourite song getting five points, the second favourite getting three, and the third favourite getting one. However, if the jury liked fewer than three songs, they could vote for just two songs, and award their favourite song six points and their second favourite three. If the ten jurors only liked one song, that song get nine points. This confusing structure meant that, in 1964, the maximum number of points any song could get was supposed to be 75, but it could be 90, or it could be 135. The old system was brought back in 1968.


A major problem of this system was that, because one country could get a huge share of one jury's votes and few votes elsewhere while another could get a small number of votes from everybody, it was quite possible for a number of countries to share top spot at the end of the voting because of fragmented votes, especially in an era when fewer than twenty countries entered the Contest. The European Broadcasting Union, with the mindset of an American sports organiser, failed to think that anything like a tie could happen and had no tiebreaker should one ever happen. By fluke, there had been sole winners from 1956 (possibly, the results of that Contest have never been released) to 1968, but the EBU got its fingers badly burned in 1969, when no fewer than four of the sixteen participants tied for first place. An urban legend, but a rather brilliant one, goes that the host of that year's Contest, Laurita Valenzuela, asked the EBU's vote scrutineer, Clifford Brown, what would happen in the event of a tie. Brown replied that such a thing had never happened before, and never would. Oops. 

Just asking for karma to bite back

Despite the farce created by the voting structure, it was retained for the 1970 Contest, but at least a tie-breaker had been devised, where any joint leaders had to perform their song again, with the neutral juries voting for a favourite on a show of hands. The system finally bit the dust after this Contest, with a little help from Belgium, whose jury ensured Ireland's first victory by giving Dana nine of their ten votes.

It's unknown if the Eurovision inspired
 the camera staff on University Challenge 

The EBU managed to devise a different voting system in time for the 1971 Contest, which saw each country send two jurors to the Contest, voting for each song immediately after it had been sung, before appearing on screen at the end of the singing to verify their scores. One of the two jurors from each country was aged between 16 and 25, and the other was aged over 25, with at least ten years age difference between them. The jurors were supposed to give a score from one to five to each song, but a major flaw quickly became apparent. The freedom to give any score they liked meant some juries were very stingy with their results, possibly with the intention of improving their own country's likelihood of success. In 1971, the highest score awarded to any song by the Luxembourg jury was five points (out of a possible ten), while Malta gave no higher than a six in 1972. To be fair, there's probably little evidence that any jury actively sought to sabotage the voting in favour of their own delegation, because each contest saw a raft of generous nines and tens from the adjudicators. 

While the 1971 and 1972 Contests were uncontroversial, with clear winners, the 1973 edition showed the inefficiency of the voting method, with the thirty-four jurors (from seventeen participating countries) deciding a very tight Contest, with six points between the top three countries (Luxembourg, Spain and the United Kingdom). Matters weren't helped by one of the Swiss jurors, who decided to become a star of the show by saluting the audience while displaying his results (from 8:00 of this video), especially if they were good scores, to the disbelief of the Yugoslavian judge next to him. With so few people deciding such a close Contest, it was decided that a new voting system was required. The ten jurors with one vote each got a final encore in 1974, before it was replaced by the system which has been retained to the present day.

More Than a Song and Dance: A Eurovision Special

A bit of a break from the politics and the banks, this week I'm writing about the Eurovision Song Contest, an annual exhibition and celebration of the surreal, the bizarre, the grammatically dodgy and the occasional talent. An excellent RTÉ programme last week discussed some of the "secret history" of the Eurovision, by focusing not so much on the music, but on the role the Contest played in a cultural war between the West and the Communist block during the Cold War. I'm not going to rehash information that was shown on television last week, but I thought I'd reveal a few things about the Contest you might not know.

Pick a date, any date.

It's a tradition that the Eurovision takes place on a Saturday night, but this only started in 1961. Before that, the Contest took place on whatever evening was convenient for the host broadcaster. The first Contest, in 1956, took place on Thursday, May 24, and was really a radio affair; since most Europeans didn't have television, the emphasis was on radio entertainment, though there was cameras to present it to those who did have television sets. The 1957 and 1958 Contests were on Sundays, March 3 and March 16, respectively, while the 1959 Contest took place on a Wednesday, March 11, and the 1960 Contest was performed on a Tuesday, March 29. The 1961 Contest was on Saturday, March 18, and Saturday night has been the night of broadcast since 1963.

Nunzio Gallo in 1957: his ode to the strings of his
guitar went on a bit too long for the EBU

The rules of the Contest state that no song may be longer than three minutes, because of time constraints. This wasn't always the case, and the 1957 Italian entry, "Corde Della mia Chitarra" ("Strings of My Guitar") lasted five minutes and nine seconds. Although it's a rather nice song, the European Broadcasting Union eventually decided that such lengthy efforts would not be welcomed, and limited the amount of time songs could take.

The United Kingdom has hosted the Contest on eight occasions, despite only winning the Contest five times. Only one has been hosted outside of England, the 1972 edition, which was in Edinburgh. Like the 1960 and 1963 editions, the BBC hosted despite the UK not winning the previous Contest. The BBC became known as a dependable substitute in the event that a winning country was unable to stage the competition because of limited space or funds, but hasn't stepped in as substitute host since 1972, though only one Contest has been held by a country other than the previous winner since, when the Netherlands hosted the 1980 edition after Israel, having won the 1978 and 1979 Contests, revealed that it could not afford to host such a major event for a second consecutive year.

In 1996, as pretty much everyone in Ireland knows, Eimear Quinn won the Contest, Ireland's fourth success in five years and a record seventh overall. Aside from being the last time Ireland won the Contest (probably to the immense relief of the accountants at RTÉ, since that's meant RTÉ hasn't had to host the Eurovision in the last fifteen years), there was a unique political involvement. For the first, and only, time, politicians around Europe sent good luck messages to their country's delegation, which was played immediately before the song. While the likes of Switzerland and Greece sent low-ranking diplomats to help waste time create a spirit of friendship, Taoiseach John Bruton did the honours for Ireland, as can be seen from 1:14 on this video. His voice wished good luck, but his eyes were praying that someone else would win.

Leon's techno effort failed to impress

1996 is also the only time that Germany hasn't appeared in the final. Due to the sheer number of countries that wanted to enter following the end of the Cold War and the break-ups of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, the European Broadcasting Union decided to have a qualifying round, which wasn't televised, to whittle the 29 entrants (not including host Norway) down to a more manageable 22. In what could only be described as dubious decision-making, national juries made their call by listening to audio taped performances of the songs, and voting as normal, but without the results being released. Despite being a major contributor to the EBU, Germany was eliminated. Eliminating one of your biggest cash cows probably unnerved the EBU, which decided a few years later to guarantee participation in the final for Germany, as well as the United Kingdom, France and Spain. Italy are also assured passage to the final when the enter; this year is their first appearance in the Contest since 1997.

Three million for a year’s toil: nice work if you can get it.

I don’t really listen to “Liveline”, but radio reception in some parts of Connemara is so bad that all you’re left with is long wave, and neither my father nor I are confident enough in our ability to speak German or Russian to listen to their talk programmes. RTÉ Radio 1 it was, then, and the chance to hear the public “talk to Joe”.

Anyway, the hot topic of the day was the huge payout to the former managing director of AIB, Colm Doherty, who was forced to resign from the role barely a year after starting following the effective nationalisation of the bank by the Irish government. For his troubles, Mr. Doherty walked away with the €432,000 he had earned for twelve months work, together with a further €707,000 in compensation for having to leave the post a year early. He also managed to receive a further €2 million in lieu of a contribution to a pension fund. The news comes seven days after the bank announced plans to make as many as 2,000 staff redundant over the next two years, following a €10.4 BILLION loss in 2010.

Naturally, the predominant mood of the callers was of incredulity, while unrelenting anger featured strongly too. For many, it was deemed to be the final straw, the latest in a chain of events which would be comical, were the situation not so serious. This reaction was all the more reasonable given that, in the same programme, a caller phoned in to say that he and his co-workers were about to lose their jobs and that they were not going to be offered compensation. It was all the more poignant given the realisation among workers in their forties or fifties that they were highly unlikely to ever get another job.

The overarching thought which went through my head as I listened to call after call expressing outrage and frustration at the generous package donated by the taxpayer was to wonder what exactly the directors at a nationalised bank do, especially to earn such large sums of cash which the bank itself doesn’t possess. I have to plead ignorance, because the total sum of my knowledge of banking executives consists of watching Milburn Drysdale repeatedly suck up to the Clampetts in “The Beverly Hillbillies”. The Clampetts seemed to be his only customers; perhaps the role of a director is to hang out with oil-rich bumpkins. What exactly do these guys do that justifies the huge sums of money they get from their employers?

In any service or industry, the person at the top has a clear role, and often has a personal interest in ensuring that the company they’re in charge of stays in business. Since AIB, together with pretty much every other Irish bank, have managed to plummet from confident solvency to junk status in less than four years, one has to query what exactly AIB bosses did to earn the type of contract signed by Mr Doherty when he was promoted to the position of managing director.

The Minister for Justice, Defence and Equality, Alan Shatter, speaking at the annual Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors conference in Limerick, noted that AIB had effectively gone into liquidation, and therefore the directors might not be eligible to receive a bonus. This would be an interesting change of opinion, since his Cabinet colleague, Michael Noonan, had claimed 24 hours previously that nothing could be done about contracts which had no mention of the consequences over the decline of Irish banks.

As welcome as Mr Shatter’s comments were, the reality is that we won’t see that three million returned, unless Mr Doherty feels a pang of guilt for taking a seven-figure sum from a bank he helped deliver into government ownership which lost over ten billion while he was the head honcho. Nothing illegal occurred and the government can’t introduce a retroactive premium tax, so only a willing contribution from the goodness of Mr Doherty’s heart will see any of that money returned. But I wouldn’t hold my breath for that, nor would I expect to hear any statement coming from him beyond an attempt to justify that the money was a fair compensation for his work at AIB.

This is really the tip of (yet another) iceberg, because this raises a number of questions which probably won’t get any proper answers outside of a tribunal of enquiry into the banking disaster. First, Mr Doherty got €707,000 in place of a year’s notice: is it normal to get a year’s notice? The only justification for that is that it would normally take a year to find a replacement, which seems rather implausible. Second, who agreed this contract with Mr Doherty, and who signed off on it? How much did the Department of Finance, and the last government, know about this arrangement, given that the State was already a large shareholder when the contract was agreed?

Who else has such generous contracts, in AIB and in other Irish banks? Mr Doherty was only the managing director; how much did the bank’s chairman, Dan O’Connor, get when he was forced to resign at the same time? Finally, why did the Government agree to Mr Doherty’s promotion to the position in the first place? The Government wanted someone from outside the bank’s hierarchy to take charge, the Bank insisted on Mr Doherty.

Given that Mr Doherty had been a major official in the bank for a number of years and therefore had much input into the bank’s dealings over the years leading up to the financial crisis, was he really the best candidate for the job? It seems even in the midst of the worst financial crisis in Ireland’s history, the ones responsible are still looking after themselves. It’s shameful that while AIB is planning to cut 2,000 ordinary staff from the payroll, one man is able to take away €3 million that his employer doesn’t even possess. Those callers to “Liveline” have good reason to be angry at the latest news from the bank, just wait for the rage when the amounts paid to other officials are released once the bank’s annual report is published shortly.