Information

2001 General Election


Political Parties

Total Votes

%

MPs

8,357,615

31.7

168

4,814,321

18.3

52

10,724,953

40.7

413


2001 United States General Election (The Upheaval by Wolfman)

The 2001 United States General Election took place on May 12, 2001. It was the first triennial election following the rewriting of the United States Constitution that switched the United States to a parliamentary system. Incumbent Acting President Bill Clinton was ineligible to seek re-election.

<<>>  <<>> ›
2001 United States General Election
435 Seats in the United States Congress (218 for Majority)
May 12, 2001
Turnout 59.2%
[[Image: |300px]]


Constitutional Amendment B

Title: An amendment to Article XII of the South Dakota Constitution authorizing the creation and administration of trust funds for health care and education.

Attorney General Explanation:

Constitutional Amendment B establishes two trust funds. The health care trust fund would be established with funds from the intergovernmental transfer fund. Money in this trust fund is dedicated to health care related programs. The education enhancement trust fund would be established with present and future tobacco settlement funds, proceeds from any sale of the right to receive payments from the tobacco settlement, and funds in the youth-at-risk trust fund. Money in this trust fund is dedicated to education enhancement programs.

The Legislature may appropriate additional money into these trust funds. The South Dakota Investment Council is required to invest these trust funds.

Beginning in fiscal year 2003, the Legislature is required to distribute money from the trust funds. A three-fourths vote of the Legislature is required to appropriate the principal of the trust funds, or to use the trust funds for other purposes.

A vote "yes" will establish the health and education trust funds, provide for investment of the funds, and authorize the distribution of money from these trust funds.

A vote "no" will leave the Constitution as it is.

Section 1. That Article XII of the Constitution, of the State of South Dakota, be amended by adding thereto NEW SECTIONS to read as follows:

§ 5. There is hereby created in the state treasury a trust fund named the health care trust fund. The state treasurer shall deposit into the health care trust fund any funds on deposit in the intergovernmental transfer fund as of July 1, 2001, and thereafter any funds appropriated to the health care trust fund as provided by law. The South Dakota Investment Council or its successor shall invest the health care trust fund in stocks, bonds, mutual funds, and other financial instruments as provided by law. Beginning in fiscal year 2003, and each year thereafter, the state treasurer shall make a distribution from the health care trust fund into the state general fund to be appropriated by law for health care related programs. The calculation of the distribution shall be defined by law and may promote growth of the fund and a steadily growing distribution amount. The health care trust fund may not be diverted for other purposes nor may the principal be invaded unless appropriated by a three-fourths vote of all the members-elect of each house of the Legislature.

§ 6. There is hereby created in the state treasury a trust fund named the education enhancement trust fund. The state treasurer shall deposit into the education enhancement trust fund any funds received as of July 1, 2001, and funds received thereafter by the state pursuant to the Master Settlement Agreement entered into on November 23, 1998, by the State of South Dakota and major United States tobacco product manufacturers or the net proceeds of any sale or securitization of rights to receive payments pursuant to the Master Settlement Agreement, any funds in the youth-at- risk trust fund as of July 1, 2001, and thereafter any funds appropriated to the education enhancement trust fund as provided by law. The South Dakota Investment Council or its successor shall invest the education enhancement trust fund in stocks, bonds, mutual funds, and other financial instruments as provided by law. Beginning in fiscal year 2003, and each year thereafter, the state treasurer shall make a distribution from the education enhancement trust fund into the state general fund to be appropriated by law for education enhancement programs. The calculation of the distribution shall be defined by law and may promote growth of the fund and a steadily growing distribution amount. The education enhancement trust fund may not be diverted for other purposes nor may the principal be invaded unless appropriated by a three-fourths vote of all the members-elect of each house of the Legislature.

Section 2. The provisions of section 2 of this Joint Resolution (section 1 of this amendment) shall be effective on July 1, 2001.


The 2001 British General Election

The 2001 British General Election was seen by many in British politics as a foregone conclusion and this was borne out in the result. Very few people expected William Hague’s Conservatives to challenge Tony Blair’s Labour Party position within the Commons. Elections are a fundamental part of a democracy and British politics has decreed that there is a general election every five years – though one can be called within the duration of a government.

The 2001 election – originally scheduled for early May but postponed as a result of the foot and mouth crisis – was called by Tony Blair on May 8th. The announcement caused some consternation as it was done during a speech to pupils at St Saviour’s and St Olave’s Church of England School in Bermondsey, South London. Blair was criticised even in his own party for this choice Clair Short called the decision to announce the election in a school as “odd” while the Lib Dem MP for Bermondsey, Simon Hughes, called it “bizarre”.

The major parties quickly released their election manifestoes. The Labour Manifesto promised a large increase in the number of people employed in the public services especially teachers and nurses. The Liberal Democrats Manifesto, officially released on May 15th, promised a similar enlargement of the public services but matched it with a claim that such increase would have to be paid for with an increase in taxation for some. The Tory Party Manifesto announced a cut in taxation by £8 billion but with an expansion of the public services.

The first polls predicted a large Labour majority. On May 9th the Gallup poll for the “Daily Telegraph” claimed that Labour would get the support of 49% of the voters, Tories 32% and the Lib Dems 13%.

The first few days of the election campaign were marked with a lack of public interest. Labour used to its advantage the announcement that the mortgage rate was at its lowest in 40 years while the Tory Party reeled under the complaint by former Prime Minister and Tory Party leader, Ted Heath, that William Hague, had become a “laughing stock” and that his policies made no sense. On May 13th, an ICM poll claimed that middle class backing for the Tories had dropped to 17% while the same social group backed Labour at 59%.

Labour received a boost in mid-May when 58 company chiefs announced that they would vote for Labour including Sir Alan Sugar and Sir Terence Conran. Half-way during the campaign, the polls showed a similar trend – Labour 46%, Tories 32% and Lib Dems 13%.

The Tory Party hit a problem mid-way through the campaign when their tax plans were thrown into confusion the Tory’s Treasury spokesman Oliver Letwin who apparently claimed that the Tories planned to make tax cuts of £20 billion as opposed to the published £8 billion. This was later corrected to the party’s desire to do this if and when the circumstances were right. However, the campaign was not running smoothly either in the Labour camp as Peter Mandelson claimed that there was the party was not presenting itself well enough and that the orchestration of the campaign needed tightening.

May 16th was Labour “Black Day” during the campaign though it did liven up proceedings which were starting to turn off the public. John Prescott, Deputy Prime Minister, threw a punch at a man who had thrown an egg at him. The media had a field day as to how ministers should behave in public even though Prescott claimed that he had been defending himself. Outside of Britain, the foreign press claimed that Prescott had acted like a “bully boy” and a football hooligan. Jack Straw, the Home Secretary, was heckled at a Police Federation meeting and Tony Blair was given a severe dressing down by a lady whose partner could not find a hospital bed despite having cancer. The dressing down was very public and in full view of the media. The BBC’s political correspondent, Andrew Marr, claimed that it was Labour’s worst day since the era of Michael Foot.

Two polls taken before the above events, still showed Labour with a healthy majority. (Gallup : Labour 48%, Tories 32% and Lib Dem’s 13% while MORI showed Labour at 54%, Tories at 28% with the Lib Dems at 12%)

In the third week of the campaign, the Tories were starting to show their split on Europe. Three candidates – Nick Serpett, Anthony Steen and Patrick Nickols – all stated that they felt Britain’s future lay outside of Europe. They saw the potential introduction of the Euro as “the biggest constitutional change since Charles I had his head cut off”.

All three parties concentrated their campaigns on how the public services would prosper under their leadership. For example, Tony Blair promised an extra £300 million for cancer scanners and treatment machines under a re-elected Labour government. However, his statements were overshadowed by a media campaign to clarify where Labour stood on National Insurance contributions. The Labour Party’s second in the Treasury, Alastair Darling, failed to give a clear answer to the question “Would a re-elected Labour government put up National Insurance contributions ?”

On May 22nd, Baroness Thatcher made a marked entrance into the election campaign with a speech in Plymouth that she would never give up the £ citing that the £ stood for the nation’s sovereignty and that a nation without its own currency was not a nation at all. The Tory faithful at Plymouth gave Baroness Thatcher a long applause but commentators later noted that the hall was far from full and that in the “old days” not one seat would have been left spare.

The overriding concern of the main parties was the seeming lack of any interest in an election by the public. Political commentators spoke in terms of potentially the worst turn out in voters since 1918 which would seriously question whether the future government had a real mandate from the people to govern. The polls all showed Labour gaining a large victory. They only differed on the size of Labour’s victory. The average poll of polls conducted at the half-way mark gave Labour 48%, Tories 32% and the Lib Dems 14%.

With just days left until the election, a poll of polls for ITN came up with the following result : Labour 48%, Tories 31% and Lib Dems 16%. The only discernable difference was that the Lib Dems had shown an increase of 2%. If the ITN figures proved correct, these figures would translate as Labour winning 439 seats, Tories 155 seats and the Lib Dems 37 seats.

The election itself gave Labour its predicted landslide victory. It left the Tories in disarray but far more damaging was the fact that the turn out was very low – less than 50% in some constituencies – and near enough 40% of those who had registered to vote did not do so. On the day of the election, the “Daily Telegraph” had predicted via a Gallup poll, that Labour would get 47%, Tories 30% and the Lib Dems 18%.

The final verdict of the people gave Labour 413 seats (43% of the vote), Tories 166 seats (33% of the votes) and the Lib Dems 52 seats (19% of the votes) with the “others” getting 28 seats (5% of the votes)

Labour had lost just 5 seats but had maintained its percent of the votes the Tories had gained 1 seat and had gained 2% of the popular vote. The Lib Dems had gained 6 seats and a 2% increase in popular votes.

The result of the 2001 Election

% of votes 2001 % of votes 1997 MP’s 2001 MP’s 1997
Labour 43 43 413 (-5) 418
Tories 33 (+2) 31 166 (+1) 165
Lib Dem 19 (+2) 17 52 (+6) 46
Others 5 (-4) 9 28 (-1) 29

Fractionally over 18 million people registered to vote did not do so which represents 41% of all registered voters. From the figure of 44 million registered voters, the Labour Party gained just 25% the Tories 19% and the Lib Dems 11%. The political analyst for the “Daily Mail”, Edward Heathcoat Amory, claimed that the election had been a victory for the “Stay at Home Party”. Statistics seemed to indicate that apathy towards politicians was paramount during the whole of the campaign and that it showed itself clearly in the final result.

This election had the lowest voter turnout since 1918 – 59%. The figure was near enough 71% in 1997. In 1979, 76% of registered voters voted and in 1950, 84% of registered voters did so.


2001 Special Election Ballot Question Pamphlet - Constitutional Amendment B

Title: An amendment to Article XII of the South Dakota Constitution authorizing the creation and administration of trust funds for health care and education.

Attorney General Explanation: Constitutional Amendment B establishes two trust funds. The health care trust fund would be established with funds from the intergovernmental transfer fund. Money in this trust fund is dedicated to health care related programs. The education enhancement trust fund would be established with present and future tobacco settlement funds, proceeds from any sale of the right to receive payments from the tobacco settlement, and funds in the youth-at-risk trust fund. Money in this trust fund is dedicated to education enhancement programs.

The Legislature may appropriate additional money into these trust funds. The South Dakota Investment Council is required to invest these trust funds.

Beginning in fiscal year 2003, the Legislature is required to distribute money from the trust funds. A three-fourths vote of the Legislature is required to appropriate the principal of the trust funds, or to use the trust funds for other purposes.

A vote "yes" will establish the health and education trust funds, provide for investment of the funds, and authorize the distribution of money from these trust funds.

A vote "no" will leave the Constitution as it is.

Pro -- Constitutional Amendment B

South Dakota has received two windfalls with intergovernmental transfer funds from the federal government and funds from tobacco companies as the result of a national lawsuit.

There are tremendous pressures to spend these monies until they are gone forever and not reap permanent benefits for the people of South Dakota.

The Governor suggested and the Legislature agreed that these monies should be tied up into trust funds so that the people of South Dakota will receive FOREVER the benefits of the interest earnings from the trust funds for education and health care.

A "Yes" vote on Constitutional Amendment B will create the Education Enhancement Trust Fund and the Health Care Trust Fund. The earnings from these two trust funds will then be spent by the Legislature each year on education and health care programs that benefit South Dakotans.

Please vote "Yes" on Constitutional Amendment B.

Submitted by: Governor William Janklow, 500 E Capitol, Pierre, SD

Con -- Constitutional Amendment B

Amendment B is a proposal to create two separate trust funds.

  1. One for depositing federal Medicaid dollars. (to be used by the Legislature for health related programs)
  2. One for tobacco settlement dollars. (to be used for educational enhancement programs)

These two separate and distinct issues are joined together in Amendment B, forcing the public to cast but one vote.

The trust funds are unprotected in stark contrast to the existing school trust fund which is a permanent fund, the principle of which can never be invaded. Amendment B trust funds can be invaded by a 3/4th vote of the Legislature, thereby removing any permanent protection and subjecting them to the political whims of future Legislatures.

The public has not been given the opportunity to have input on this important issue. The Legislature was given its first view of this proposal on the next to last day of Session. Changes were made to this bill and a vote was taken in minutes. There remain technical problems with Amendment B:

    1. The State Treasurer is directed each year to take an undisclosed amount of money out of the trust funds and transfer it to the state general fund to be spent by the Governor or legislature.
    2. There is no requirement that the State Treasurer take only interest earnings for spending.
    3. Health care related and education enhancement programs are terms far too ambiguous for prudent spending of the trust monies.

    Our Constitution is the cornerstone of our rights. Amending it is a serious matter which requires careful and deliberate thought. It should not be dealt with in the last minute, behind closed doors, and exempt from public scrutiny and participation.

    We need to take time and address these issues in a responsible manner. Vote NO.

    Submitted by: Senator Patricia de Hueck, 906 N. Madison, Pierre, SD 57501. Senator de Hueck represents District 24.


    2001 General Election - History

    The 2001 parliamentary general election was held on 3 November to elect 84 members of parliament, of whom 74 were from 14 Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs) and nine from single-member constituencies. It was called after parliament was dissolved on 18 October. [1] Similar to the 1991 and 1999 general elections, the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) was returned to power on 25 October, nomination day, following walkovers in 55 of the 84 seats. [2] In total, two independent candidates and 57 party candidates contested the remaining 29 seats. There were 29 candidates from the PAP, 13 from the Singapore Democratic Alliance, 11 from the Singapore Democratic Party, and two each from the Democratic People's Party and the Workers’ Party. [3]

    The 2001 election was held amid a global economic recession and rising security concerns in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks. Through its campaign slogan, “A People United”, the PAP called on Singaporeans to remain cohesive and united at a time of uncertainty. The ruling party also reminded the people of its proven track record in governing the country since 1965, and urged them to place their trust in the PAP to lead the country safely into the future. [4] The opposition, on the other hand, tried to capitalise on rising unemployment to expand its presence in parliament. [5]

    The PAP scored a resounding victory in this election by capturing 82 of the 84 seats and 75.3 percent of the valid votes cast, which was an increase of 10.3 percentage points over the 65 percent that was achieved in the 1997 general election. [6] Chiam See Tong of the Singapore Democratic Alliance and Low Thia Kiang of the Workers’ Party retained their seats of Potong Pasir and Hougang respectively. [7] Steve Chia of the Singapore Democratic Party was appointed as a Non-constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP). [8] This was Goh Chok Tong’s last election as prime minister of Singapore as he subsequently handed over the premiership to Lee Hsien Loong in August 2004. [9]

    References
    1. Henson, B. (2001, October 19). S’pore goes to polls on Nov 3. The Straits Times, p. 1 Henson, B. (2001, October 18). 84 seats for GE, no 4-member GRCs. The Straits Times, p. 1. Retrieved from NewspaperSG.
    2. Fernandez, W. (2001, October 26). PAP sweeps 55 seats. The Straits Times, p. 1. Retrieved from NewspaperSG.
    3. Battle lines: Where the contests are. (2001, October 26). The Straits Times, p. 1. Retrieved from NewspaperSG.
    4. Teo, A. (2001, October 20). PAP opts for a sombre slogan: A People United. The Business Times, p. 1. Retrieved from NewspaperSG.
    5. Chua, L. H. (2001, October 26). What's this general election all about? The Straits Times, p. 4. Retrieved from NewspaperSG.
    6. Zuraidah Ibrahim. (2001, November 4). 73.5% resounding win for PAP. The Straits Times, p. 1. Retrieved from NewspaperSG.
    7. Nail-biting finish for Chiam in Potong Pasir. (2001, November 4). The Straits Times, p. 2 Workers’ Party retains Hougang seat. (2001, November 4). The Straits Times, p. 2. Retrieved from NewspaperSG.
    8. Chia’s call. (2001, November 5). The Straits Times, p. 3 Because he wanted Prof Low’s rival as NCMP. (2001, November 27). The Straits Times, p. 1. Retrieved from NewspaperSG.
    9. Zuraidah Ibrahim. (2004, August 13). Let us shape our future together. The Straits Times, p. 1. Retrieved from NewspaperSG.

    The information in this article is valid as at 2011 and correct as far as we are able to ascertain from our sources. It is not intended to be an exhaustive or complete history of the subject. Please contact the Library for further reading materials on the topic.


    Al Gore concedes presidential election

    Vice President Al Gore਌oncedes defeat to George W. Bush in his bid for the presidency, following weeks of legal battles over the recounting of votes in Florida, on December 13, 2000.

    In a televised speech from his ceremonial office next to the White House, Gore said that while he was deeply disappointed and sharply disagreed with the Supreme Court verdict that ended his campaign, ”partisan rancor must now be put aside.”

    “I accept the finality of the outcome, which will be ratified next Monday in the Electoral College” he said. 𠇊nd tonight, for the sake of our unity as a people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession.”

    Gore had won the national popular vote by more than 500,000 votes, but narrowly lost Florida, giving the Electoral College to Bush 271 to 266.

    Gore said he had telephoned Bush to offer his congratulations, honoring him, for the first time, with the title ”president-elect.”

    ”I promised that I wouldn’t call him back this time” Gore said, referring to the moment on election night when he had called Bush to tell him he was going to concede, then called back a half hour later to retract that concession.

    Gore only hinted at what he might do in the future. ”I’ve seen America in this campaign and I like what I see. It’s worth fighting for𠅊nd that’s a fight I’ll never stop.”

    Among the friends and family beside Gore were his wife, Tipper, and his running mate, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, and Lieberman&aposs wife, Hadassah.

    A little more than an hour later, Bush addressed the nation for the first time as president-elect, declaring that the “nation must rise above a house divided.” Speaking from the podium of the Texas House of Representatives, Bush devoted his speech to themes of reconciliation following one of the closest and most disputed presidential elections in U.S. history. ”I was not elected to serve one party, but to serve one nation,” Bush said.

    Bush and his running mate, Dick Cheney, took office on January 20, 2001. They were re-elected in 2004 over Democrats John Kerry and John Edwards. Gore has since become a foremost climate advocate. He was the creator and subject of a 2006 Academy Award-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth, about the climate crisis. Gore was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. 


    2001 General Election - History

    As counting continued through the night, it looked as though the overall turnout could be as low as 58%.

    It seems likely that more people will fail to vote than will vote for the Labour Party, which has secured a second consecutive landslide victory.

    The public apathy means that Labour may secure the support of just one in four people eligible to vote.

    In Sunderland South, the first constituency in the country to declare, the turnout was just 48%.

    This was lower than the turnout in any constituency at the last election.

    The lowest turnout so far has been recorded in the safe Labour constituency of Liverpool River, where just 34.1% of the electorate voted - a massive drop of 17.5% on 1997.

    Martin Bell, the independent candidate who lost his fight for Brentwood and Ongar, said the turnout figures were "the saddest statistics of the whole election".

    Home Secretary Jack Straw said it was possible that the low turnout reflected the "politics of contentment".

    He told the BBC: "What I have been finding on the doorsteps is that an awful lot of people are saying 'yes I am with you, of course I would turn out if it really mattered, but I think it is already won.'

    "We will find after the election there are loads more people who wanted a Labour victory than actually turned out to vote.


    However, Education Secretary David Blunkett warned that there might be a growing feeling of disenchantment with representative democracy - particularly among young people.

    He said: "If we have won a majority greater than Margaret Thatcher's in 1983 we have got to rejoice and be happy, but then draw breath and decide how to engage with people."

    She said: "Turnout looks as though it is going to be lousy. In that case we have to say that a lot of people were not very enthusiastic about the government, but they saw its return as inevitable."

    Conservative leader William Hague said: "It is a sobering lesson for all parties that millions of people have been reluctant to participate in this election at all."

    And his party chairman Michael Ancram added: "The low turnout suggests that all the arguments have not engaged the electorate."

    But he said: "There are certainly absolutely no signs in the voting figures out tonight that this is a goverment that has successfully re-connected the people with politics."

    The BBC polled people who decided not to vote.

    Some 77% said there was no point in voting because it would not change a thing, while 65% said they did not trust politicians. Just over half said it was obvious that Labour would win anyway.

    Among the 18-24 age group just 38% said they planed to vote. The figure for the 25-34 group was 45%, and for the 35-64 group it was 62%.


    General election results 7 June 2001 (698 KB , PDF)

    Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill

    The second reading debate on the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill 2021-22 is scheduled to take place on Tuesday 6 July 2021.

    Women Members of Parliament: Background Paper

    This briefing paper provides a list of all the women who have ever been elected to the House of Commons.

    By-elections in the 2019 Parliament

    This Commons Library Briefing Paper sets out results of the by-elections held in the 2019 Parliament. Full details are presented in the associated PDF but an overview of the recent by-election results are shown below.


    It's time to face up to our history

    T he 'war' - aka that squalid, futile, sectarian murder campaign that blighted Northern Ireland for the last three decades of the twentieth century - may now be over but the battle of history has only just begun. It is a struggle for the control and supply of memory, or perhaps more accurately, the erasure of memory and at its heart lies a singular goal: the rehabilitation of Charles J. Haughey and his legacy.

    The offensive opened with a salvo against Gerry Gregg's documentary on the life and career of PD founder Des O'Malley, especially the former Justice Minister's role in the 1970 Arms Trial. Attacks on the O'Malley documentary were accompanied by the resurrection of that old canard, RTE's reds-under-the-Montrose-bed, namely the Workers Party faction reputedly led by Eoghan Harris.

    Instead of re-examining the role of Haughey and the other conspirators among the highest echelons of the Irish State in the Provisional IRA's creation, a raft of commentators, some of them who once went with their begging bowls to the former Taoiseach, tried to switch the nation's focus onto the former political backgrounds of Gregg and Harris.

    Now, regardless of your opinion of Eoghan Harris, the one criticism no one can make about the director, columnist and media adviser is that he ever concealed his allegiances. Harris and Gregg were both open about their political loyalties, the former even penning pamphlets on his position on H-Blocks, terrorism and censorship in the 1980s.

    Re-reading some of the material on the alleged pervasive influence of Harris and his followers at RTE begged a nagging question: where were the similar exposés into allegations of Fianna Fáil's control of the station or for that matter the power of the ultra-secretive Opus Dei on the national broadcaster?

    Furthermore, many of those now raising the old spectres may have made their names exposing WP fundraising rackets, robberies and Moscow gold.

    Today, however, they continue turning a blind eye to Sinn Féin and the IRA's burgeoning war chest and how it is filled by everyone and everything from gullible Irish-American millionaires to selling smuggled cigarettes on the streets of Belfast and Derry.

    Naturally, their silence and inertia in this field can be explained of course as being in the interests of the peace process.

    Harris and his supporters are Ireland's Unforgiven, because they committed the cardinal sin of revisionism back in the 1970s. But then again, who are the real revisionists of today?

    The Agreement which Harris had urged Ulster Unionists to support two years ago is very much a post-nationalist accord rejecting as it does crude majoritarianism as well as completely ruling out a 50 per cent plus-one victory for either unionism or nationalism. The essence of the Agreement goes completely against the train of thought that was propagated by the Tim Pat Coogan count-the-Catholics coalition.

    It is a pluralist settlement in common with some but not all of the arguments Harris et al were articulating back in the 1970s a period when others deluded themselves and, more importantly, an entire generation of young idealists into thinking we were all on the one road to Brits Out and the recapture of the Fourth Green Field.

    To say in Irish public life that the Provisionals have gone down the sticky (or even SDLP) road is like having an open discourse on gay relationships the love that dare not speak its name. To accept this is to admit that the Arms trial were wrong and that the lost deed they helped send into the world back then was a disaster for Ireland. The apologists of the Haughey legacy and their allies in the Provisionals cannot bear to acknowledge that the last 30 years have been a waste.

    Instead, the Agreement is portrayed as a stepping-stone towards territorial unity rather than a cast-iron deal or indeed a future template for peace even if and when Coogan's grim vista of Taigs outbreeding Prods ever comes true.

    This is also why they attack with bitter vehemence anything in print or on the airwaves which dares to point out this fundamental truth about the last three decades to a new generation of readers and viewers.

    In broadcasting terms Gregg's film, particularly the first programme, has been a resounding success: 350,000 people watched part one. Which only goes to show that many viewers and listeners appear not to be taking any notice of the nit-picking and the innuendo designed to undermine not only the O'Malley documentary but the ability to even question the entire project of traditional nationalism.


    Watch the video: Ορκωμοσία Βουλευτών 18032004 (November 2021).