A mixed day for the Ukrainian Ministry of Health

A day of contrasts for the Ukrainian Ministry of Health on Wednesday – albeit one with symptoms that runs through the current government.

Firstly and in a move lauded by Human Rights Watch, the decision to approve easier access and dispensing of pain killing drugs such as morphine to terminally ill people was approved.

“This is a major advance, ensuring that Ukraine’s drug policy addresses the legitimate needs for medical opiates for pain relief.  Tens of thousands of patients who are in pain will benefit from this reform.” – Diederik Loham, Human Rights Watch

Some pain relief for a nation all too often decried for its human rights issues.

Thus it should have been a good day for those within the Health Ministry, and in particular the Health Minister Raisa Bogatyryova.

Raisa Bogatyryova

However whilst Human Rights Watch was quite properly lauding the aforementioned decision, the cancer called corruption, a systemic disease that cannot have the pain dulled by morphine, was simultaneously being called to account in relation to the Health Ministry by the RADA.

With the Communist Party unusually siding with the opposition, a vote was taken and passed to create a parliamentary committee and inquiry into corruption within the Health Ministry and opaque purchases of UAH 203.48 million of drugs from certain companies.

One has to strongly suspect that once the biopsy of the opaque drug purchases has been made, more than a hint of corruption will be found in the system of the Health Ministry.

The question then arises over whether the infected parts can or will be efficiently surgically removed and if so, whether remission will be a long lasting result.

Sadly, I fear not!

Transparency in political fortune – Bill 2837

It is and has never been a secret that Ukrainian politicians have always, and still do, see politics as a way not only of insuring the retention of their personal interests against others who may like the look of them, but also to use their position within the most elite business club in Ukraine to expand their interests, often across party lines – after all why let political party lines stand in the way of personal interest.

There has to be a reason to pay up to $5 million to get onto the “party list” and allocated a seat in the RADA after all – and $5 million is the price of a RADA seat offered to my good lady by BYuT in 2007, despite her absolute loathing and complete and utter disinterest in politics.

That $5 million, the sales pitch goes, will be quadrupled at least during a 5 year parliamentary term – an excellent return on investment.  A mere $100,000 would buy a seat in the regional legislature, which although not adding multiple millions in return for your investment, would certainly leave her a $ millionaire at the end of any term.

Naturally anything she did not want to declare could be assigned to my name and the usual annual income return for public officials farce would continue with all declaring an absolute pittance in comparison to the real incomes – something that still happens today due to hiding wealth, assets and income via family members amongst other shenanigans.

However, this may well be about to change.

Bill 2837 was submitted on 14th April 2013 which will go some considerable way to changing and limiting the ways of hiding real earnings and personal worth for politicians and state officials.

Granted it may not stop the shenanigans any more than tax avoidance laws gather in more tax – avoidance systems simply become more complex.

However, this bill is jointly drafted by Petrenko, Chumak, Tigipko and Mahnitski – 4 MPs form different parties amongst the 5 of relevance in the RADA.  Thus with cross-party authors there should be enough cross-party support to get this bill through its first reading which is due immanently.

It is quite a radical bill in terms of the transparency it may bring about in comparison to the current opaque methodology.

There is a citizens corruption  register (open to all citizens), big changes in the amount of, and reporting methods relating to, expenses paid for by the public purse, and perhaps most interestingly, the incomes and assets of public officials and their family members must be reported – including those family members who do not live with the public officials a favoured way of hiding personal worth of the officialdom.

Now it maybe that this bill will not change much in respect to actual transparency once ways to circumvent it have been discovered and organised – however it will be interesting to see if the bill will be adopted given the spirit in which it has obviously been drafted and the attempt at transparency it intends to install.

I expect it to pass, despite the fact it is not perfect having read it.

No deadline extension for Ukraine – Fule

Yesterday, Stefan Fule EU Commissioner for Enlargement and Nighbourhood Policy, clearly stated that the EU will not extend the time it has given for Ukraine to address the issues of serious concern to the EU when it comes to the signing – or not – of the Association Agreement and DCFTA.

“First of all, we have never postponed the deadline for Kyiv. Foreign ministers of the EU countries in December clearly stated that they would be ready to sign the association agreement at a summit in Vilnius in November. However, they specified three sectors, in which they expect decisions from Ukraine through consistent and obvious efforts,in particular selective justice, the program of reforms and flawed electoral laws.

We see some progress the Ukrainian side made in all the three sectors, including politically motivated proceedings. The release of Lutsenko and Fylypchuk  is a step in the right direction. However, much is to be done, including the guarantee that this phenomenon won’t happen again.”

A statement they may seem rather bullish – but in reality is actually dictated by the electoral timetables of several EU Member States and European Parliament elections due to occur in late 2013, 2014 and 2015, events that naturally divert attention away from issues Ukrainian and concentrate EU attention of “the self” and its component parts.

Simply put, no matter how bullish the statement of Fule may appear,  if the agreement is not signed in November, the European political calendar simply dos not allow for any such signing until 2015 at the earliest.  Any later than November and there will be significant political actors that if not at the end of a legitimate domestic mandate, are just finding their feet under a recently acquired domestic public mandate – issues of legitimacy and all that!

However, all that aside, I am not aware of any serious requests from Ukraine to extend the November deadline anyway – which causes one to ponder the need for such a statement from Fule – other than keeping the pressure for reform momentum on, and forcing the majority and minority in parliament to work together at least over matters EU.

Failing to plan or planning to fail? United Opposition

I seem to be consistently critical of the “United Opposition” recently – not because I don’t like them, but because I despair at their lack of policy, lack of planning and lack of strategy.  Not to mention the whitewash over ideological differences that whilst in opposition may make little difference, but when in power will become significant and provide yet another dysfunctional government focused on internal division rather than governance in all probability.

All of these things need to be tackled robustly, quickly and without default to the lowest common denominator between the 3 major “United Opposition” parties.  Failure to do so now, well in advance of a presidential election, will not lead to the confidence needed to bring about a change in president – no matter how bad the incumbent is.

Personally I do not care which political party arrives at sound policy with effective implementation – all that matters is good policy is forthcoming and effectively implemented.

A few days ago I wrote about the “United Opposition” allowing the normal running of the RADA this week as four opposition motions were to be debated:

“The setting of an election date for the position of Kyiv Mayor.

A vote of “No Confidence” in the current government.

The abolition the new pension reforms.

The removal of the Articles of law under which Ms Tymoshenko is currently jailed.”

So far, two days ago, as expected they failed with the setting of a date for the mayoral elections of Kyiv – and with the Constitutional Court still considering the legalities of any delay or not, maybe that is no bad thing.  The court’s answer due no later than July as per the legal time frame allowed .

Nevertheless an unnecessary failure for the “United Opposition” with a Constitutional Court decision pending.  Far better to have tackled the matter once a court decision was known.

Next, when it comes to the vote of “No Confidence” in the current government, UDAR wanted the vote on 17th April (yesterday) and Batkivshchyna on the 19th April (tomorrow) – A sorry state of affairs when two of the three “United Opposition” parties cannot even agree a preferred date on a vote as potentially important as a vote of “No Confidence” in the current government.

However, perhaps the most damning display of failed “United Opposition” planning and strategy was laid bare in the vote relating to pension reform on 17th April (yesterday).  If there is one issue they were most likely to get any kind of result from per their list, pension reform was likely to be it.  It is not that popular amongst the ruling coalition either – though it is necessary.

Thus, whilst I firmly believe the reforms are necessary as the current pension system is simply unsustainable, this was also a matter that the “United Opposition” could have realistically won and come away from the week with a significant result – and significant result they need!

So how did they do?

They managed to garner 223 votes in favour of scrapping the planned pensions reforms.  To have scrapped the planned reforms they needed 226 votes (a RADA majority of one).

Now we may sit back and say it was a valiant effort and they came very close – but that is until we consider the fact that absent from the RADA for this vote were 7 Batkivshchyna MPs, 7 UDAR MPs, 1 Svoboda MP and 4 independent MPs who favour the “United Opposition” in most votes.

Ergo a total of 19 votes likely to have been cast in favour of the “United Opposition” motion to scrap the pension reforms were not cast because the MPs were absent.  Had they been present and voted as anticipated, the “United Opposition” would have scrapped the pension reforms by a fairly comfortable margin.

Having made the RADA unworkable for months in an effort to get these four motions tabled for a RADA vote, you have to ask why were there 19 “United Opposition” absentees from a vote that would have displayed to the public the fact the “United Opposition” are more than ineffective, feckless, window dressing had they won?

How did they not manage to rally all their MPs to be in the RADA for a week when their demands are being voted on?  Especially so on the day a vote on pension reforms occurs that they realistically could have won?

Where is the party discipline?  Where is the “united” discipline?  What sort of leadership allows that many MPs to be absent in a key “United Opposition” parliamentary week?

How do they explain to their supporters (plus the larger public and media) that they failed to scrap the pension reforms because 19 of their own MPs failed to turn up to vote?

Suffice to say, it is nothing short of a political disaster.  A distinct underlining of ineffective leadership and party discipline is laid bare for all to see.

What could have been a golden result for the “United Opposition” has turned out to be an absolute debacle of a magnitude it is difficult to overstate.

The chances of this feckless group getting 0/4 results from their demands must now be considerable – a result now proven to be delivered by their own ineptitude!

Planning and preparation prevents piss-poor performance – the “Rule of P”.

This is certainly an epic illustration of piss-poor performance, thus one can only presume there was either no planning or preparation, or it was ignored – raising serious doubts about the credibility and ability of the three leaders involved, even amongst their own troops.

Very disappointing that a chance of gaining real credibility was so easily squandered!

Opposition demands to be debated next week in the RADA

The United Opposition have stated that the will unblock the RADA next week as agreement has been reached to allow their 4 key “issues” to be considered during that time.

Those 4 key issues are:

The setting of an election date for the position of Kyiv Mayor.

A vote of “No Confidence” in the current government.

The abolition the new pension reforms.

The removal of the Artilces of law under which Ms Tymoshenko is currently jailed.

And?

Well the issues relating to the Kyiv Mayor are currently being considered by the Constitutional Court which the law proscribes must give their decision upon within 3 months.  Would it not be wise to allow the court to come to its conclusions prior to this debate?  At least everybody would know what cards they have to play with then.

A vote of “No Confidence” is very likely to be unsuccessful and will do the image of the United Opposition no good whatsoever if they prove ineffective at removing the government.  The “Rise Ukraine” campaign is for what exactly if they cannot deliver?  To prove they still cannot deliver perhaps?

And what if they win a vote of “No Confidence”?  New elections at a time when all in the RADA should be concentrating on getting as much EU compatible legislation passed within the very limited time frame available before the Vilnius Summit in November  - as their joint pro-EU statement proclaimed.

Elections under the same electoral laws that are a key EU demand for reform and under which the opposition lost only 6 months ago?  Why is electoral reform not a key demand of the United Opposition – does it not help their cause to have a far more equitable playing field?

Should the EU/Ukraine AA and DCFTA not get signed in November as planned, is that not a far better time to call for a vote of “No Confidence”?  It would be a major failure of both Yanukovych and the government.  Or do the United Opposition believe that it will be signed and that to try and win a vote of “No Confidence” after a successful signing would be far harder?

I have to be honest and say that just as I doubted the timing (and effectiveness) of the “Rise Ukraine” campaign, I also have serious doubts about the timing of the attempts to topple the government – a central plank of the “Rise Ukraine” campaign.

I have no problem with the politics, but the timing seems very poor given the wider best interest of Ukraine being at least able to function until November and the Vilnius Summit if there is to be a glimmer of hope relating to signing EU agreements.

Abolishing the pension reforms?  To be replaced by what?  The old and economically unsustainable rules that previously existed?  What is the United Opposition policy to deal with a serious economic issue facing not just Ukraine, but almost all European nations relating to pensions, in lieu of the current reforms?  What is their policy, how will it be financed, and is it any better than the current reforms they are balking against?  Does anybody know?  As a follower of the opposition I am yet to hear their alternatives.

Lastly, the removal of the legal Articles under which Ms Tymoshenko was jailed.  I am not sure if this is the second or third attempt to do so – but previous attempts have failed.  The reality, unfair as the entire process may have been, is even in removing the offending Articles now, they were still the law when she was found guilty under them.  It will not do nothing to remove her conviction even if it would perhaps give greater scope for moral pressure relating to her release.  Laws are not retrospective in their application or removal – and neither are convictions under them unless officially pardoned.

Given the United Opposition’s very subdued reaction to Lutsenko’s release, are the United Opposition simply going through the motions for the public relating to Tymoshenko anyway?

What do they gain by her release in the long run vis a vis her continued incarceration?

What happens to their little power-sharing deals if she was released?  A major “cause” and easy headline maker in her de facto political prisoner/martyr status will also be removed, not to mention they would immediately be standing in her very considerable vocal and political shadow the moment she left the prison gate.

Would or could the United Opposition even manage to remain united if she was released and took the helm of Batkivshchnya again – giving a public perception of sending the three current captains back to being nothing more than deck-hands in the process?

Do Yatseniuk, Klitschko and Tyhanbok willing want to take that chance with their own political futures – or will they simply go through the motions for the public?

More broadly, what are the chances next week of the United Opposition winning any, let alone all, of the above 4 issues over which they have blocked the working of the RADA for months?

If they fail to make any progress after these issues are debated – are they going to block the RADA again?  To what end?  The dissolution of parliament and with it any hope of timeliness in legislative progress toward the EU normative within the EU nominated time frame?

US Aid 2014 and Ukrainian Feckless Plurality

It seems amongst a total of approximately $88.5 million allocated by the US to aid Ukraine in 2014, $54 million of that is to support democracy and reform.

To quote the US Department of State:

“U.S. assistance [of $54 million to Ukraine] aims to promote the development of a democratic, prosperous, and secure Ukraine, fully integrated into the Euro-Atlantic community as it struggles to overcome the effects of the global financial crisis and worsening backsliding on democratic reform,” according to the Department of State’s FY 2014 Executive Budget Summary.

The Department of State, in particular, noted that funding would strengthen democratic institutions and processes, and accountable governance, support civil society, independent media, judicial reform, and anti-corruption efforts, improve conditions for investment and economic growth, improve energy security, and help bring the damaged Chornobyl nuclear facility to an environmentally safe and stable condition and properly store its nuclear waste.

 These funds belong to the so-called Economic Support Fund, which the U.S. uses to advance its interests by helping countries “meet short- and long-term political, economic, and security needs.” 

A big ask indeed.  If all that could be achieved on such funding in Ukraine, the promotion of democracy globally would cost no more than a few dozen drones.

Of course it cannot be achieved on such funding and nobody expects it to be achieved – even with all the pooled funding numerous global actors provide relating to these areas of Ukrainian “democratic development”.  The end game of a consolidated democracy in Ukraine – both vertically and horizontally – is not much closer than it was in 1991 when independence was rudely dumped into the lamp of Ukraine.

If we are to stick to the scholarly terms of “opening” – where democratic opportunity appears and gives chance to replace a previous non-democratic regime, or “breakthrough” where democracy actually replaces the old governance system – often rapidly and normally on that back of a new legal foundation (Constitutions), and lastly “consolidation” whereby the state institutions, civil society, judiciary and all other horizontal democratic institutions are reformed, together with vertical of regular elections and the habitual recognition by society of the rules of democracy, it is quite clear that no democratically elected Ukrainian government has ever got anywhere near achieving the consolidation of democracy – particularly so when it comes to the horizontal.

What Ukraine does have is a rather hollow – or lacking – horizontal which needs to be addressed with far more political will and effort than the issues with the vertical at this moment in time.  Whilst laws addressing these issues may now be getting written, they will be useless unless implemented and monitored both fairly and consistently by an independent and competitive horizontal.

There are few Ukrainian politicians past or present, who would not classify as being part of a rather nicely named scholarly group of “feckless pluralists” – and “feckless pluralism” is certainly where Ukraine would find itself seated in most academics eyes by way of theory definition over the past decade.

Those few which do not would generally fall into the category of “feckless pluralists” would fall into the category  “dominant power” politics whereby the State and the leader/ruling party become almost indistinguishable rather than necessarily clearly defined.  Ex-President Kuchma would probably be the closest to a Ukrainian period where “dominant power” politics prevailed in the 1990s.

Sticking rigidly to scholarly definition, President Yanukovych, despite prima facie efforts to move back towards “dominant power” politics would not manage to fully meet all the necessary theoretical determining markers – Thus it is with a wry smile that I write that he currently remains “feckless”, and with all the other politicians of Ukraine, is  engaged in the “feckless pluralism”.

The definition which so encapsulates Ukrainian politics:

“Countries whose political life is marked by feckless pluralism tend to have significant amounts of political freedom, regular elections, and alternation of power between genuinely different political groupings. Despite these positive features, however, democracy remains shallow and troubled. Political participation, though broad at election time, extends little beyond voting.  Political elites from all the major parties or groupings are widely perceived as corrupt, self-interested, and ineffective. The alternation of power seems only to trade the country’s problems back and forth from one hapless side to the other. Political elites from all the major parties are widely perceived as corrupt, self-interested, dishonest, and not serious about working for their country. The public is seriously disaffected from politics, and while it may still cling to a belief in the ideal of democracy, it is extremely unhappy about the political life of the country.”  Thomas Carothers - End of the Transitional Paradigim, 2002.

What part of feckless pluralism doesn’t fit the Ukrainian political class from 2005 – present?

I doubt Yanukovych will manage to complete a move back to the “dominant power” politics of Kuchma due to internal and external pressure and economic realities, and thus Ukraine swings as a pendulum between absolute fecklessness and fecklessness with a dominant streak – none of which provides anything more than a hollow democracy of sorts, and provides leadership past and present that has not or is not overly interested in, or capable of, moving Ukraine entirely into the solid territory of a consolidated democracy.  All have, or will have a democratic legacy deficit rather than a positive democratic legacy to draw upon when times are hard and democracy is deemed to be failing rather than producing the results society expects.

So it is with more than a little pessimism that I look at the latest US funding announcement when it comes to Ukrainian political Dollar deliverables.

That is not to say that either feckless pluralism or dominant politics cannot move to establish a consolidated democracy – but it takes sustained political will, with oft hard and unpopular work to accomplish – not US$ or Euro when all is said and done.

Schizophrenia, Dissociative Identity Disorder or pragmatism? Ukrainian opposition

What to make of an opposition leadership that submits official resolutions of “No Confidence” in the current Cabinet of Ministers on 22nd March 2013 – and by 3rd April 2013, some 13 days later, post a joint  statement on the Batkivshchyna Party website stating:

“We supported and will support all EU integration laws that were properly prepared and considered, in accordance with the parliamentary procedure, including those submitted by the government, as it was, for example, during the ratification of amendments to the visa facilitation agreement.”

Well, what to think?

That must surely infer that they have some confidence in the Cabinet of Ministers they submitted an official resolution of “No Confidence” against – How can the leaders of opposition parties encourage their parties MPs to vote for government legislation otherwise?

Perhaps it is a less than simple matter of schizophrenia or dissocative identity disorder?

Does the “no confidence” exist only with legislation aimed at solely domestic issues – “confidence” obviously existing in legislation aimed at synchronising with the EU normative as far as the capabilities of the Cabinet of Ministers is concerned?

Of course they are being pragmatic.

They can hardly go against their own joint statement with the ruling PoR, in which they all stated their intention to drag Ukraine towards the EU.  As such they had already committed themselves to support EU normalising legislation from a Cabinet of Ministers they later had “No Confidence” in – but now reaffirm they have confidence in – as far as the EU legislation goes.

However, as I wrote on 24th March relating to the particularly ill-timed submission of the “No Confidence” resolution – “Possibly worse, should this vote of “no confidence” fail – which seems likely – how will the public psyche be affected when it comes to confidence in Yatseniuk and the opposition? To continually indulge in political grandstanding or showboating with few, if any results, eventually will erode further public confidence in the ability of the opposition.”

Since then a few Batkivshchanya MPs have left the party, two of which claimed they were not prepared to support Yatseniuk’s “one-man show”.  Whether that reasoning is true or not is irrelevant.  That is what they have said publicly and will further give the perception of failed political grandstanding and showboating to the point at which MPs are leaving the party – and it is the public perception that counts in politics.

It also seems Yatseniuk is expecting an internal leadership coup within the Batkivshchnya Party.

Further, it is somewhat strange to see a very muted reception on opposition MPs twitter an Facebook accounts relating to the releasing of Lutsenko (as I predicted in February) and Filipchuk.  One could think there there are those within the opposition who are not exactly overjoyed at their release – at least that is the perception their social media accounts infer simply by complete lack of, or little reference to, such a major event for the opposition and EU/Ukrainian relations.

Can voters have confidence in those who demand votes of no confidence, who then less than 2 weeks later, display confidence enough in those they have no confidence in, to state they will vote with them over EU legislation – thus displaying a degree of confidence they apparently do not have in those drafting the legislation?

Especially so after not voting for what would be EU normative legislation only a few days ago?

Is anybody advising the leaders of the opposition – or are they simply jumping from one grandstanding position to another – with few results, and even less consistency?

Perhaps, given the differences between Svoboda, UDAR and Batkivshchyna parties, we should expect nothing less than such a populist, ill-thought out and schizophrenic output.  As Klitschko said only yesterday “UDAR, Batkivshchnya and Svoboda have different ideologies.  However we have one thing in common:  We want to live in a democratic country” – Is one thing in common enough, when inevitably there will be a need to convince the voting public that they are capable of ruling and creating policies they all agree on despite different ideologies that will prevent good policy making?

If there is one lesson to be learned from the Yushenko/Tymoshenko period, it is that democracy requires hard work and hard choices after it puts you in power to cement both veritical and horizontal democratic principle into all walks of government, governmental agencies and society – something that they collectively simply did not do in any shape, form or manner.

I do so wish the opposition would start to form and articulate solid policy that will benefit society and that voters can understand and rally around, instead of consistently showboating which is a policy that is destined to fail more often than not.

However just how possible it would be to align Svoboda social policy with that of UDAR, or Batkivshchnya economic policy with Svoboda or UDAR etc., remains to be seen.  I suspect these issues are deliberately being passed over as they will no doubt become divisive – leaving us with more failing grandstanding to come for the foreseeable future -  in lieu of real policy.

Sooner or later however, they are going to need to convince people they can govern collectively and effectively – and that means agreed policies which they can take to the public.   A return to such dysfunctional governance – or alternatively Yanukovych-lite – is not what Ukraine needs.

Maybe Lutsenko, now he’s been released will provide something like a policy rudder?  We’ll see.

Anti-hate bill fails to pass through the RADA due to lack of opposition support

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear!

The latest attempt to get an anti-hate bill passed through the RADA has failed – and not because of the actions of the ruling majority – but those of the opposition parties.

It can do nothing but cast doubt on the opposition wanting to meet the EU normative where human rights and human dignity are supposed to be a core and uncompromisable overarching principle.

Whilst 169 Party of Regions present voted for the bill – I suppose rather unsurprisingly the Svoboda Party en masse voted against it.  After all, what self-respecting far-right nationalist party would vote for an anti-hate bill that would restrict its ability to promote hate at the expense of human dignity?  (Rhetorical question!)

Most surprisingly – or perhaps not given the potential voter gains made by UDAR in the East of Ukraine – almost every single UDAR MP abstained from the vote.  Pontius Pilate would be proud even if I hang my head.

Possibly worse still, 58 Batkivshchyna Party members voted against the draft legislation in chorus with Svoboda.

Strictly pragmatically, for the sake of opposition unity and keeping Svoboda “on board”, it is possibly understandable that the other opposition parties effectively prevented a draft law that may have stopped Svoboda Party members such as Ihor Miroshnichenko openly calling well known Ukrainian actresses like Mila Kunis a “Jewess” on his Facebook page – a statement that generated this reaction from the Simon Wiesenthal Centre “insidious slur invoked by the Nazis and their collaborators as they rounded up the Jews to murder them at Babi Yar and in the death camps“, and this from the Ukrainian Jewish Committee “The last time this term was used in an official way was during the Nazi occupation“.

It was certainly a draft law that would have made it far more difficult for those without political immunity from engaging in anti-hate propaganda – even if Ihor Miroshnichenko could continue to act with impunity due to being an MP.

One can only assume that this will be seen by the EU in particular (and numerous other international observers) – as going robustly against a core EU principle and nothing short of “disappointing” in diplo-speak – In short, none of the opposition parties will come out of this particular vote very well, and it will further paint a picture of an opposition whose only interest is to regain power at any cost, rather than create a nation based on EU ideology with legislation and policy to match their declared aspirations of EU parity and integration.

There are issues when principles and ideology need to trump political alliances – Svoboda seem to be the only opposition party to have stuck to their ideology – a major ideological and ethical FAIL for Batkivshchnya and UDAR is the only way I can view what has happened here, and it also raises doubts over the leadership qualities of the leaders concerned.

I have to say I am bitterly disappointed that one of the few truly human dignity based ideological policies to be raised in the RADA of late – anti-hate legislation – where you would hope for broad cross-party support, has been sacrificed at the alter of opposition “political unity”.