UCUNF can expect more pounding in the media after Orange talks

Yesterday probably marked the lowest point for the Conservative / UUP pact since its inception 14 months ago but it could yet go lower to the point where the pact collapses.  

The Flare-up began on Thursday evening when it was revealed on Hearts and Minds that during December at Schomburg House, there had been a “confidential” meeting between the DUP and the UUP to discuss unionist unity, organised by the Orange Order. The meeting was attended by Sir Reg Empey and David McNarry of the DUP and by Peter Robinson and Nigel Dodds of the DUP.   

In the course of the programme, it was revealed that the discussions included candidacy at the Westminster Elections and the likelihood that Sinn Fein would hold the office of First Minister after the next Assembly elections.   

On Thursday night, Nigel Davenport continued to stir the pot on behalf of the BBC.  After taking soundings from Conservatives on their reaction to the Broadcast, he used rugby union analogy to describe how they had been let down by the UUP   

“More spooked I would say are the Conservatives who were blind sided by their partners the Ulster Unionists. Owen Paterson need not have gone to all that trouble booking Hatfield House if he had been aware that Bobby Saulters was already doing the job of bringing unionists together. The Conservative sources I spoke to tonight expressed some concern and dismay and said they would be looking for an explanation from Sir Reg Empey who attended the talks alongside Peter Robinson.”   

By Friday morning, all eyes were on Owen Paterson.  Writing for the BBC again, Michael Crick reported that Owen Paterson was seeking urgent clarification from Sir Reg Empey. He said  

“The Conservative Northern Ireland spokesman Owen Paterson is seeking an urgent meeting with the Ulster Unionist leader Sir Reg Empey today over the future of the Conservatives’ pact with the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP).”   

Owen Paterson’s objective in having that meeting was clearly damage limitation.  By 3.45 pm on Friday, Owen Paterson released the following statement:   

“In his capacity as Ulster Unionist leader, Sir Reg Empey regularly meets all strands of opinion throughout Northern Ireland. He referred ‘in passing’ to a meeting, requested in October and held in December, but I was not aware of the content or the participants.   

“As there was nothing of consequence arising from the meeting he did not mention it to me again. Sir Reg Empey has made clear to me that it has no bearing on our joint determination to stand together as ‘Conservatives and Unionists at the forthcoming Westminster elections to bring national, mainstream and non-sectarian politics to Northern Ireland.”   

By 5.00 pm, Sir Reg issued his response to the crisis (source Conservative Home)

 “The Ulster Unionist Party was invited in October 2009 by the Orange Order to a meeting with their Grand Master. On behalf of the UUP I accepted the invitation. Mr Saulters wanted a private and confidential meeting to discuss ‘ways and means of finding co-operation on the way forward.’ I have respected his request for confidentiality. Sadly this was not respected by others. Despite a conversation and discussion on the issues that Mr Saulters wished to raise, no agreements were reached.

 ”We are often asked to talk about Unionist cooperation where possible and about how best to provide stability for the future of Northern Ireland.  However the UUP is very much aware, given past history, that cooperation is not always achievable. Indeed it makes it much more difficult when a significant aim of one of the organisations you are dealing with is to destroy you. The Ulster Unionist Party will continue to have discussions with organisations on issues that are of benefit to the Union, but we will not be used as an escape route for others who have significant political difficulties.

“Let me also reaffirm my commitment to developing our relationship with the Conservative Party.  Along with our Conservative colleagues we will do all we can to promote, protect and preserve the Union and bring national politics unto the Northern Ireland agenda. The spectacle of recent days in our political journey at Hillsborough illustrates the need to get back as soon as possible to dealing with the issues that matter to people such as jobs, health and education.”

The question now is whether these press releases represent an an attempt to repair a hole in a sinking ship.  Before Crick’s update was posted, Jeffrey Peel and most of the commenters who contributed to his blog yesterday were of the view that the pact could not survive.  Meanwhile, on the Ulster Unionist side, Chekov published a scathing criticism of the conduct of the UUP leadership while Boballs insists that the UUP must clear up the mess.   In his last post, he has expressed his belief the pact can not survive.

This morning, the Belfast Telegraph reports that Sir Reg Empey is blaming the DUP for trying to destroy his party.  Is that news?  After all, why else would the DUP have negotiated at St. Andrews for the largest party to hold the first minister’s position?   Few are likely to be impressed with Sir Reg’s response to this crisis.  It  is unlikely to suppress rising anger within his party or more press speculation that the pact will unravel.  

This morning, David Gordon began the tomato throwing on behalf of the Belfast Telegraph.  Expect a pounding from other sections of the media over the next few days.

The UUP must put an end to speculation on “vote splitting” deals once and for all

Yesterday, I published a post in which I criticised Tom Elliot.

I did not expect to receive favourable comments from many Ulster Unionists.  Quite clearly, there are many who either agree with Mr. Elliot or perhaps disagree but do not consider his remarks to have been particularly damaging. 

Mr. Elliot was not the first Ulster Unionist to pay lip service to the possibility of a deal with the DUP.  He does represent a certain section of the Ulster Unionist Party who would like to see that happen.  Nevertheless, he is a dissenter from the official line of the Ulster Unionist party. 

In this post, which is aimed particularly at those from the UUP who are not convinced that Tom Elliot is wrong, I discuss the core principles underlying the agreement between the UUP and the Conservatives and provide an angle on one of the DUP’s key stratagems.

On 20^th November 2008, the UUP and the Conservatives concluded an agreement known as the Memorandum of Understanding.  Part of that document was published on the Old Northern Ireland Conservative Website.  It is worth looking at the recital to that document again.  The recital contains a statement of joint core beliefs and aspirations by the two parties for Northern Ireland politics.  The recital states as follows:

“1         Both parties believe that a strong and stable Union of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom offers the best future for all its citizens.

2          Both parties believe that Northern Ireland has been isolated for too long from the politics of the United Kingdom.

3          Both parties believe that all the citizens of the United Kingdom should have the opportunity to vote for, and potentially participate in, their national government.

4          Both parties recognize the need to change politics in Northern Ireland, are committed to reaching out to the increasing numbers of alienated voters, and developing non sectarian politics in Northern Ireland.”

The third limb of that recital is quite explicit.  There has to be a candidate in every constituency representing the Conservative party in Parliament.  The other three limbs of the recital underpin that. 

There is no doubt that the UUP would be putting obstacles in the way of developing non-sectarian politics if it made or talked about a deal with the DUP or the TUV on the carve-up of Parliamentary seats.  Mick Fealty, director of Slugger O’Toole writing for the Telegraph explained this extremely well in one of his posts last year.  On the subject of attracting the Catholic vote, he said this: 

“Can he attract Catholics into what still remains (despite the shift of emphasis) a unionist party? Well, yes they are there already. But in token numbers. One thing that may dislodge a few more is failing to fulfil another of his promises and refusing to engage in sectarian carve-ups.

The most famous of these have taken place regularly in areas where splitting the Unionist vote with two candidates to let a nationalist in. And there are two out of the 18 constituencies where such a pact would guarantee returns for both the new party and the DUP in the next election.

Sticking to his guns on this could allow one and maybe two Nationalist incumbents to retain their seat(s). That will no doubt prove: one, he means what he says; and two that party activists on the ground will have bought the message that the sectarian deals of the past are over.”

Very soon after the agreement was made, the criticism emerged from the DUP about vote splitting.  Just after the UUP party conference, the DUP criticism was put to Sir Reg on the Politics show on 7^th December 2008.  Sir Reg. said that the DUP was being “disingenuous” and he gave an example about how the DUP conducted itself in 2001 when James Cooper lost the Fermanagh and Tyrone Parliamentary seat by a handful of votes as a result of the DUP’s support of Jim Dixon.

Sir Reg’s comments were a criticism of the DUP – yes – but he did not respond to the question by making reference to the principles behind the new agreement.  Time and again, the DUP taunted the UUP about vote splitting and I noted how the UUP rose to the bait.  Naturally, I was concerned that no reference was being made to the new agreement and particularly, about sectarianism.  I wrote a piece indicating how I believed the UUP should respond. 

It is now quite obvious to me that the DUP have adopted a stratagem of continuously taunting the UUP over vote splitting agreements knowing that it will cause emotional upset and perhaps hoping that it will cause people from the UUP to question the agreement with the Conservatives.  The latest of these came in the speech from Peter Robinson at the DUP party conference last week and now most recently from Jeffrey Donaldson.

There are those within the UUP who would say that they have to appease their own supporters by not being seen to be a unionist “vote splitter” which allows Sinn Fein to obtain a seat they should not have.  But think about it! 

Most Unionists should by now be aware that the agreement to field 18 candidates is a set agreement.  It can not be re-negotiated and nor should it.  It is an expression of the agreement’s fundamental principles. 

So what kind of a signal does talk by Tom Elliot (or any other senior member of the UUP) of a possible deal with the DUP send to thinking Unionists?  There are two likely possibilities.  Mr. Elliot might have come across as a politician who was too foolish to understand that he would not be able to negotiate a deal on seats.  On the other hand, he might have looked simply dishonest. 

Some people listening might have interpreted from his words that he merely wanted to talk – not make a deal on seats but what would be the point of that?  The DUP invitations are specifically about doing a deal on seats.  Was he making his remarks in order to hoodwink a certain section of his support?   Maybe he wanted some more gullible unionists to think that an agreement on seats might be in the offing even though he knew that was not possible.  If that is what he was up to, he was being totally dishonest.

So how does Tom Elliot view his own remarks in terms of damaging the integrity of the Alliance and its core principles?  I leave this question hanging because I used the word “treacherous” in my previous blog. 

Mr. Elliot would indeed have been acting treacherously if he made his remarks knowing that they would damage the integrity of UCUNF.  I suggest that had he not known that they would be damaging, he would have been rather naïve.  Could he have been naïve? 

That is extremely unlikely.  As one of the UUP’s senior politicians, he should have read and understood the Memorandum of Understanding.  He also would have been surrounded by party colleagues who would have discussed the agreement in detail with him and understood it.   

After he made his remarks to the Fermanagh Herald, I expected that somebody senior within the UUP would have given Tom Elliot some sort of “wrap over the knuckles.”  Indeed, that was also the view of Horseman on his blog. 

“Expect a swift slap-down from UUP headquarters and a ‘clarification’ from Elliott very soon.”

Similar criticism also came from O’Neill.

Not only was his remarks reported in the Fermanagh Herald but also in other newspapers, including the News Letter on 30^th October and the Ballymena Times on the same date.  Undoubtedly, this newspaper coverage played a part in the BBC’s invitation to Mr. Elliot to appear with Mr. Donaldson on ‘Hearts and Minds’.

It would be very hard to imagine that no words of caution were given to Mr. Elliot by somebody within his party following the Newspaper publications.   

Given all the circumstances, Mr. Elliot’s position as a prospective parliamentary candidate is, in my opinion, untenable. 

As far as the UUP is concerned, the problem of speculation about deals with the DUP is damaging in itself.  This so called “vote splitting” issue needs to be ‘nailed’ once and for all.

Expenses – 3 days to go and no sign of an investigation into Nigel Dodds

After yesterday’s broadcast of the Politics Show in which all 7 Northern Irish candidates sat on a question panel, the general consensus within the blogasphere is that the most of the candidates gave a satisfactory performance.    

That would include our own candidate, Jim Nicholson, who would admit that he is not the greatest of performers in a broadcast interview.  Diane Dodds, meanwhile, gave a terrible performance.  Some would describe it as disastrous.   

There have been plenty of negatives about the DUP. Perhaps if the euro election was another year or two later, the Conservatives and Unionists would have made much more political hay than they have so far.  Unfortunately, for the Conservatives and Unionists, the teething problems of putting together a new political force have not yet been overcome.  Lady Sylvia Hermon’s announcement was a symptom of that.    

There is perhaps one more thing which would hit Diane Dodds very hard.  It would be a discovery of unethical claims of Parliamentary expenses by her husband, Nigel Dodds.    

Alastair Darling is under pressure to resign as chancellor following adverse disclosures over his expense claims.  The criticism being levelled at Darling is that as the senior minister in charge of the nation’s finances, the position of trust and confidence will have broken down and he should therefore resign.  If Nigel Dodds, as first minister, were to be similarly scandalised, he would also face pressure to step down.   

I would suggest Diane Dodds would not be able to avoid being tainted by association in such circumstances.  Very few would believe that she would have no knowledge about her husband’s expense claims, particularly when she also is a politician.   

So far, 460 MPs have been investigated after 23 days.  That includes 11 of Northern Ireland’s 18 MPs.  At this rate, we can expect a further 60 MPs to be investigated by the time of voting for the European Elections on Thursday.  That would leave about 130 of them not investigated by the Euro elections.  If there is something to reveal, Mrs. Dodds will be keeping her fingers crossed that there is no disclosure before Thursday.    

Update 2nd June 2009.  Now there are only 3 NI MPs left to investigate.  Dodds still to be investigated.

Northern Ireland claims table 

Shows Nigel Dodds as the second highest claimant on aggregate but it is the breakdown which determines whether the claims were unethical.

Northern Ireland MPs so far Investigated

Peter Robinson,  Iris Robinson,  Martin Maguiness,  Gerry Adams,  Pat Doherty,  Michelle Gildernew,  Conor Murphy,  Mark Durkan,  Jeffrey Donaldson,  Gregory Campbell,  Sylvia Hermon,  Ian Paisley, David Simpson, William McCrea,  Sammy Wilson

Northern Ireland MPs still to be investigated

Nigel Dodds, Eddie McGrady, Alastair McDonnell

Allister benefits as he lets the papers make a meal out of the Robinsons

Cast your eye over some of the comments attached to the Belfast Telegraph report on Peter and Irish Robinson and you might notice something that I did.  

It was not just public disgust.  It was anger everywhere.  I believe that we are in for something of a watershed in the European Elections.  Labour will be hit by it.  So will the Conservatives.  There may even be an additional dimension to this in Northern Ireland.

Until last year, the leader of the DUP (previously named the “Protestant Unionist Party) was Revd. Ian Paisley.  This is the man for half a century managed to mix religion and politics.  He was despised by many from the Catholic community.  There was no shortage of bigotry in his speeches.  There was plenty of distortion of facts in a lot of the things he said.  Was he ever found to be dishonest?   

I am not aware of any allegations of dishonesty against Revd. Paisley. It looks very much as though he remains the non-smoking, non-drinking, bible-adherent fundamentalist Protestant.   

One of Paisley’s legacies is that orthodox Protestantism seems to form part of the DUP’s ideology.  That is apparent from some of the things that their politicians say on matters such as creationism.  I am therefore wondering if the impact of the Robinson’s expenses claims will be far greater than just a couple of weeks of embarrassment.  Will a lot of people not feel too let down to forgive or will they more easily forgive?  

One politician who may be wondering if divine intervention is going his way is Jim Allister. Allister is a chip off the old DUP bible-thumping block.  The timing of the scandal could not have been much better for Allister.  In fact, he seems to be so confident about the impact of the story on the Robinsons that he has not even named them directly in his latest post.  He also uses his post to highlight his good transparency in that his expenses are posted on his website.  

There’s only one good piece of news that would top what has already happened – An expense claims scandal against Nigel Dodds. Casting my eye over the table that I published on 31^st March, lo and behold, he is the Northern Ireland MP with the second-highest aggregate expense claim.  Hmmm.

The other anniversary

Today, there are two anniversaries.  The big one, which I have already alluded to in an earlier post two days ago is the 30th Anniversary of Mrs. Thatcher becoming Prime Minister.  

A rather lesser known anniversary is that the current Stormont Executive in which the DUP and Sinn Fein respectively hold the First and Deputy first Ministries, is now two years old.  

Plenty has happened in those two years.  It began with Revd.Ian Paisley becoming the First Minister at the twilight of his career.  Going into partnership with Sinn Fein prompted much anger amongst many of the DUP’s own supporters.  This has caused a schism within the DUP.  Their MEP, Jim Allister, resigned from the DUP, formed his own party and took with him a very substantial chunk of their support.  We do not yet know how much of the DUP is left.  There have been no opinion polls and the only yardstick we have had is the Dromore Council by-election.  

Ian Paisley retired to make way for Peter Robinson.  Straight away, there was difficulty as Sinn Fein boycotted executive meetings in response to apparent failure to devolve policing and justice.  This was a battle of nerves which the DUP eventually won.  Having accepted that they all faced electoral fallout if they did not get back to Government, they reached a deal on devolution of Police and Justice last November.  The DUP now control the timing of devolution of Police and Justice.   

The months of Executive inactivity meant that the Executive had to act quickly on certain matters.  They almost tripped over themselves as they brought in the Financial Assistance Bill described by some politicians as “emergency powers” legislation to enable certain welfare payments including winter fuel poverty allowances to be paid.  In the middle of the debate on the Bill, Mark Durkan fell foul of Parliamentary standards.   

At about the same time, it was near “crunch time” on academic selection.  With no yielding from the Unionists, no legislation could be brought forth to end it.  The Education Minister, Catriona Ruane faced with two assembly motions to put temporary tests in place chose to leave matters at an impasse.  This has forced Grammar Schools to “do their own thing.”  In effect, the system remains without a centrally organized transfer test exam and no orderly system for the administration of admissions.   

With the impact of the recession increasing, it was inevitable that the pre-agreed financing of the Programme for Government might need to be revised.  Pressure has come to bear on Nigel Dodds, the Minister for Finance to reach agreement through the executive for changes to the finance package. UUP politicians have made reference to a 1 billion “black hole” which so far, Dodds has denied. On the other hand, there has been recent acknowledgement by the DUP that there will have to be cuts in public spending.  This issue is set to develop further.    

The most colourful of Northern Ireland’s politicians is the DUP’s Sammy Wilson.  Who ever would have thought that the Minister for the Environment would turn out to be a denier that climate change was man made?  Who would have thought that he would have interfered with Government advertising campaigns to help people save energy? Rumour is growing around Stormont that Sammy Wilson will be removed after the June 4^th election.  If that is true, it will take away some of the fun for journalists and bloggers like me.  To be honest though, it would be the right decision.    

Other ministries have had a relatively quiet time, or have they?  Margaret Ritchie, the   Minister has been in the spotlight recently for having her decision to withdraw funding for Farset, which was quashed by the Courts.  Michele Gildernew, the Agriculture Minister, gave a demonstration of how ideology affected decision-making in her department.  She also  became embroiled in controversy over the handing out of grants under the Rural Development Programme for Northern Ireland (2007-13)   

Dissident Republican terrorism brought about the murder of a police officer and two soldiers.  The First Minister and Deputy First Minister had the opportunity to display solidarity.  Martin McGuiness, in particular, sailed as far as anybody from his party could go on criticizing the dissidents with his now famous quote: “they are traitors to the Island of Ireland.”   

Overall, it has been an interesting two years.  We have seen the parties bash each other like never before.  The opposition have scored some hits, most notably over double jobbing and expenses whilst the DUP and Sinn Fein have scored a massive own-goal over bullying and their war with the media.   

Of course, the defects in power sharing are there for all to see.  There is no such thing as collective cabinet responsibility and there is resultantly much more negativity in decision making.  The impasse on educational issues is a classic example of that. 

The next two years of the Executive are likely to be just as interesting as the first two.   In the Belfast Telegraph today, the Challenges facing the Executive have been identified in the areas of Devolution of Policing and Justice,  Education,  Irish Language,  National Stadium Funding,  the Review of Public Administration and Parades.  These are all contentious issues, yet somehow I feel that cuts in public spending will be at the centre of contention.   

As the recession continues to bite, one is left wondering how vulnerable to negative voter opinion the UUP and the SDLP are as occupiers of the 3 most high-spending ministries.  Will they be politically vulnerable to high-profile spending cuts?  Will the DUP be tempted to try and abuse its position as the controller of Finance Ministry?  We shall see.

Politicians should strain to make Northern Ireland security a non-political issue

In the piece that I wrote yesterday, I was mildly critical of Sir Hugh Orde.  I use the word “mildly” because he is not a politician.  Perhaps you could say that my criticism was more like advice.

I also appreciated where Martin McGuiness was coming from when he objected to the deployment of Special Forces.  He believed that by doing that, it would result in a dangerous escalation of the violence.  

The attack at the Army barracks in Antrim had nothing to do with Sir Hugh Orde’s decision to deploy.  That decision has now been completely vindicated.  

Yesterday, I held back from criticism of Martin McGuiness.  After all, it was positive that he condemned the attack.  This morning, I listened to an interview of Gerry Adams on the BBC on my way to work.  At the beginning of it, Adams gave a reasonable account of himself, including an explanation as to why it took Sinn Fein 14 hours to make a statement about the attack.  It was only at the end the interview that he lost the plot.  He was asked why he objected to intelligence – gathering operations.  He then tried to make a distinction between ongoing intelligence operations being carried out by MI5 and the deployment of troops, implying that the security services already had adequate intelligence. 

I am not a military man or a policeman but neither is Gerry Adams.  His party have criticised a decision made by a professional.  He should know very well that security is not just about the Police Force.  It may be that he has an ideological problem with UK soldiers being in Northern Ireland.  I hope that is not the case. 

Nationalists need to learn and appreciate that it is in their best interest to support the judgment of the Chief Constable and the security services. It would help boost confidence if they were to praise the security services for their high success already in reducing effect of dissident republicans to the extent that they have.  Can Sinn Fein bring themselves to do that?  Maybe they will, given time.

Today, there will be a debate at Stormont by politicians.  Politicians should by all means condemn the violence and express sympathy for the victims.  At least some semblance of solidarity will be good for the people of Northern Ireland.  

Beyond that, Politicians need to keep their language restrained and debate dispassionately.  They need to keep criticism indirect in the way that Nigel Dodds did on the radio this morning.  All politicians need to understand that security should not be a political issue.  Politicians have a right to make points about security but they need to strain against appearing divisive.  If Unionists can keep the full power of their criticism of Sinn Fein’s stance for a “behind the scenes” discussion and if they can keep their public criticism indirect, then they will be acting in Northern Ireland’s best interests. 

First Minister should call all parties holding ministerial offices for a review of the budget

At a business breakfast in Lisburn, the First Minister, Peter Robinson, gave a speech which was directed towards politicians in the Assembly who might be critical of NI Government spending plans and the setting of the budget.

MLAs who are suggesting more expenditure for particular projects came under fire. I quote directly from the report in yesterday’s Belfast Telegraph

“Instead of grand-standing and proposing areas which would benefit from greater expenditure I challenge those who want changes to make suggestions and proposals concerning where across the public sector we can free-up additional resources to divert to projects which can directly assist Northern Ireland through the economic problems,” he said.

“The days of asking for more money in one area without considering the implications for another are over. Some projects that are presently planned may be worthy projects in themselves but may not be justifiable in the present circumstances when the need to get our economy moving is the priority,” the First Minister added.

There are plenty of matters on which I disagree with Mr. Robinson.  On this particular point, he is correct.  In fact, a statement like this was very much overdue.  MLAs are not responsible for setting the budget.  However, it is their duty as politicians to take into account the National interest.  That means addressing political problems with a balanced view, taking into account the limits of funding available from Government.  If too many MLAs fail in this regard, the Assembly will never mature as a political arena.  Indeed elections would be reduced to a race to become the favourite Uncle who dishes out the goodies.

My approval of Mr. Robinson’s speech on Friday ends there.  The next part of it refers to the setting of the budget.  Again, I quote from the Belfast Telegraph:

“Those who glibly talk about the need for a new budget possibly mean that we should consider re-allocations. This can be done at Executive level but there is even greater opportunity within departmental budgets… This is the time for Ministers to critically review everything that their departments are doing and ask if this represents the best use of public expenditure in the present circumstances.

“In some departments money could quickly be redirected into the construction sector to address long-standing maintenance needs and away from less urgent priorities. When added to the considerable amount that is already being done this could make an important contribution to keeping this sector working,”

In a previous post, I argued that Nigel Dodds was wrong not to discuss re-setting the budget with the other parties.  Mr. Robinson’s words “This can be done at executive level” may be an indication of a partial “U” turn and a real recognition that there is indeed a “black hole” in the budget figures. However, Mr. Robinson’s main emphasis was on the need for individual departments to come up with their own savings.  This suggestion will not work.  It pre-supposes that individual Ministers, who have elections to think about, will take a global view of the budget on their own.  Their priority will be to present themselves in the best possible light as individual ministers, rather than as part of a government team.  It is a fair bet that they will spend all the money that is available to them.  This highlights a defect in the Power Sharing system, but we are stuck with it for the near future.

The only way that significant savings are likely to be made is if the Executive meets together and re-negotiates the budget holistically and not merely with a view to re-allocating.  Actual spending cuts are very likely to be needed.  The UUP have already offered to participate in a budget review.  So should all the other parties.  It is the responsibility of the First Minister to invite the other parties holding ministerial offices to such a review.  He may yet grasp that he has to do that.

DUP wrong not to try to reach consensus with other parties over public finances

What has Nigel Dodds got in common with Gordon Brown as a politician?  They are both being accused of being in denial over the state of public finances.

Quite obviously, the problems of Gordon Brown’s denial are far greater than those connected with Nigel Dodds but the latter could be a serious problem for the people of Northern Ireland. 

It had been pointed out by the UUP spokesman on Finances, David McNarry, that there was a “black hole” in the budget amounting to £1.1 billion.  This has been corroberated, to a certain extent, by the Minister for Social Development, Margaret Ritchie, who has said that her department alone will suffer a £200 million shortfall over the next two years.  Sinn Fein and DUP ministers in other departments have been less vociferous.  Is this a coincidence?

The DUP’s response to this criticism came from a spokeswoman in the Department of Finance.  To quote the Newsletter of 22nd January, she said 

“the minister had made it clear that the shortfall would be accounted for by clawing back underpsends from departments at the end of the financial years and by taking “tough choices”, that is, cutting schemes that had been scheduled”

By way of further explanation, the spokesperson said

“”In terms of the £1.1 billion, a large number of the spending proposals put forward as part of the Strategic Stock take process are discretionary or even speculative, whilst others may not materialise to the extent currently forecast by departments.”

Having seen Margaret Ritchie’s interview in the Politics Show, it would seem that her budget is hardly “discretionary or speculative”.  She was talking about genuine shortfalls in spending requirements for much needed social housing.

The DUP has been invited by the UUP to meet, discuss and re-assess the programme for Government.  Yesterday at Stormont, Nigel Dodds defended his budget and firmly rejected a re-write of the programme for Government.

I am not in possession of the facts.  I only have the media plus the utterances of politicians on their websites to go on.   If these “black holes” turn out to be correct then either there will be a budget deficit which will lead to greater deterioration in the finances of the NI Government in the future or certain government programmes will run out of money and come to a grinding halt.    

I dont know who is right.  If the DUP is wrong, then somewhere down the line it should suffer the political consequences.   Meanwhile, confidence is important to all of us, particularly, when we are probably in the worst recessions since the 1930s.  Whether Dodds  is right or not, the suspicion of a “black hole” will remain.  By failing to engage with its political opponents with a detailed discussion about the programme for government with a view of reaching consensus, the DUP has not acted in the national interest.