Three Thousand Versts of Loneliness

Before it disappears from view, a quick word on the furore surrounding David McNarry’s comments on Invest NI.  The UUP’s finance spokesman challenged the organisation after grants which it awarded to the international law firm Allen and Overy were offered to staff in London as an inducement to relocate to Belfast. Ian Parsley cuts to core of the matter when he suggests that McNarry was within his rights to complain that the money was not being used for its correct purpose.  The further argument that the posts are “jobs for Northern Ireland people” is ludicrous, particularly when it is made by a so-called unionist. At the blog Finbar on Tour McFaggen points out that while some staff will relocate from London, 120 brand new posts will be created in Belfast.  This is a massive firm, bringing well-paid jobs to Northern Ireland, which will benefit the economy.  “You’d think that everyone in NI would be happy about the announcement”, McFaggen argues. Now the Northern Ireland Conserv

There will be slaps on the back all round when Stormont makes it through its first full term next year.  Assuming, that is, that its latest mini-crisis can be overcome. The prospects of the DUP and Sinn Féin striking a budget have supposedly deteriorated , with the provos threatening to throw some toys out of the pram because they haven't yet conducted their customary behind-closed-doors showpiece with the British government. That’s ok by Peter Robinson, but the Finance Minister, Sammy Wilson, is insisting that the Northern Ireland Executive do the work at hand, without the optics.  It’s sound advice.  There’s a Conservative led coalition government in place.  Things are going to be done a little differently now . An apparent crisis, hot-house talks and a raft of supplicants descending on Number 10, at every cut and turn, is no longer on the agenda.  Thank goodness for that. Meanwhile, back at Stormont, haven’t they all done well ?  After all, if this does develop into a st

If the article comes online I'll link it, but in yesterday's Belfast Telegraph I assessed the various finance papers and proposals which the parties in Northern Ireland have issued over the past few weeks.  My conclusion is that (to varying degrees) they're as much about long-term political objectives as practical economics and the problem to hand.  Hot on the heals of proposals on the economy from Sinn Féin, Ulster Unionists and even the TUV, Peter Robinson launched the DUP’s own cuts strategy on Monday.   In common with rival efforts, the paper is as much about setting out the party’s ideology and drawing some red lines for negotiations ahead, as about delivering savings or growing the private sector.   When the party advocates reducing the number of departments at Stormont, it knows very well that Sinn Féin is adamantly opposed to a slimmer Executive.  And a proposal to squeeze North South bodies will attract nationalist ire, despite coy DUP claims that there are no ult

The Belfast Telegraph link is now available and in today's paper I focus on the spending review and, in particular, local reaction to cuts. the notion that poor, benighted Northern Ireland is to be mercilessly squeezed by the perfidious Tories, was not unduly dented by the fact that we actually got off rather lightly, in comparison with the rest of the UK.  It made little difference that we can expect only a 6.9% cut to our block grant, while the average government department will see its spending constricted by 19%.  Not even a cool £200 million, stumped up by the Treasury to reimburse investors in the ill-fated Presbyterian Mutual Society, could draw poison from local attacks on the Chancellor and his government. Foremost among the critics are Peter Robinson and Martin McGuinness, who allege that Osborne has broken a promise to deliver £18 billion of infrastructure improvements to Northern Ireland.  That figure was thrashed out behind closed doors with Gordon Brown, in the wake

I notice that one of Sinn Féin's suggestions to plug the budget shortfall of £1.9bn in Northern Ireland is a £2,000 monthly levy on mobile phone masts.  Anyone notice any faulty logic at work? Some of Northern Ireland's rural areas already suffer from some of the patchiest mobile phone coverage anywhere in the UK.  It's a nuisance for residents, visitors and it sure as heck discourages business.  Will the communications giants be rushing to plug these gaps at £24,000 per year per mast? Ironically some the areas worst affected are Sinn Féin strongholds. Poorly thought out, 6th form financials from republicans?  Who would've thunk it!

At Ultonia, Lee is dismissive .  At Northern Ireland Centre-Right, Seymour Major is still in the throes of ecstasy .  My take on Cameron’s conference speech is somewhere down the middle. Certainly I didn’t feel that this address featured the rhetorical pyrotechnics which the Tory leader has occasionally produced.  It felt a little laboured, it didn’t depart substantially from the script, and given that it was delivered by the first Conservative prime minister since May 1997, it wasn’t even received that rapturously by the Tory faithful. In today’s Belfast Telegraph, which is not yet online, I consider Cameron’s references to Northern Ireland.  The headline ’Fine words, true.  But do you really get us, David?’ is not really an accurate reflection of the article's content. As a commentator, rather than a politician, I’m not restrained from saying that the Conservatives don’t need to ’get us’ and if they do finally 'get us' it will be to our detriment.  The demand that

At Unionist Lite O’Neill looks at possible nationalist responses to the government’s deficit plans.  His assessment is that Plaid Cymru and Sinn Féin are beyond help in their analyses, but there is a chance that the SNP and SDLP could, to some degree, embrace opportunities to promote leaner enterprise economies for their respective regions. The SNP’s ’pork barrel’ tactics are, at least partially, a separatist irritant aimed at London.  So Salmond’s party has a decent opportunity to tacitly accept that Scotland’s economy will benefit from substantial rebalancing.  Although the SDLP has shown signs of original thinking on growth, its dependency culture is more deeply ingrained. Take Alex Attwood’s  response to proposed coalition welfare reform and its effects on Northern Ireland, where we have the highest level of economic inactivity in the UK. The government’s view, which will be developed in a report by Ian Duncan Smith’s Centre for Social Justice , launched today in Belfast,

In today's Belfast Telegraph I wonder whether the social cohesion which saw Britain through previous crises has gone for good. Are people today unwilling to make sacrifices for the greater good? It can certainly seem that way. The debt crisis has not been greeted universally by steely determination to sort out our collective financial woes. Although most people accept that the deficit should be cut, or everyone will suffer the consequences, the blame and the buck are too often passed elsewhere. The attitude is that someone else, anyone else, can take our share of the pain. Don't touch my water rates, my pension, my pay rise or the services my family use. Another sector, another department or another region can foot more of the bill. Even modest economies are fiercely contested. The message that a little restraint today will ensure a brighter future tomorrow cuts little ice. It's a trite comparison, but one wonders how the United Kingdom would have defended itself had the

The Budget Debate is continuing with predictable rancour.  Punch and Judy politics writ large.  Harriot Harman, acting Labour leader, set the tone in her response to the Chancellor‘s statement, failing to outline any alternative policies or to admit a shred of culpability on behalf of the previous government for the economic mess in which the UK finds itself. The detail will be teased out over the next few days, but Andrew Tyrie MP, chairman of the Treasury Select Committee, delivered the best instant assessment, concluding that the budget represents a good start for a government determined to take radical action on the deficit. In George Osborne’s speech great emphasis was placed on the ’progressive’ credentials of the coalition’s plans.  The Liberal Democrats are of course determined to protect the perception that they are committed to fairness, but the Conservatives too, under Cameron’s leadership, have consistently challenged the cooption of the word ’progress’ to a statist, c

In today's Belfast Telegraph I acknowledge that the budget cut penny seems to have dropped with Finance Minister, Sammy Wilson, but I ask whether Peter Robinson shares his realism? For some time our politicians have realised that separate water charges are unavoidable. With the budget tightening, it would be folly to defer them any longer. To Wilson's credit, he has argued the case for an immediate introduction. It is the type of unpopular decision which must be made in the interests of good government. When the Finance Minister authored a paper, working on the assumption that charges would be introduced for the 2011-12 financial year, however, he was rebuffed by his colleague in the First Minister's office Robinson rejected the document, describing it as "unwise", and rubbished the notion that the Executive is to implement a 'tap tax'. It is not the first time that the two DUP men have clashed over economic policy. Previously, Wilson declared his scept

Already there is a theme emerging in David Cameron’s treatment of the devolved regions.  The government is keen to allow the institutions in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales plenty of leeway, on the understanding that they take responsibility for their own decisions. The emergency budget has been announced and, naturally, each nation and region is expected to do its bit.  However, the new Lib Dem Chief Secretary to the Treasury, David Laws, has emphasised that the two devolved Assemblies and Scotland’s Parliament can defer any cuts. It is an ingenious and eminently fair solution which neatly sidesteps the argument that budgets for this year have already been set.  Although, as New Right points out , it also allows parties to avoid getting their hands dirty before 2011’s elections. David Cameron, as he had promised, quickly added trips to each of the UK’s capitals to the hectic schedule of establishing a new government.  He understands that devolution has changed the dynamics

Taking on Paxman in a no-holds barred, 30 minute interview was always a risk, but has David Cameron made a gaffe by singling out Northern Ireland and the North East of England as regions which are unsustainably reliant on the public sector? No. But he might have made the Conservative task here a little bit harder with his remarks. Because, however incontrovertible their content, he has given his opponents a stick to beat him with. The Belfast Telegraph, increasingly open about its left-statist bias, gleefully splashed this morning with ‘Cameron: I’ll target Ulster for cutbacks’. Of course, there isn't even the tiniest doubt that what the Tory leader said was 100% accurate. Anyone with a shred of interest in Northern Ireland’s economy agrees that it is a basket case and the imbalance between the public and private sectors needs to be addressed, urgently. But during an election campaign it is not enough simply to be accurate. Cameron must have known how a special mention for just

Last night’s ‘chancellors’ debate’ witnessed some uncomfortable moments for George Osborne. The Conservatives will be relieved to get his tussle with Alistair Darling and Vince Cable over, so early in the election campaign. Channel 4’s programme acted as a starting pistol for the parties’ television battle, but the Tories hope deft performances from David Cameron will give them the edge in three set-piece leaders debates, which form the centre-piece to TV poll coverage. Although Osborne made a brave attempt at ’triangulating’ his pitch to both traditional Conservative voters and the centre ground, the shadow chancellor struggled to defend his party’s latest pledge on National Insurance. Whereas, just a year ago, the Tory message was confident and it was conservative politics which fizzed with intellectual energy, the imminent election, and narrowing poll leads, have caused the party and its leader to look less sure-footed. Despite the ’gravitational pull’ of the Thatcherite right

Last week, Shadow Sectretary of State, Owen Paterson, conducted an exchange with Paul Goggins, the NIO’s Minister of State, about the fate of PMS savers. The transcript can be read here . To digress briefly, apart from Paterson’s questions, you can also sample the horrendous, obsequious attitude of Sylvia Hermon to Goggins and his superior, Shaun Woodward. “Excellent ministers for Northern Ireland”! On what planet does this woman live? Thoroughly inaccurate and cringe-making, at the same time! One of the controversies these ‘excellent ministers’ have presided over is the failure to reimburse Presbyterian Mutual investors, rendering them, thus far, the only British savers who have lost out, because of the banking crisis. Paterson promises a Conservative secretary of state will “stand up for the people of Northern Ireland” as regards this issue. I hope he is right. One group which has suggested a possible solution to the PMS situation is the Cobden Centre . In today’s Belfast Tel

A guest post from Dr Phil Larkin A CULTURE OF BUSINESS FOR THE NORTH: A SCHOOL OF BUSINESS FOR BELFAST? Introduction Working as I now am in the South of England, and making frequent trips down to London to visit friends and family, one thing that has struck me is the number of people from Northern Ireland who are living and working down here, either in a professional capacity or as proprietors of their own businesses (this is true also of people from other parts of Ireland, but for the purposes of this article I intend to concentrate only on those from the North). Very often, they are the graduates of top universities, and are highly intelligent, industrious and motivated individuals, keen to advance in their own professions, or build up their own businesses for the benefit of themselves and their families – in other words, the type of people one would encourage to come back and live in Northern Ireland, where they could work as potential wealth creators for the benefit of the whole of

On the Cobden Centre website Toby Baxendale explains a piece of high economics which he claims offers a pain free method to refund Presbyterian Mutual customers. The society’s investors are considered the only private savers in the UK to have lost deposits due to the banking crisis. The article forms a wider critique of institutions which invest savers’ money. By a process of financial alchemy banks, building societies and other organisations, conjure credit from the ether, which increases the money supply and leaves the depositor reliant on an illusion that his / her money is being kept safe until he / she needs it. Baxendale wants to see legislation which provides savers with the tools to dictate how much risk a bank or building society can take with their money. It is a scheme grounded in conservative principles of sound money and it offers a useful corrective to the idea that conservative economics are in thrall to financial wizardry, or the banking system. Savers, and pol

It is commonly asserted that the Conservatives have yet to ‘seal the deal’ with the British public, despite the party’s consistent poll leads. There is anxiety in the country, it is argued, that austerity measures aimed at getting the economy back on track, will be applied with excessive zealotry by the Tories. The Conservative lead has looked most surmountable when David Cameron’s message has steered away from centrist, bridge-building rhetoric, designed to portray the party as ‘progressive’. The challenge for the Tories is to maintain a softer, communitarian image, whilst emphasising the party’s credentials as an economic custodian. And, in addition, there are difficulties with a Conservative base, which is often less moderate than its leadership. A tax cutting, service slashing programme might not be popular in the country at large, but it would receive rabid support at grassroots. Yesterday, speaking on behalf of those grassroots, the Telegraph leader urged ‘boldness’ from Da

Polly Toynbee's latest ‘class war’ piece is a conceptually threadbare piece of writing. I get the impression that whilst she still feels compelled to bang the tribal political drum she is now barely convinced by her own arguments. Despite what Toynbee might contend, the Cameron Conservative message that a Tory government will prioritise poverty is getting through. It has remained a consistent thread through various policy documents. The simple truth is that the Guardian columnist instinctively recoils from an approach which tackles the causes of poverty as well as its symptoms. Thus measures which encourage responsibility, help people into work or remove tax penalties on married couples and savers are presented, not as attempts to nourish society, but rather, in Polly’s world, become unconscionable attacks on the poor. Toynbee argues that each of the shadow chancellor George Osborne’s tax plans is intended to benefit the seriously wealthy. Her claims do not bear scrutiny.

A quick line this morning (there will be lengthier posts appearing later this week I can assure you). John Redwood and Carl Thomson have produced a pamphlet entitled 'More For Less' on behalf of the Bow Group. It aims to set out practical methods which could deliver public savings cuts whilst protecting front line services.

Once again the DUP has attacked Ulster Unionists on the basis that their Conservative partners intend to tackle the budget deficit. Simon Hamilton, during a finance debate, alleged that 10% cuts in the block grant would be sought, under a Tory government. First of all, the Tories have not specified a 10% cut for Northern Ireland. Second, all parties agree that the UK's budget deficit must be reduced. Does the DUP seriously reject this analysis? Or does it believe that Northern Ireland alone should not play its part in delivering efficiencies? If it doesn't recognise the need to cut spending, then it should outline its alternative economic plan for the UK, if it takes its position as a unionist party seriously. Although my suspicion is that grown up politics is a leap too far for Robinson's party. It is more suited to operating as a local pressure group, constantly demanding more money.