Immaturity and governance

The general public would be right to ask why a process which started some seven years ago to reform local government in danger of collapsing due to a failure to meet legislative deadlines. They public may feel that given the time available those responsible could have managed the process better. The truth is yes they could. There is no single reason why this process should now be stalled. Instead there are several. The public should judge whether or not they are viable reasons.

Drawing up the boundaries for the new councils was always going to be fraught with difficulty. The balance between retaining local identity and the efficient delivery of services was always going to create tensions. For that reason a Boundaries Commissioner was appointed to take an independent view of these issues.

While local political parties and Councils could make representation, the decision was placed in the hands of an independent Commissioner. Imagine the situation if the decision was left to a Councillor from Belfast and a Councillor from Lisburn/Castlereagh to decide the boundary around Forestside or the Ice Bowl. Since whichever Council has Forestside has a significant income and whichever Council has the ice bowl has a significant liability in terms of upkeep, two opposing councillors in this situation will never agree.

Yet despite the independence of the Commissioner the process has one more hurdle. This hurdle is the Northern Ireland Executive where Belfast Councillor Sammy Wilson MP MLA Minister of Finance and Personnel, former Minister of the Environment, has one view and Lisburn Councillor Edwin Poots MLA, Minister of the Environment, apparently takes a different view.

The entire basis upon which the independent Boundaries Commissioner was appointed, to prevent this issue being stalled by two or more councillors taking opposing views, has been overridden. Logic and good governance would dictate that both Councillors would exclude themselves from this particular issue due to a conflict of interest, yet instead their narrow agendas combine to bring the process close to collapse.

While all of this has been going on, consultants PwC have been working on the economic appraisal of the various options to transform how councils work. This appraisal, recently released, has raised more questions about the outcome of the RPA than it has provided answers. Rather than starting the process by looking at what can be achieved by Northern Ireland’s councils working together, PwC have based their projections on previous experiences in carrying out similar work in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Since local government in the rest of the United Kingdom is very different PWC’s figures are based on guessing what the impact would be in Northern Ireland. In some areas costs which will fall to councils are ignored and in other areas savings which can be made are not counted. The result is an economic appraisal without any robust economic basis. The report has caused so much concern that Local Government Associations in England Scotland and Wales are writing to the Minister to warn him of their concerns.

The report suggests that local councils will be able to borrow the money to pay for the transformation they propose. However, projecting the savings to be made over 25 years seems more like wishful thinking than sound economics. Who 5 years ago would have predicted with any certainty where the economy would be today? Yet we are asked to accept at face value the figures given for a 25 year period. One Scottish council Chief Executive has informed us that they too were given such promises yet after 15 years they are still not seeing the benefits in financial terms.

Which brings us to the third issue, policing and justice. What might one ask has local government reform got to do with policing and justice? First we must recognise that Sinn Fein never wanted the 11 council model of local government, their preferred option was for 7 councils over which they would have more control. Unionism wanted a 15 council model until the DUP and SF agreed on 11. Now Sinn Fein see within the PwC report an opportunity to back out of the process citing the cost, abandon the reforms and come back at a later date asking for 7. This would leave the DUP holding the can for 7 years wasted effort within central and local government and many millions of pounds lost. Except, despite all their concerns about finance and desire for a 7 council model, Sinn Fein might, just might set aside their concerns if policing and justice was devolved to their timescale.

Should RPA go ahead? Of course it should. Over the past few years Councillors and staff have all identified the opportunities to deliver services to the community in a more effective and efficient manner. Working closely together the opportunities are there to deliver value for money at the same time as transforming our communities through community planning and improving the health of society by integrating sport and leisure with health and well-being. A spat between Councillors in the Executive, a poorly prepared appraisal and an opportunistic attempt at political bribery are signs of a dysfunctional Government unable to manage change not reasons to set aside a process that will improve the quality of life of our communities. The Ulster Unionist Party initiated this process because we had the foresight to prepare for a Government that will bring change for the better to people’s lives. We cannot allow those who have the mandate to govern but not the maturity to govern to take that change away.

Peter's u-turn moment

The news that the DUP have reneged on their promise to end double-jobbing comes as no surprise given their record of misleading people in previous elections. The rationale for the u-turn has raised a few eyebrows. Peter Robinson has put his decision down to considering “the extent to which the party organisation is able to provide us with the additional personalities to stand.” Peter, your party has never had a problem finding personalities, finding politicians, now that is another matter. To put the decision in context lets consider the case of Councillor Rev William McCrea MP MLA. No doubt with the news that he can continue to hold multiple jobs William is scouring the auction houses for walnut bookcases to match his walnut desk. Cllr Rev William McCrea MP MLA tells us that he spends 250 hours per month on Assembly business, given that an MP serving in a national Parliament should spend at least as much time as those in a devolved assembly on Parliamentary business, lets say he should be spending another 250 hours per month as MP. That’s 500 hours over 25 days giving him Sundays and two other days a month off (in Williams case he has another job for Sundays so he is not actually off). So that’s 20 hours a day William should be working (leaving out the fact that he also has to cover his role as Councillor). The truth is that it can’t be done and for unionism the sad fact is that it is the representation of the people of Northern Ireland in the national parliament that is suffering. Peter thinks it’s about the money, he is only partially right, greed is a factor. But it’s not the only issue. Many people across Northern Ireland are denied representation in national politics by abstentionist republican MPs. Many more are denied proper representation by almost abstentionist DUP MPs. At the time when republicans avoid Parliament then those elected for other parties by the people of Northern Ireland have a responsibility to be at Westminster more to ensure their voice is heard. The big issues of concern to the people of Northern Ireland such as taxation, pensions, Europe and the Barnett formula amongst others will be debated come the next Government. For the lack of a few “personalities” Peter Robinson will deny the people of Northern Ireland a voice. Where DUP candidates have double, triple or quadruple jobs lets make it clear there shall be no election of abstentionist DUP MP’s. The people have an opportunity to end this nonsense, it’s time for change.

conference time

Only a few weeks ago I was listening to William Hague at the Conservative conference and on Saturday I had the opportunity to listen to him again at the Ulster Unionist Party conference. A seasoned performer Hague perhaps took on the leadership too early in his career but he will provide the backbone of Conservative Governments for many years. His attendance on Saturday continued the process of developing the partnership between the Conservatives and Ulster Unionists despite the attempts of other parties to introduce friction.
Like all major conferences the Ulster Unionist Party conference has become a carefully choreographed media event. Journalists attend because they have too but know that if they come away with a scoop it will be by accident more than design. By convention other constitutional parties are invited to send along observers, not every member is aware of this which can give rise to some interesting moments. The members of the DUP were easily spotted, obviously concerned at the large turnout and confident mood. Pauline Armitage was also there though members were not quite sure if she was back in the fold or at the conference representing someone else. The local Conservatives were much in evidence with their prospective candidates engaging widely with Ulster Unionists from across the country.
Amongst the positives, beyond the attendance and positive atmosphere, was the large number of young talented unionists actively engaged in the background. It is they who will carry the party forward for the next twenty or thirty years and many of them should be seeking opportunities to represent unionism in the next Assembly and Council elections. In terms of public relations and policy we have pulled together the best teams in Northern Ireland politics though no doubt their collective blood pressure was elevated over the weekend.
While the conference delivered all that we could have expected there are a few areas where we can try and make things better.
Ø The Ramada is a better venue in that it keeps the delegates closer to those organisations attending in order to inform or lobby them.
Ø Given the rise in social media the introduction of a video booth to record delegate’s views of speeches and issues would create another outlet for grassroots views.
Ø The need to keep to schedule foreshortened some of the debates and perhaps future conference organisers will consider whether conferences should be themed to provide the opportunity for more in depth debate.

When the biggest negative issue raised by the press was that Fred Cobain left early to see Crusaders (ignoring those who left early to see the blues and the Glens) then all in all a good days work.
This post also appears over at the Open Unionism blog.

Now for change

Last week was taken up with an excursion to the Conservative Party conference. Over the four days I had the pleasure of hearing from politicians with a real sense of how to govern and who understood how society works. It was clear that this is a party who expect to govern and rather than gloating accept the responsibility with a determination to meet the issues that face society head on. There is no expectation that the next 5 years will be easy, rather the opposite.

For Ulster Unionists the reception was warm and there was a real sense of being part of a wider UK movement. The challenge over the next 6mths is to spread the message and bring real politics to Northern Ireland.

The Apostles

The 12 apostles of the DUP have risen from their slumber and issued a direct challenge to the party leader Peter Robinson. In todays debate on the devolution of Policing and Justice a succession of senior DUP representatives led by an almost hysterical Rev McCrea stated clearly that the devolution of Policing and Justice was a non runner unless the confidence required was present in the Unionist community. While the UUP has focussed on both the finances and the competence to deliver a policing and justice service the DUP according to the Rev McCrea and his side-kick Mr Clarke demand the right to parade the Queens highway any where in Northern Ireland as the price to be paid for the devolution of policing and justice. Each to their own I suppose but clearly the 12 apostles were sending several shots very close to the good ship Peter. Is this the start of a leadership campaign in the DUP?

Money money money

Mr Macawber in David Copperfield by Charles Dickens, explains the concept of budgeting thus. “Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pound nought and six, result misery.”



There has been a lot of talk and discussion about the current financial situation the UK finds itself in and for the average man in the street the discussions about millions and billions are meaningless unless they can relate the issues to their daily lives. This blog therefore is my attempt to portray the current situation as if the same issue affected an average family. At least it's my attempt to explain it as far as I understand it; please keep in mind I'm no Vince Cable.



Take the example of someone in a relatively stable job working 9 to 5. During times when business is good the management suggest that they start work at 8.30 and finish at 5.30 earning themselves some overtime and additional income. Over time they become used to having the extra money and it has worked its way into their normal budget. At the end of the week when the bills for electricity, heat, petrol, mortgage and car loan have been paid they have £100 left to spend on groceries which they happily do. They become used to a standard of living based on a certain income.



Then things change, the business isn't as profitable and management don't need that extra hour from the staff so overtime is cut. When the end of the week comes and the bills are paid there is only £75 left for groceries. Being used to a certain standard of living the individual still collects the same shopping as usual. They pay their £75 in cash and put the remaining £25 on their credit card in the sure and certain expectation that things will improve. This continues for a few weeks and becomes routine, since the same standard of living is maintained there is no need to look at alternatives, no need to change the way they shop, no need to look at the other bills to try and reduce them, no need to look for further income.



Then one day when the cash is paid and the credit card is handed over the cashier looks up expectantly and utters those dreaded words "I'm sorry but your card has been declined". The immediate consequence is to identify those elements of the weekly shop that you can do without in the short term but the longer term consequence is going to be more difficult. In future you won't have £75 to spend on groceries because you must add £10 to the existing bills to pay off the credit card loan. Thats fine if you can easily get by on £65 of groceries but what if the absolute minimum you need is £70 or £75. As Mr Macawber would point out: result misery. There were a number of choices which could have been made when the problem first arose, did the individual really need Sky Sports?, did they really need the car?, could they have taken a part-time job to make up their income?. At first deciding on any one of these may have addressed the short fall or alternatively a review of the weekly shop to look for better value may have meant a balanced budget. Now however as things have deteriorated the ability to choose a course of action is limited and the possibility exists that all options will have to be implemented.



Of course with hindsight there are lessons to be learnt. Don't expect that the maximum level of income available will be the norm. What would have been the outcome had the budget for groceries been set at £75 with any additional income set aside as savings? The focus on value for money may very well have been more pronounced and that £25 would have established a useful fund to be used for major items or a rainy day. Enough savings would have paid for the car rather than taking a further loan and paying the interest on the loan. The money left when the bills were paid would have been increased by the level of the car loan repayment.



And for Governments who wield the credit cards in the face of reduced income there are similar lessons, acting quickly gives you choices, delay and you will have others make choices for you. Credit is a useful business tool but there must be limits. Some things will have to wait until resources are available and some things we are paying for we do not need.

Gary McKinnon

The decision to allow the extradition of Gary McKinnon to the US on charges of hacking US defence computers raises a number of questions for both administrations. As an individual with Asperger's Syndrome the fate of Gary McKinnon must strike fear into the families of those with children or siblings with the same condition. The intense focus on a particular issue is a consequence of the syndrome and in many cases this could be a mundane subject such as cricket scores, trains or the weather. In Gary's case his focus was on the presence of UFO's and believing the US was covering up their existence he went looking for evidence. Using a normal computer with an internet connection he delved into the files of 97 US government computers looking for the evidence he believed was being hidden. He was identified while downloading a picture of what he believed was a UFO from one such computer to his own email address. He now faces a prison term of 60 years in a US maximum security prison. The question for the UK Government is to define the level of care provided to those with conditions such as Asberger's where the condition itself is not dangerous or threatening but its outworkings can leave individuals vulnerable.

For the US Government the questions are more practical. Having had their most secure computers infiltrated by someone in the UK with a basic computer and internet connection how secure can their systems be against the combined efforts of the Russians, North Koreans, China, Al Qaeda or any other intelligence service? Gary McKinnon has shown the US just how weak their defences are. The US should be thanking him and asking his advice not lashing out at an easy target.