Stormont's end of term report card - could do better?
When Stormont reached the first anniversary of its return following the two-year hiatus of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) boycott there was a little self-congratulation, but also the realisation that mere survival would no longer cut it.In short, the honeymoon was over. Almost immediately there was a marked rise in sharp exchanges across the chamber over issues like Casement Park and immigration.But stasis is still the pervading feeling.
Stormont's inability to get the big things done is embodied by a lack of movement over things like Casement Park (not entirely Stormont's fault, but undoubtedly now its problem) and the upgrading of the A5 - a major infrastructure project -hamstrung because it fell foul of Stormont's own climate change targets.You could not make it up.And even when the four-party executive manages to achieve what predecessors have failed to achieve it is seen by critics to fall short.The first Programme for Government agreed in more than a decade was said to lack ambition.It finally produced an Anti-Poverty strategy, albeit nearly 20 years late.But instead of winning praise, a group of local charities say it was so flawed it was worse than no strategy at all.
What has the executive achieved in its 500+ days back?
Apart from still being there...In no particular order:A total of £688m allocated for public sector payAn extra £1.3 billion secured through successful negotiations with the TreasuryA £25m plan for a new Childcare Subsidy SchemeA strategic Framework to End Violence Against Women and GirlsBut still, Stormont's capacity to achieve defeat from the jaws of victory was encapsulated by the gleaming new edifice known as Belfast's Grand Central Station - all £340m of it.No sooner were the parties basking in the reflected glory than the DUP and Sinn Féin were at each other's throats over a plan by the Sinn Fein Infrastructure Minister Liz Kimmins to introduce Irish language signage.
This week at her final first minister's questions of this term Michelle O'Neill and the Social Democratic and Labour Party's leader of the opposition Matthew O'Toole clashed over what had - and had not - been achieved.O'Toole told her: "With respect, first minister, staged photo ops and platitudes are not enough anymore. You are, with respect, an elected leader, not a royal. "You are blaming others when your ministers have failed to do the basics. "If the government in Dublin had the delivery record of the government that you lead here, your party would have, rightly, roasted them."She countered: "I have heard the member at this all day. He talks flippantly about an end-of-term report. "Well, let me tell you about your end-of-term report. "I have heard three things from the now funded and resourced opposition. I repeat: the funded and resourced opposition. "The three things that I have heard are negativity, negativity and negativity."
When the former DUP First Minister Peter Robinson returned recently to unveil his portrait in the Great Hall he gave a more optimistic prognosis from the outside."It almost seems normal around here," he said."Obviously more can be done and as a small country you should be able to turn things around more quickly."The fact that you have roughly the same composition of government means you should be able to have more long term planning because you're not moving from one government to a different government."At least it's a variation on the "what can you do in a four-party coalition comprised of parties with competing agendas?" argument.But, as Speaker Poots reminded MLAs this week, when they return from summer recess there will be little more than 18 months before the Assembly dissolves for the next election.And you know what elections can mean for inter-party relations.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
36 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Post Office victims ‘to wait three more years for payouts'
Victims of the Post Office Horizon scandal could wait another three years for compensation, lawyers have warned. Many victims of the scandal are still awaiting full redress, as one of the final reports from the long-running inquiry – looking at the impact on those who had their lives destroyed and compensation – is set to be published on Tuesday. More than 900 sub-postmasters were wrongfully prosecuted by the Post Office between 1999 and 2015 after faulty Horizon software made it look as though money was missing from the business accounts. The previous Conservative government said those who had their convictions quashed were eligible for £600,000 payouts – with victims such as Amanda and Norman Barber accepting the fixed offer. Despite losing their business and home, the couple, from Warrington, said they found it 'almost impossible' to provide the details required to have their case individually assessed so did not want to risk 'getting less'. Unexplained shortfalls in their accounts at Thelwall Post Office eventually led to them being prosecuted over a deficit of £5,600 – despite using around £200,000 of their own money to attempt to balance the books. Both received a community order of 12 months and 100 hours' community service. Missing evidence Speaking about the redress process, Mrs Barber, 55, said: 'We were being asked to produce evidence we simply couldn't get our hands on with regards to our losses as we are talking going back 15 years. 'We found it almost impossible to provide the details needed to go down the route of having our case individually assessed. 'It just didn't seem worth it. I think sub-postmasters are still being left in an impossible situation when it comes to seeking true and full redress. 'Given the time it would take we simply couldn't risk a full assessment and getting less, particularly because the lack of documents we had. 'It got to the stage where, when the £600,000 was offered, it seemed the best way to bring years of torture to an end.' Redress has been a key issue for sub-postmasters since the scandal came to light, with many finding the various compensation schemes difficult to navigate. Lead campaigner Sir Alan Bates previously described the various processes as 'quasi-kangaroo courts', telling The Sunday Times that the Department for Business and Trade 'sits in judgment of the claims and alters the goal posts as and when it chooses'. The chairman of the Horizon IT inquiry, Sir Wyn Williams, is due to publish his findings on redress on Tuesday. Mrs Barber, who will join other sub-postmasters in attending the report's publication event, said: 'We feel we just need to be there to hear what is said. 'Lives were ruined and compensation has been made too hard to get, and too little by far.' One law firm involved in securing redress for victims, Hudgell Solicitors, said it still had more than 700 compensation cases to resolve. Solicitor Neil Hudgell said the firm had agreed damages for more than 300 people, totalling £170 million, but said the redress process had 'far too much red tape to get through'. He said: 'We have seen inconsistencies between the various compensation schemes, which remain over-engineered and over-legalistic, with far too much red tape to get through. 'There has also been a repeated failure to give the benefit of the doubt to sub-postmasters in appropriate circumstances. 'It's made it far too long a process for so many people who have been through so much, and are now in the latter stages of their lives. 'It has been re-traumatising for many, and increasing numbers are sadly passing away without seeing redress.' Addressing how long it could take for all claims to be settled, the solicitor added: 'At the current speed, we are looking at another two to three years.' Mr Hudgell said one client who was initially offered £50,000 has seen their offer rise to £500,000. He added: 'It is not a one-off glitch, but a stark illustration of a very common issue. 'It has been a painful process for all, and ended with a new appeals process being confirmed earlier this year, in recognition that many people had been under-compensated.' In a statement, the Department for Business and Trade said: 'We are grateful for the Inquiry's work, which has revealed the immeasurable suffering that victims of the scandal have endured. 'This Government has quadrupled the total amount paid to affected postmasters to provide them with full and fair redress, with more than £1 billion having now been paid to over 7,300 claimants.'
Times
40 minutes ago
- Times
Neil Kinnock: Labour should bring in ‘wealth tax' to balance books
Sir Keir Starmer should introduce a wealth tax to fill the £5 billion hole in the finances left by the government's welfare climbdown, Labour's former leader Lord Kinnock has said. In a provocative intervention that will appeal to sections of the party's backbenchers, Kinnock said taxing the highest earners in the country would be popular with the 'great majority of the general public' and help Rachel Reeves fill her budget shortfall. He suggested that the tax could be levied on assets of more than £10 million and raise as much as £11 billion for the Treasury. He warned that the chancellor had become boxed in by her own words that ruled out further borrowing to cover day-to-day spending or raising income tax, national insurance or VAT. • Is reform of the welfare system still possible? 'Unless you are looking for other original sources of revenue in order to invest in public services and long term investment, then you are really jammed into a bit of a corner,' he told Sky News. However, Kinnock said that there were other 'pathways' to raise money that some within Labour were 'willing to explore' and that would 'commend themselves to the great majority of the general public'. He said: 'They include asset taxes in a period in which for the last 20 odd years in the United Kingdom, like quite a lot of other western economies, earned incomes have stagnated in real terms while asset values have zoomed. 'Even by going for, an imposition of two per cent (tax) on asset values above £10 million, say, which is very big fortune. The government would be in a position to collect £10 or £11 billion a year.' There are calls from the left of the party for Reeves to consider increasing taxes on wealth to pay for higher spending. Louise Haigh, the former transport secretary who quit the cabinet last year, has said that the tax system 'punishes earned income but barely touches the sides of the real driver of inequality — wealth'. Rachael Maskell, who was one of the leaders of the backbench Labour rebellion which forced the government to drop its welfare reform suggested that as much as £24 billion a year could be raised by equalising capital gains tax — and through income tax. Before the election, Reeves said that the government had 'no plans for a wealth tax'. • Keir Starmer's Labour as chaotic as Tories, voters say Bridget Phillipson, the education secretary, warned on Sunday that the climbdown on welfare reform would impact other areas of government tax and spending. Downing Street sources told The Sunday Times plans to shelve the two-child benefit cap were 'dead in the water' while the likelihood of tax rises has increased. When asked if there was now less chance of the cap being scrapped given the costs that come with Tuesday's decision, Ms Phillipson told the BBC that ministers were 'looking at every lever and we'll continue to look at every lever to lift children out of poverty'. But she added: 'The decisions that have been taken in the last week do make future decisions harder.' Reeves is looking at a number of potential tax-raising measures ahead of the budget, including a further freeze to income tax thresholds that would increase the number of people paying the higher rate of tax. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) said that Reeves may need as much as £30 billion to cover the cost of reversals on welfare reform and winter fuel payments coupled with downgrades to economic growth forecasts. But the Treasury is likely to be reluctant to look at wealth taxes as it is feared this could increase the flight of the super-rich from the UK, damaging investment and growth. Reeves is already considering softening changes to inheritance tax that affect wealthy non-doms. Sir Mel Stride, the shadow chancellor, said a new wealth tax would be the 'worst thing to do'. He said: 'We've also seen around 10,000 to 15,000 high net worth individuals leave our country as a result of this government's policies. Now, some people, the socialists, might say, 'Well, who cares about that?' Well, the problem is that the amount of tax that those people have been paying requires about a third of a million people on average earnings, to cover that lost tax that's just gone straight out of the door. 'So the last thing we want to be doing now is piling further taxes on the wealth creators. We need to be, if anything, getting those taxes down, and empowering them to go out and do what they do best, which is creating jobs, and, you know, creating wealth and prosperity for our country.'
Times
41 minutes ago
- Times
Palestine Action is malign, but terror status goes too far
At midnight on Saturday, Palestine Action became officially proscribed under the Terrorism Act. In that ignoble status, it joins al-Qaeda, Hamas and Isis. Voicing support for, or being a member of, Palestine Action is now punishable by up to 14 years in prison. Predictably enough, a number of adherents of the anti-Israeli direct action group do not seem to have been chastened. Following a failed last-minute High Court effort to block the group's proscription, dozens of protestors were arrested over the weekend on suspicion of supporting the organisation. They included an 83-year-old priest, as well as others thought to be 'wearing clothing or displaying articles' indicating membership of a terrorist organisation. That Palestine Action is a malign force is beyond doubt. Its members include sinister ideologues, deeply confused in their geopolitical outlooks and their assessment of the best way to secure their objectives. The group's 'disruptive tactics' involve calculated acts of criminal damage, illegal occupation of premises, and intimidating acts of vandalism. Since its founding in 2020, the group has had a hand in around 500 distinct instances of 'direct action', often targeting firms and property suspected of having links to Israel. The most serious act for which the group claimed credit was when four people were arrested on suspicion of causing £7 million of damage to two military transporter aircraft at RAF Brize Norton. It was this that prompted Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, to judge that the group had 'crossed the threshold established in the Terrorism Act'. • Police defend arrest of 83-year-old Palestine Action activist Yet, however wanton its criminality, it remains a stretch to brand Palestine Action a terror group. Its members are qualitatively different from those of al-Qaeda, and pose a substantially different kind of threat to public order and national security. Their tactics more closely resemble those of extremist environmentalist groups like Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion than those of Islamist terrorists. In recent months, a combination of public ill will, effective prosecution and proportionate sentencing have made it unviable for climate activists to persist with their criminal antics. In March this year, Just Stop Oil announced an end to its practices of criminal vandalism, claiming implausibly to have achieved its objectives. In reality, they were prosecuted into submission by legitimate use of the criminal law. The heavy-handed branding of Palestine Action as terrorists risks seeming absurd when bona fide hostile military groupings like the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps remain unproscribed. The destruction of property that Palestine Action has made its calling card can already be prosecuted. There are legitimate concerns that such measures risk suppressing dissent on the part of those politically opposed to the government's support of Israeli defence policy. Palestine Action's members may be misguided, but Britain must remain a country in which the right to express unpopular and dissenting political views is not subject to outright prohibition. The emergence in recent years of activist groups that make criminal forms of destruction and public nuisance their modus operandi does raise challenges for law enforcement. Lord Walney, the government's former independent adviser on extremism, has recently mooted an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill which would give police greater power to curb the illegal antics of extremist groups that fall shy of terrorist organisations. These might include powers to block their ability to fundraise, organise on social media, or live-stream acts of criminality. These lighter-touch measures would be an obviously apt response to the level of threat posed. Palestine Action are an antisocial menace to public order; but politicians should not do them the service of taking them as seriously as they take themselves.
