Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
LAST UPDATE | 16 Jan 2024
TOO OFTEN, POLITICS in the North is determined and decided by its winter theatre; by its endless plays of negotiation and talks.
And, far too often, the politics of this place is a story of power cuts rather than power sharing; power cuts in the sense of an absence of government.
It can be like that for years on end. Stormont in the dark. A political shell.
We are in another of those crisis scenes, except it doesn’t feel like a crisis; because failure here has been normalised.
The absurd has come to be accepted.
We are too understanding when it comes to politics not working.
There is a ‘so-what-type’ of attitude to not having a functioning government.
Talks that say and do the same things, that turn in circles, are treated as news, even when there is nothing new to say.
But our story is not just about the brokenness of Stormont, but the wider damage. All that breaks beneath it.
Tomorrow, thousands and thousands of workers will go on strike.
Services are crumbling.
The people who are holding this place together have been taken for granted for far too long.
The strikes are an expression of that anger
The UK Government has offered a financial package to help make things better.
And, right now, it seems we are in one of those political games, waiting to see who blinks first.
Secretary of State Chris Heaton Harris is holding to the line that the £3 billion-plus financial offer is linked to an Executive being in place.
In other words, no government means no money.
Things are further complicated by the fact that for months and months and, then, for more months, the UK Government has engaged in one-party talks with the DUP.
These are about trying to settle arguments over post-Brexit trading arrangements; arrangements that unionists see as treating Northern Ireland differently from the rest of the UK.
There has been talk of a constitutional crisis, and no talk about Brexit being the cause of that.
One-party talks in Northern Ireland don’t work. Certainly haven’t worked to this point.
While Sir Jeffrey Donaldson speaks of significant progress, that progress is still short of him being in a position to return his party to the Executive.
You hear the frustration in the voices of the other leaders.
Ulster Unionist Doug Beattie likened talks with Heaton-Harris on Monday to “a bit like a teacher-parent evening telling us how we are doing”.
He described no movement whatsoever, and said nothing has changed.
Beattie told the Cool FM political reporter James Gould that he has asked “many times” for the detail of those talks with the DUP to be shared so that others have a “better understanding of this”, but that hasn’t happened. Not yet.
There is no sense of a significant Plan B, of some defining or changing moment in these talks.
More time is always the Plan B, leaving Northern Ireland in some no man’s land between devolution and direct rule from London.
There is no bold initiative. No real pressure. No appetite it seems to put a bolt on Stormont’s door; a fear that to do so would be to accept failure in the peace and political processes of this place. A process that is held up to the rest of the world as something that works, except it doesn’t. Certainly not the political part of it.
There will be more theatre before the week is out, but for as long as we normalise this nonsense, nothing will change.
Stormont for the sake of Stormont is not worth having. Not worth the effort. Not unless something changes.
When something doesn’t work, you have to fix it.
We need an architect – a leader – someone who can think this place out of its mess.
Brian Rowan is a journalist and author. He is a former BBC correspondent in Belfast. Brian is the author of several books on Northern Ireland’s peace process. His new book, “Living With Ghosts” is out now at Merrion Press.
What have they got to hide if nothing then why shouldn’t we know . I suspect that expenses must be high otherwise there wouldn’t be a problem.
@Keith: I am of the opinion that the presidency is an unnecessary expense that we don’t need in its present form. But apparently, the spending has come in under budget for the past couple of years.
@Dermot Lane: we don’t have the facts & if the case it’s under budget then why not show ? My point is something is been kept from us & shouldn’t .
@Keith: Except we do know. We know the cost, we just don’t get an itemised spreadsheet so people can go through it and focus on something they’ve determined isn’t “acceptable”.
What’s the point of this, so we can moan that our President travels in a way that you and I don’t? Well yeah, they’re the President and I’m essentially grand with that.
If you think a ceremonial Head of State is something our Country should have (and I do) then I’m fine with them having a Budget. And as they have stayed within that why the sudden urge to get a breakdown.
Yeah who benefits from this?
@Dermot Lane: the presidency is a necessary expense of our republic imo if you want a figurehead to represent our people in the wider world.
@Dermot Lane: just because it’s under budget means nothing. You could set a budget of 100 mil knowing you need 10 mil and hey presto your under budget by 90%.
@Dermot Lane: but if the budget was say 10 million and Mike spent 9,5million its not great,saying “coming under budget” makes it sound good. But we don’t know the budget it has been given
@Dermot Lane: The role of the president is vital to our democracy. It’s not just a figurehead or a representative of the country. The job of the president is function as the guardian of the constitution and to stop government from pushing through unconstitutional laws.
@Keith: its nothing to do with something to hide; its got to do with it becoming a political football. I suggest leave as it is. Government wasts huge money on silly mistakes every day and nothing is said.
@Keith: so you believe in national ID cards, fingerprints on file, DNA database, PSC? Nothing to hide not a problem (by the way I agree with them)
It doesn’t matter. Because nothing ever becomes of inquiries.
Yes and no. As customers of this country, we should be shown how our money is spent. The timing of it is wrong.
@Brendan Hughes: why is timing wrong ? I think it’s about right as presidential election looms let’s see how honest Michael d really is.
@Keith: You think Micheal D sits down and decides how to spend the Budget of the Aras…….
Right……
@Brendan Hughes: you’re a customer you are a citizen.
@Brendan Hughes: Agreed. I like transparency, but this is nakedly a political stunt to bring question marks over Higgins just before an election. An American style “October surprise” if you will, designed to create a ‘no smoke without fire’ dialog around presidential spending.
@Brendan Hughes: Yes Brendan, there must be a “right-time” to uncover wastage of taxpayers money!
Got a good laugh out of that!
@Brendan Hughes: Not customers, citizens, big difference.
@Brendan Hughes: It’s perfect timing. If it was in the middle of the presidency nothing would change regarding spending. People wouldn’t pay attention. Michael D took on loads of extra staff. He has 27 staff. Why? And giving some special allowances. It’s such a waste. Champagne socialism at it’s finest.
If it’s held back till after the election, then obviously, there is some thing to hide. A no win situation.
What’s the big deal in waiting a month? Who is pushing this? Who benefits from this? Would it perhaps be SF?
@John McG: correct me if I’m wrong but Sean Fleming (FF), who is chairperson of the PAC voted in favour of it – like some of the other members of FF he might be trying to push support to Sean Gallagher – totally wrong timing – it should not influence an election, theyve had 7 years to look at it and they decide the week before nominations close – same old cloak and dagger politics – and in case of any doubt by all means conduct your enquiry if spending is negligent – but wait until the election is done.
@John McG: no-one pushing it. But someone – Martin and FF is interfering and asking for PAC to delay it.
@John McG:
Or the 3 dragons
@John McG: For once can we have some accountability concerning the expences of politicians. El Presidente Higgins, has no problem in preaching for an end to poverty, a fair distribution of wealth… He said this on visit to South America. The man is very quiet concerning the poverty inflicted on the ordinary people of Ireland with the blessing of his own party. As James Connolly stated a paracite among paracites.
Not much point in having it when the election is over!
Not much having it when it’s over!
Why would you say no to this question?
FFG are against having, and surely they would have little to hide….
Cough ;-)
@Willy Mc Caul:
It’s being pushed by FF members of the Public Accounts Committee.
To help their mate Gallagher.
Some people are so clueless it’s laughable.
At least try to keep up on how FF are being sleveens this week.
@Brinster: Why government move to block? Yep, all the one, FFG…
WHY just the presidents office what about all the other departments and what about the quangoes , lets see who is being paid from these.,however now is not the right time as it would be very unfair to M d Higgins .leave it until after the election .
@Anthony Gallagher: How is it unfair? if there is nothing to hide great, if all is not as it should be why let it continue?
It is not the president himself that decides spending for the office. Trying to make him responsible is politically motivated and would lead to bullshit responses from other candidates that they would cut spending etc.
The office of the president has to be independant of the dail constitutionally
So he can ultimately challenge a law and refer it the council.
The pac seems to think it is above the constitution
What’s the harm, it’s a promised govt policy to be open and transparent. Lol
A total waste of space,this Micky mouse job
Yes. We don’t need a president. Waste of money.
@Stipe Miocic: We do need a president though because we are a republic, it comes with the territory.
It’s also part of our constitution. So yes, we do need one.
Change the system of government and constitution if you feel otherwise.
This is just an excuse for people to give out about the cost of having a President.
This is about so much more than the cost of the Presidency. This the continuing idea that people in politics should not be paid a decent wage.
I’m ALL for making it easier for people to get involved in Politics but there appears to be a serious leaning towards making Politics open only to those that are financially independent.
You WANT smart people that are perfectly capable of earning a great salary in the private sector to get involved in politics otherwise you’ll only ever end up with those that are independently wealthy. Basically it’ll be the landowning class all over again and you can bet your ass they won’t be social democrats.
@Tricia G: What? You think the Presidents salary is worth it? Politicians are over paid in this country as well. A quarter of TDs are landlords. Where the fk have you been living? Not in the real world by the looks of it.
@Ian Breathnach: Well done entirely missing the point, focusing on individuals and not the whole, ignoring my hope that we would make it easier for others to get into Politics and essentially being a turkey voting for Christmas.
@Tricia G: “they won’t be social democrats”
Well then thank god, keep the status quo.
People have a myriad of political opinions, just because you think yours is right doesn’t mean you have to pontificate to everyone else. The Presidency could be done by a retired politician or accredited person for a quarter of the money.
And a quarter is being generous.
@Ian Breathnach:
A 30 year old manager in a big 4 consulting firm, or a senior manager in any multinational will make more than a TD, and they’ll make it a lot younger with a degree and some hard work, and without going to 150 funerals and 20 functions a year.
Tricia’s point is 100% valid. In fact, plenty of left-leaning councillors have been making this point recently – that county councillors don’t get a living wage, making it next to impossible for ordinary working people to make time to be a councillor, instead leaving the council to business owners and landlords who can carve out the time.
For example: A manager or technical architect with 10-15 years experience in ICT would be taking a paycut if they became a ministerial advisor to Denis Naughton. Yet folks complain then about how slow the tendering process is, and the late delivery of broadband, whilst in the same breath complaining about the use of consultants, and how much TDs and support staff are paid.
@Rónán O’Suilleabháin: in my opinion, they can’t give a living wage because the money is not there.
We need to remember the country has a big national debt and experienced austerity measures.
Hard to justify decent salaries when the creation of wealth these councilors bring is not materializing.
@Hellenize Dublin: I wouldn’t call the living wage decent in cities, I’d call it basic subsistence in a city like Dublin. They could pay for it, along with a few thousand social houses around the country, but getting rid of the discounts on property tax most councils keep pushing.
Yes, and then a referendum on wether to abolish it, depending on the cost.
If we had a referendum on the Seanad, why not the presidency?
Its the publics money,so
A review should take place every year. We’ve a right to know how out hard earned money is spent.
Look why is there even a question about whether this is a legitimate area of public interest?
it`s self evident, it`s public money ergo PAC should do i`ts job, not pussyfooting and apologizing and procrastinating around the issue and treating MDH like he has suddenly become the Dalai Lama, or maybe the Dail(a) Lama, the spiritual as well as the political leader of the Irish nation or something akin.
Even the British royals are subject to parliamentary scrutiny in the UK , have been for years,for heavens sake, get on with it.
Shouldn’t all public money be accounted for, and itemized? If it is consistently under budget, I imagine the budget needs a review… I admit the timing is poor for MDH but it should always been available
The last thing this country needs is another enquiry ! Maybe we should have an enquiry into what why we have some many enquires !
Yes, I want to know how much is spent on caviar & Moet et Chandon.
Yes., absolutely… if there is nothing to hide what’s the big fuss about. Publish all and in detail.
In an ideal world? yeah absolutely. In Ireland? First we’d need a board of inquiry, and a committee to decide who gets to be on it, and a sub-committee to decides who will be on the committee to choose the board and a boatload of solicitors and judges and maybe even a barrister or two to ensure that it’s all “above board” (totally “not” chosen for their political affiliations because that would be cronyism) each and every one of them on ludicrous salaries and bottomless expense accounts provided on the taxpayers dime. Ten years and millions of euro later it will come out that, yes perhaps the costs were disproportionate and inappropriate to the office but Mr Higgins did nothing “technically” illegal, no one did so he can continue to collect his massive government pension and we’ll “take into account” the findings of the report in the future.
No it would only recommend a new jet
Yes because I think half of society would implode if they don’t have something to complain about.
They obviously have some dirt or something embarrassing to reveal. Just the usual dirty tricks of a Presidential campaign.
@prop joe: There should always be transparency with tax payers money. It’s only dirty tricks if it’s untrue.
Peter Casey has some interesting ideas on Presidental pay
@Nicholas Lynch: Indeed, and if every president had to re-distribute the pay, it would ensure that our president could only come from independently wealth stock.
Dragons forever. No thanks.
Until every poor homeless baby has a home their shouldn’t be any presidential spending or elections. They should sell the Phoenix Park, concrete over it and build a free house for everyone.
Sounds like someone is trying to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted.
The timing of this intervention by the PAC can’t be interpreted as anything other than political…
the substantive issue (spending related to the President’s) is worthy of exploration for sure – why for goodness sake,is it excluded from FOI obligations?) but on the eve of a presidential campaign – that is blatant politicking- anyone who believes otherwise is either politically naive, blind or partisan… I despair of our political system.
This has to be FFs doing
By all means let there be an enquirer after the presidential election. If the present President was not going up for re-election then it would be okay to carry out an enquirer. The election process should be on a level playing field and holding an enquirer in expenses does not make it so.
Why should we care if our president uses our taxes for a self-indulgent world tour of his leftie-leader idols or that we throw in a second BMW 740 for his (unelected) wife to indulge herself by scooting around to see her arty cronies. Any begrudgers ? – “let them eat cake”
Banana republic no transparency.
Abolish the office, absolutely a waste of money, does not mean a jot to most people, all the election coverage is ball locks
have your say