Archive for December, 2010

Fitness for Purpose and NI Water

Image of a manhole cover blown off by a June 2...

Image via Wikipedia

Peter Robinson questioned, yesterday, whether Northern Ireland Water – a government company owned and financed by the Executive – was fit for purpose. It’s clear that he is manoeuvring himself a good distance away from the body that is taking the bulk of the political flak from Northern Ireland’s own Waterleakgate scandal.

The ‘fitness for purpose’ phrase was used by another DUP politician, Lord Morrow, in a debate about Northern Ireland Water in the Assembly in September. However, Lord Morrow did not highlight under-investment as the reason why NIW, or the service it provided, was under-performing. Lord Morrow was referring to governmental and organisational matters when he asked Conor Murphy, the Minister with ultimate responsibility for water, how he might reorganise and reform NI Water.

And, when Conor Murphy answered, he made clear that he, too, had no issues relating to the levels of investment – or, indeed, the commitment of NIW staff:

“NI Water has been doing a good job on the delivery of water and sewerage infrastructure. It certainly received a substantial amount of public money, but the water and sewerage infrastructure has improved substantially, after decades of underinvestment, and a great credit is due to people in NIW for that.”

The Minister, back in March – shortly after agreeing NI Water’s 3 Year Plan – was at pains to point out that “no-one can deny that the water and sewerage infrastructure has improved radically.”

Indeed, I have read most of the debates in the Assembly relating to NI Water during the course of 2010 and can find no instances of MLAs – or indeed the Minister – arguing for much greater levels of investment in NI Water. The Minister has been making a number of political points relating to renationalising NI Water (at an apparent cost of £50m or so) – but there has been no clamour on the part of any of the political parties to substantially increase investment in Northern Ireland’s water infrastructure.

Even after the announcement of the Comprehensive Spending Review – that made clear that Northern Ireland’s capital budgets would be substantially reduced – there were no calls on the part of local politicians to raise funds to substantially increase infrastructure spending on water infrastructure. Instead, the Executive decided to defer water charges (the most likely source of additional capital funding) for four years.

NI Water spokespeople have made the point over the last few days that investment in Northern Ireland water network infrastructure is well behind the rest of the UK and that comparative network investment levels are around 50% less than in Scotland. And yet no MLAs have drawn attention to this continued under-investment (including the Minister responsible for NI Water).

Yesterday there were calls for ‘heads to roll’. Indeed, NI Water may be inefficient and badly run (frankly, I don’t know). However, the buck should stop at the Minister.

The Executive, and an unquestioning Assembly, are more responsible for under-investment in Northern Ireland’s water infrastructure than the body required to deliver such investment.

NI Water Fiasco: Executive Responsible

Author: Peter Williamson

Image via Wikipedia

No benefit of hindsight is required to point out the terrible state of Northern Ireland’s water supply network. Under-investment has been highlighted by everyone (and his dog) for decades and yet successive direct rule administrations, the Strategic Investment Board, and the devolved institutions have done precious little to resolve the problem.

And now tens of thousands of people are without water and Northern Ireland – because of a few days of frost – is making national news headlines. Like some third world country a sizeable percentage of the population has no water supply and the reservoirs are literally leaking like sieves.

However, the pointing of blame, by MLAs and politicians, at NI Water, should ring hollow in the context of an Executive commitment to continue water under-investment for years to come.

The draft NI budget, announced just over a week ago, made a commitment not to introduce water charges for four years. This commitment comes at a time when the Executive has been moaning about central government cuts to the NI infrastructure budget.

The Executive could easily have committed to investment in water infrastructure by agreeing to a modest water rate. Instead it chose to turn a blind eye – in a matter typical of an Executive that considers populism more important than anything else.

 

CCHQ Shafts Northern Ireland Conservatives

Michael Gove speaking at the Conservative Part...

Big on Society, Small on Principle (Image Wikipedia)

Conservative central office has never really cared for Conservatives who happen to reside in Northern Ireland. CCHQ has a history of being populated by people who think that people here only want to vote for sectarianism of one hue or another. Moreover, it has also employed its fair share of small-minded bigots.

This evening the Conservatives’ little-Ulster fossils have been trotted out to defend the policy of assuming the missionary position for the UUP. Laurence Robertson, who plays second fiddle to Owen Paterson, is probably closer to the DUP than he is to the UUP. But he’s certainly never been a friend of the Conservatives in Northern Ireland.

Barnoness Warsi, Tory Chairwoman, who favours a greater role for faith groups in the “Big Society” also appears to be fan of the Orange-soaked UUP. Big Society in Little Ulster. Great.

It has taken quite a while for the local Conservatives to see that Paterson, Robertson and CCHQ intended to systematically ignore them in seeking a deal with the rudderless and useless UUP. But, then again, the Conservative Party leadership is also in a coalition government with the rudderless and policy-devoid  Lib Dems. So this is familiar territory.

The UUP seems to be in gloating mode that it has stolen a march on local Conservatives. But, frankly, who would want to be involved in a Conservative Party that is devoid of any perceptible Conservative values?

The politics of this once great United Kingdom seems to lack any political party with any vestige of any political principle. Instead we have the politics of local and national populism. Our Executive is incapable of agreeing a budget while, nationally, our Prime Minister, like the one before him, prefers to schmooze with celebrities, as an alternative to articulating any coherent policy positions.

Oh and today the Big Society turned out to be a requirement for us all to shovel grit.

In a world that seems increasingly like a confederacy of dunces Sammy Wilson is beginning to sound rational. Now that is a worry.

Conservatives Running in Assembly Elections

It looks likely that local Conservatives are to be required to be nice to the UUP in the Assembly elections next year.

According to Mark Devenport over on his blog, “Conservative HQ will have to sort this one out – watch out for a fudge which might see some local Tory candidates running, albeit with pledges of non-hostility and mutual voting transfers.”

That is an outcome that should not be tolerated by local Conservatives. It’s the political equivalent of being tethered by the ankle to a crazy aunt – but still expected to attend the ball.

PM Syndrome: How the Electorate Has Been Duped by the Presbyterian Church

Financial Services Authority

The PMS was unregulated by the FSA

The Presbyterian Mutual Society has caused a lot of not especially wealthy people lose lots of money – that many could ill-afford to lose. Turns out that this institution was an unregulated mutual society – meaning that the normal financial protection offered by the Financial Services Authority didn’t apply. Nor was the government required to underwrite it if it went belly-up (which it did because the PMS invested, stupidly, in almost completely illiquid property assets – just before the property bubble burst).

The UUP made a big deal today at its Party conference that it had saved the PMS savers – by insisting that the new coalition government should provide a rescue package. However, the organisation that has wriggled off the hook in this debacle is the Presbyterian church. No political party locally has had the balls to point out that it’s the Presbyterian church that should be footing the bill for this disgrace of a financial institution – rather than the British taxpayer.

People who invested in the PMS considered themselves the chosen few. Only Presbyterians were in the privelaged position to be able to invest. Heathens like me would not have been welcomed. Investors were often highly unsophisticated – and yet the PMS invested recklessly in inappropriate funds. Risk, far from being spread, was focused and inappropriate given the nature of the investors attracted to a financial institution that many considered as safe as houses. Trouble is, the houses the PMS invested in weren’t safe at all.

But investors also invested because they considered that the PMS was essentially underwritten by the Church. In fact, when the PMS went down, the Presbyterian Church led the demands that the government should bail out the mess. The church has remained silent about the potential extent of its liability when the political parties locally defaulted to their normal modus operandi of getting the begging bowls out for the government to fill. Indeed the local executive has agreed to a tax-payer funded bail-out to the extent of £50m in cash plus a £175m loan. To date the Presbyterian Church has committed a paltry £1m.

Once again local political parties have done the local electorate a disservice. We are all expected to bail out an incompetently run, unregulated financial institution that behaved as if its was fully underwritten by a Church. It also gave the impression that it offered something special to church members – unavailable to the rest of us. And yet, when its incompetence caught up with it we are expected to pay the bill.

Why Tom Elliot’s Unionism Doesn’t Matter

  • Tom Elliott’s Unionism doesn’t matter because most people ignore him
  • Tom Elliott’s Unionism doesn’t matter because most people take the Union for granted and there’s no need to go on about it
  • Tom Elliott’s Unionism doesn’t matter because Unionism doesn’t get anything done – it’s a pointless political position when the constitutional arrangement is no longer under threat
  • Tom Elliott’s Unionism doesn’t matter because it doesn’t help us understand Tom’s political ideology or how he proposes tackling the most important political issues
  • Tom Elliott’s Unionism doesn’t matter because Tom doesn’t really matter that much – nor his Party
  • Tom Elliott’s Unionism doesn’t matter because Tom is the worst kind of political dinosaur – one who doesn’t see the writing on the wall

Niceness (2)

Rumour has it that Ian Parsley, former Alliance/UCUNF multi-candidate and Conservative Party employee is planning a political “come-back” with a new rainbow coalition.

Composed mostly of nice people, The Parsley Coalition might include, I’m advised, former UCUNFian Trevor Ringland and Dawn Purvis – former front woman for the PUP (who left because of that organisation’s association with Loyalist paramilitarism).

Therefore Parsley’s People might have a slightly lefty hue. Although, no doubt, Parsley will sprinkle his fairy dust over everything – obviating the need for any coherent policy position. And he’ll probably sprinkle his new Party’s blog with the odd post about football as a cunning diversionary tactic.


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 24 other followers

Musings on things political and secular…

This is my site where I share my world views for anyone who might be remotely interested. Visit only if you think the content is interesting. Oh and comment is free. So go right ahead and agree or disagree. But, please, be kind and polite (especially to me).
Add to Technorati Favorites

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.