SDLP irresponsibility takes Stormont to brink

“Section 87 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 recognises the long-established principle of parity between Great Britain and Northern Ireland on social security. I acknowledge that the parity principle is, to some extent, frustrating to an Assembly that is keen to pass its own laws and form its own policies. However, the Northern Ireland social security system is not self-financing. The cost of paying benefits in Northern Ireland is subsidised heavily by Great Britain.

“For example, in 2005-06, to meet its benefit obligations, the Northern Ireland National Insurance fund needed a transfer of £185 million from the Great Britain National Insurance fund. In the same period, expenditure on non-contributory benefits, which are demand led and financed from taxation revenue, was more than £2·26 billion. The funding depends on parity. Therefore, when Members ask what reason we have for maintaining parity, the answer is that there is approximately £2·4 billion worth of reasons.”

So said SDLP Social Development Minister (with responsibility for welfare) Margaret Ritchie in 2007.

However, as Sinn Féin inched towards doing the responsible thing, precisely as the SDLP had advocated while in the relevant office, the SDLP flipped its position. It did so purely in a ham-fisted attempt at electoral distinctiveness.

The widespread view now is that Sinn Féin pulled this stunt in its own ham-fisted attempt at deflecting attention from allegations in last night’s BBC Spotlight programme.

This means by signing the Petition of Concern the SDLP has now become part of a conspiracy to divert attention from victims by pursuing a policy they themselves have demonstrated to be impossible, thus endangering the institutions.

And why do so few ask them about this? What precisely does the SDLP want to slash from public spending to cover the gap they themselves defined? Let’s hear where the billions are to be taken from. Hospitals? Schools? Public safety? (Selling forests doesn’t quite cover it, to be quite clear about that.)

As one correspondent over on Slugger put it:

“This is what happens when parties like the SDLP pursue a dishonest policy, feeling safe in the knowledge that they will never be called upon to act to support it. They thought, like many of us, that they could safely criticize Sinn Féin for upholding parity knowing that there was no alternative. They did not anticipate that SF would bring down Stormont in order to protect themselves from abuse allegations. Their bluff has been called – and it’s not going to go well for them.”

Populism is causing a crisis in western democracy and, in Northern Ireland, the once arch defenders of the Agreement, the SDLP’s populism has enabled that crisis to take place.

The SDLP had to yield on the National Crime Agency. It has better find a way to yield on welfare too. After all, on their own terms, there are now “£3.1 billion worth of reasons” to do so…


4 thoughts on “SDLP irresponsibility takes Stormont to brink

  1. domo14 says:

    Where are the jobs when benefits are cut. There seems to be a belief among some that there are loads of wellpaying jobs out there that people aren’t taking because they prefer to live on benefits. If governments and others put as much energy into creating life sustaining jobs as they do in attacking the most vulnerable (those unable to feed, clothe and heat themselves) people would have more confidence in them. There is also a justice issue illustrated in handouts given to the banks who caused the financial crisis. The perception is: the poor are being blamed for their situation while the rich are being bailed out. This is what’s at the heart of the argument despite the machinations of SF or the flounderings of the SDLP in this place.

    • Basically I agree with you – not on some of the detail, but on the fundamentals.

      Where I differ utterly from the Nationalists is on the solutions. The task is not to spend needlessly on compensating people for being poor, but on investing to help them out of poverty.

  2. Malachi says:

    SF says the difference now is 200m. That would solve the problem. Could that be covered by absolving us of the fines paid for not implementing welfare reform?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: