CEBR economist Jörg Radeke said: "A high level of public spending as a share of GDP will mitigate some of the worst effects of the economic downturn in Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland and parts of Northern England in 2009. However, this advantage will prove to be short-lived as the inevitable fiscal consolidation following the recovery will undermine growth in the high public spending regions for years to come."What it means (if there is no immediate corrective action) is that the bottom four regions in terms of growth in the UK in the period 2010-2012 are very likely to be:
9. Scotland
10. Wales
11. Yorkshire and Humberside
12. Northern Ireland
So (deep breath) what that further means is that it is not the traditional "Throw us yer (taxpayers’) money or the paper-clip pushers get it" approach which is needed but:
"… a concerted effort to promote entrepreneurship and support private sector growth”.That doesn’t necessarily require additional finance but it will require much more thought and, yes, sorry, political courage on the part especially of the "governments" in Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh.
Will we see that courage on the part of Plaid Cymru, the SNP or Sinn Fein? Of course not; the next few years promise a great opportunity for their separatist visions- a Conservative and Unionist Westminster government holding the purse-strings and single-handedly pushing N.Ireland, Scotland and Wales further into economic recession will be the narrative.
That being the case, what will be the Unionist alternative narrative in specifically those three regions, "Don’t blame us, it’s that Mr Cameron and those nasty English Tories yet again"?
Not good enough I’m afraid- that is if you have the true interests of a United Kingdom at heart. Time to straighten the backbone get those thinking caps on lads and lasses.
8 comments:
"… a concerted effort to promote entrepreneurship and support private sector growth”."
Hmmm and government has shown itself to be so good at that.
"Not good enough I’m afraid- that is if you have the true interests of a United Kingdom at heart."
So if you don't adopt tory economic policy you're not a Unionist. Balls. More faux and self-serving party political tests.
So if you don't adopt tory economic policy you're not a Unionist.
Perhaps it's not so much a case of accepting Tory economic policy as accepting some type of overarching economic policy. It's the 'poor us we should be the exception' or 'sod the larger situation as long as we get out slice of the pie attitude' which isn't exactly the most unionist instinct in the world.
"Hmmm and government has shown itself to be so good at that."
They don't specify that it has to be government, but it (including the adminstrations in Belfast, cardiff and Edinburgh) can play a very large part by trying to change the mindset. At the minute their attitude seems to be that we are entitled to a 60% plus public sector by right
"So if you don't adopt tory economic policy you're not a Unionist. Balls. More faux and self-serving party political tests."
SNP, SF and PC have no responsibility or interest to take into account the bigger UK picture. Unionists do- thinking also about what can we contribute towards the greater national effort instead of the constant knee-jerk anti-Westminster reaction
There was a time, in the early history of Northern Ireland, when Stormont ministers like Craig and Brooke took pride in our net contribution to the Imperial Parliament. Admittedly the dependency mentality arose pretty quickly too. Is there no chance that we could rekindle that sense of contribution for modern unionism?
Chekov
While in bare terms NI turned a profit until about 74 for most of its history the imperial contribution was nominal rather than a genuine contribution.
The relevant historical debate for Unionism and this issue is the one between spender and craig (IIRC that took place in the 1930's.)
Spender advocated NI seeking as little expenditure as physically possible (full hair shirt and nothing) while Craig followed the line (and gained) the principle of equality of taxation meant equality of benefit - a practical manifestation of equality of citizenship.
No Unionist is going to argue against expansion in the private sector but it doesn't automatically follow that cuts in the public sector will produce that.
Also the shift that is required to make NI turn a 'profit' is one that is a) generational (if not multi-generation) b) no guarantee of success c) probably involves more government resources not less (although with massive shifts on what it gets spent upon).
Any Unionist should approach the situation from an all UK perspective. Bottom line is the cupboard is bare and we have to cut back. A recent article pointed out that as Brown has doubled the national debt, debt repayment now makes up 9% of government spending. Very simply this means there is less to spend on everything else and simply paying the interest wont eliminate the debt. If the don;t believe that then Mervyn King is happy to point it out insisting that cuts will have to happen.
If the UK is to have anything approaching a stable economic future this debt needs to be slashed and that will require sacrifice across the board.
Any Unionist would approach this from an all UK manner and conclude that cuts are in the interest of all the people of the Union and they should be born as equally as possible across the board.
However the DUP have recently displayed that they are both incompetent in fiscal matters and oblivious to the interests of anyone in the UK outside Northern Ireland (Ulster Nationalism anyone?)
This occurred in the recent Barnett formula debate. The DUP’s only contribution to any fiscal debate is “Northern Ireland shouldn’t have cuts” fairly standard nationalist corner fighting. Therefore the DUP wouldnt consider any change to the barnett formula (oh wait that would imply they have any say over westminster matters) on the grounds that Northern Ireland would lose out. They also saw it as a nice stick to beat Conservatives and Unionists with (see Arlenes rant on the DUP website) However whenever the report concluded that a different funding system should be implemented (which the DUP promised to oppose) they welcomed it as Northern Irelands pie was no smaller.
The DUP will continue to fight their narrow Ulster Nationalist corner demanding as much as they can get for Northern Ireland to the DETRIMENT of the UK.
I dont believe in that. The UK is a unit and if recovering the economy and making life better for ALL the members of the Union means me taking my fair share of cuts then I'll do it.
My advice to the DUP is grow up and start acting like a party of government rather than opposition voices shouting from the sidelines. Take some economic responsibility for all the people of the Union in short act like unionists
We're looking at a budget deficit of over £200 billion this year. If we assume 60 million people in the whole of the UK that means over £3,333 for every individual. My wife and I have 3 children so that's £17,000 in additional national debt for my family alone.
That's in just one year.
With the same expected the year after, and so on.
And as the debt rises so do the interest payments.
Realistically (and I really hope that the next Government is realistic about the situation we are facing) that should mean cuts of around 20% across the board.
And seeing as the Barnett Formula means much more money for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales than we get in England then that should mean even bigger cuts outside England.
It will be interesting to see what actually happens.
The DUP are opposed to any attempts to revise Barnett and have accused the UUP of selling out Northern Ireland's interests:
“At the time UCUNF was first mooted, senior Ulster Unionists, including David Burnside, claimed that it would mean more money for Northern Ireland . The latest disturbing comments from Tory spokesman Owen Paterson contradict those claims. Despite Ulster Unionist protestations that it was not the case, their Tory pay-masters have now openly declared it is their intention to initiate cuts in Northern Ireland . The Barnett Formula which sets the size of our block grant from the Treasury, has never been favoured by the Tories. A move away from the Barnett Formula would undoubtedly result in a smaller slice of the cake for Northern Ireland and less money for our roads, schools and hospitals. The Ulster Unionists are being dishonest with people. They claimed their take-over by the Tories would mean more money for Northern Ireland . What has become clear is that it means no such thing. The creation of UCUNF means more money for the Ulster Unionist Party and less money for essential public services throughout the Province. Throwing in references about people “considering” other measures will not disguise the Tories slash and burn agenda for our public services. Indeed, the Shadow Chancellor had already indicated that were he in office, cuts would have been initiated already rather than over the next 24 months. The Tory’s cuts would have started on April 1st. Furthermore, the Finance Minister’s strength in negotiations with the Treasury is significantly weakened as the some of his fellow Ministers in the Executive are aligned to the Tories who support greater cuts to our budget. How sad it is to witness the Ulster Unionists conniving with such an anti-Northern Ireland agenda and for what? - A few thousand pounds from the Tories for their party coffers. They would sell Northern Ireland short for the sake of keeping their ailing party financially viable.”
David Simpson has made similar claims:
"The plans of the Tory Party to scrap the Barnett Formula have serious implications for Northern Ireland. This week we have seen some UUP figures running to the media to express their concern about cuts to the Northern Ireland block grant, yet they are in a political alliance with a party that is committed to imposing massive cuts on our block grant allocation. This is not some minor point of emphasis we are talking about. Senior Tories want to take millions away from Ulster's roads, schools, hospitals and social housing. It is for Reg Empey to justify that position. For our part, the DUP will continue to battle for Northern Ireland, to ensure that our community receives the funding that we need and deserve. Unlike some, we will not sacrifice our own community in exchange for party-political financial support."
Ian Paisley while praising Alex Salmond (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/6665413.stm):
"There are things Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have in common that if we go to the British Government in harness, we will get more out of them."
Where is the pan-UK solidarity? Nobody in the DUP seems to appreciate the acute financial crisis the world is in. Instead it clings to a begging bowl approach.
Post a Comment