Alex Kane - We have awful government because that's what we vote for (Irish News 18/2/22)

In January 2020, just a few weeks before the first Covid restrictions were introduced, the Northern Ireland Executive was rebooted.

In February 2022, a few days before the final restrictions were lifted, it imploded again. Reminding me—once more—of my recent paraphrasing of Churchill: ‘The whole map of the world has been changed by the pandemic, but as the deluge of restrictions subsides and the vaccines force Covid back we see the dreary pin-dancing, point-scoring of NI's executive emerging once again.'

Had things gone to plan (although, to be honest, I'm not convinced anything in local politics has ever been underpinned by a plan of any kind) the assembly would have closed on March 28 and we'd have moved into an election campaign lasting about a month. Instead, we're at the start of a campaign which will last for three months. Three long, agonising, nit-picking, blame-allocating, grudge-settling, let's-all-ignore-the-pachyderm-on-the-platform months. At the end of which the vast majority will vote exactly the same way they would have voted were the election held tomorrow.

But maybe there is an advantage to a long campaign. It gives us more time to question the candidates when they arrive on our doorsteps: and maybe, just maybe, start pinning them down on what they intend to do to make things better for all of us. Irrespective of personal views on the constitutional issue (which most of the parties, naturally, want to focus on) we all have views on health, education, employment, housing, the economy, infrastructure, inflation and the soaring prices of oil, gas, electricity, petrol and food.

The vast majority of voters will either be or know someone who is on a waiting list for a hospital appointment or treatment; they'll know people struggling to make ends meet, or they'll be struggling themselves; younger voters will be wondering when they can afford to rent, get a mortgage or earn the points for social housing; those in employment will be concerned about job security and tax/national insurance rises; pensioners dependent on the state pension alone will be worried about what they'll need to cut back on next.

That, by the way, is just an off-the-top-of-my-head list. Everyone of you reading this could add to it without having to pause for thought: and we still wouldn't complete the list of problems that others are forced to deal with every day. Yet how many of us will have that list in our hand when we open the door to a canvasser or candidate? How many of us will challenge a candidate seeking to retain their assembly seat to proffer the list of what they've actually done during their time in office?

During the 2017 campaign I was canvassed by two candidates from different parties, one of whom was a first timer. His answer to one of my questions was, “I don't really know. To be honest it's above my pay grade.” I pushed him a little, “Ok then, but what's your personal view?' He shuffled a bit and developed what seemed to be a sudden interest in my down spout: “Well, I need to be careful just in case you catch me out on something that isn't party policy, Mr Kane.” After another few minutes of jabbering, during which he tried to deflect me by launching a diatribe about another party, he shuffled again, “I think I drew the short straw when it came to canvassing this street.” And yes, I know what you're wondering right now: he didn't win.

The other candidate was defending his seat. I asked him the same question: “Come on now, Alex, you know that I agree with you on the issue, but it's a mandatory coalition so what can we do?” When I pointed out that this was the same answer I'd heard from all the parties for over a decade, he agreed: “It is what it is, Alex.”

And therein lies the root of my pessimism. It is what it is. Which probably explains why the list of problems never decreases. But here's the thing: since health issues—to take the most pressing one—aren't divisible on an orange/green basis why can't the parties sit down and agree to something which is genuinely consensual and credible? For that matter, why can't they move past the silo approach to governance and prioritise the collective rather than their separate communities?

Probably because they don't hear that demand on the doorstep, or see it reflected in the voting. While it may be true—as Monday's Irish News poll suggested—voters do prioritise everyday socio/economic issues, they don't seem to want their concerns addressed by a fully cooperating, power-sharing government. And we know that because a majority of them don't vote for it. To put it bluntly, we have awful government because most of us vote for awful government.