The future of Belfast mayoral portraits – time to get rid?

Sinn Fein’s current handling of the Niall Ó Donnghaile affair and the party’s relationship with transparency is certainly newsworthy in that there is a hefty public interest. The discussion about the portrait removal of the former Lord Mayor was almost inevitable, and unanimously supported by all party leaders on Belfast City Council (BCC).

Notwithstanding the reason behind that removal, it has helped re-raise the question of value for money.

Belfast is the only council in NI to still continue with the mayoral portrait system and is reported to have spent around £150,000 on portraits in the ten year period up to 2023 alone, so around £15,000 per portrait per year. That is the equivalent of gainfully employing four full time and one part-time staff members on NI’s median earnings of £32,900, or the average salary of four nurses. Sticking with that trend without inflationary rises taken into account, changing a mayor every year, will see a bill just shy of half a million pounds by the mid-2040s.

The rationale behind mayoral portraits is often justified as historical and educational documentation, capturing the incumbent’s likeness for future generations. To some however, the prospect of having a painting commissioned by an artist for a role that changes hands every year (when photographs are commonplace nowadays which offer the same effect in person and online) is not a credible use of public funds. When considered alongside NI’s budding artist community, a £15,000 commission for such a project, alongside the added publicity is understandably of great benefit. The argument for it representing value for money for rate payers during the steadily increasing cost of living, is however, more precarious.

Also offered in justification is symbolic representation, in that the portraits allow artistic representation of values and community, which in turn translates to increased tourism. Once again, the value for money argument fails to be justified, when some mayoral positions are split, seeing incumbents doing around six months in each post. These instances rack up the costs, as the 2019 case of Sinn Fein’s John Finucane and Daniel Baker demonstrates, costing Belfast rate payers around £27,000, or the Alliance Party’s Kate Nicholl who racked up £15,000 alone in portrait costs during her tenure.

Indeed, Sinn Fein’s Deirdre Hargey’s mayoral portrait immortalises for some, the extraordinary lack of transparency that in a bar full of 70 people, she nor any of those in attendance witnessed an altercation that led to the fatal stabbing of Robert McCartney. In reality, what does a hand painted portrait convey in terms of symbolism that a photograph does not? The credibility of anyone who advocates in honest belief that the existence of these portraits materially contribute to symbolism that enhances community relations or tourism, should be heavily probed.

It is with continuing disbelief that this vanity project continues and is in my mind akin to the 2009 Westminster expenses scandal. There is no amount of artistic interpretation which warrants a commissioned portrait of any Lord Mayor in this day and age, beyond a simple photograph at a low fixed cost, like they themselves expect every other aspect of public services to work within. Indeed, a GB-focussed study found that trust in politicians fell to an historic low when measured in 2023, with only 9% of the public indicating that they trust them to tell the truth. Perhaps portraits encapsulating this phenomenon should be put on hold until they generate a more positive narrative – call it a conditions-based reward.

There will be some elected representatives themselves that will seek to convince constituents to maintain the scam as some sort of ‘tradition’, but there is nothing traditional about a perverse scheme that grants rotational postholders an expensive degree of immortality whilst constituents’ rates increase year or year alongside ever decreasing quality levels of local public services.

Interestingly, since 1998 the frequency of Belfast mayoral appointment has (through the D’Hondt system) erred towards Catholic / Nationalist / Republican (CNR) (14), compared to the Protestant, Unionist, Loyalist tradition (PUL) (8), and Other (6).

Electorally, since 1998 that means that Belfast’s First Citizen has been CNR for 50% of the roles, PUL for less than a third (29%), and Other in 21% of cases. It is those of the PUL community that most vehemently advocate for the ‘tradition’ argument for retention; I cannot help but feel they do so from some misplaced entitlement, when in reality their dominance has been consistently electorally eroded in seats won and mayoral appointees.

In terms of more recent events, although on the face of it might appear to be a win for the DUP / TUV to have the portrait of Niall Ó Donnghaile removed, they ultimately assisted Sinn Fein in helping to remove traces of the story – yet another example of PUL representatives rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic as she sinks. Conversely, Sinn Fein’s ongoing position at the centre of the damage to the portrait of ex-mayor Wallace Browne at the weekend has been an own goal in keeping the spotlight on the story, albeit indirectly to the Niall Ó Donnghaile affair at a time when a General Election is on the horizon in the South.

Regardless, it has kept the door open to continued debate about the utility of mayoral portraits versus their cost. An annual portrait costing £15,000 does little to nothing to support hardworking citizens. Instead, it varnishes a largely empty corridor in Belfast City Hall with an expensive image of someone who spent a single year or less in a post, and was given a level of pomp and opulence that should have long evaporated from civic life.

Leaders of Belfast City Council should lead by example, so instead of settling for the removal of the single portrait of Niall Ó Donnghaile, the existing or next incumbent should seek go further to seek to cap the cost to a single photo that can be used digitally and in print, or remove the need for them altogether going forward.

After all, what tells the story of a public representative more accurately – photo and text extracts from their social media accounts alongside well researched media reporting, or a heavily curated ‘official’ photo, that is no way an accurate representation of their actual tenure?