The end of the year seems like an opportune moment to reflect on the record of our devolved administration.
After a two-year hiatus, the restoration of the Stormont executive was met with much less fanfare than previous governments.
The public have grown weary of promises of a fresh start or a new approach. Expectations were low, but the stakes are high.
There was widespread agreement that this was the last chance saloon, that our politicians have to demonstrate that they are up to the task.
Tackling long-standing policy issues such as healthcare reform, lack of affordable childcare, poverty, economic inactivity and violence against women and girls required immediate action.
No-one expected miracles or silver bullets. There are no short-term fixes.
Change requires a new impetus, a spirit of cooperation and a serious, purposeful trajectory towards delivering a better society.
So, how have they done so far?
The relationship between the two women at the helm appears to be constructive and positive. Gone is the toxicity and sniping at every turn. The united front has been maintained.
The first outing on the international stage surpassed all expectations and brought a feel-good factor to Washington’s St Patrick’s Day celebrations.
Stormont’s return was hailed as a new era. According to the First Minister, Michelle O’Neill, this was about prosperity with a new generation of leaders “building a better future, that shared future for everyone”.
The importance of having a positive partnership leading government should not be underestimated. It provides the foundation for addressing the multitude of challenges.
Without trust it is much more difficult to broker compromises and take tough decisions.
However, it is simply not enough. Their optimistic words and positive tone need to be accompanied by concrete actions. Progress depends on delivery and to date this has been painfully limited.
In May, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister outlined plans for 18 separate bills, only seven of which made it to the first part of the legislative process. Therefore 61% of the planned bills will fail to reach the assembly this year.
After a seven-month wait, the draft Programme for Government was finally published.
It was a profoundly disappointing, rambling document. Chock-a-block with aspirational language, such as we are working tirelessly, working hard, working to support ,or we will work towards.
Notable by their absence are meaningful targets, milestones, radical ideas, flagship projects, detailed delivery plans or a legislative framework.
The document is vague and unspecific. It is hard to overstate the difference between actively seeking to do something and actually delivering.
Since the restoration of the government in February, debates have been dominated by the difficult fiscal landscape and an overarching consensus that Northern Ireland needs more money.
However, the Treasury have made it abundantly clear that they are resistant to the usual special pleading. Hilary Benn has said the Northern Ireland Executive must “live within its means”, as he warned there are “no easy answers” to the challenges it faces.
The new Labour government’s difficult fiscal inheritance has framed its initial policy decisions. It has spent its early days in power facing down widespread opposition to unpopular actions at UK level, such as limiting winter fuel payments and changes to inheritance tax.
Demanding more money from London without any detailed long-term plan on how it would be spent and invested will inevitably fall on deaf ears.
With power comes responsibility and the Stormont Executive must prove that it has the stomach for hard decisions.
The multiple crises in public finances means that fresh ideas and new thinking is urgently required.
For those hoping for any sign of meaningful debate on productivity, efficiency and value for money, forget it.
The same excuses, the same half-answers, the same well-rehearsed soundbites, the same finger pointing.
Last week an official told the health committee that £135 million per year was needed to fix waiting lists.
An interesting figure: would it fund new hospitals, more staff, new technology, changed priorities, increased use of the private sector, or cross-border initiatives? Your guess is as good as mine.
This is how scrutiny works here, and it is a huge part of the problem. Pluck a figure out of the air and you won’t be accountable for the £7 billion that you are already allocated.
How is the department working to improve efficiency incentives? Where is the accountability for action and inaction?
After almost a year, no-one is any the wiser as to how our politicians plan to address long-term, systemic issues. A hallmark of a competent and effective government is the quality of its planning, both short and long term.
Given its lack of delivery and battered reputation, Stormont’s credibility and relevance is on the line.
For 2025 might I suggest a little less conversation and a little more action please.