Calling Sheila, Peter and Deirdre – Your party needs you

There are two recent developments which represent positive news for the Conservatives and Unionists as reported in today’s Belfast Telegraph.

The first happened two days ago when the UUP made a categorical pronouncement that there would be no merger with the DUP. 

The other thing which has happened is that the three Conservative candidates who decided to withdraw from their nomination, have decided to reconsider their positions. 

In the light of all that has happened, there is no doubt that the stock of the three has risen with a recognition that they could become the standard bearers for non-sectarian politics under the UCUNF project.  Not surprisingly, efforts are now being made to bring them back on board.

I hope they are brought back on board.  We need them.

“Head banging” needed but UCUNF can still survive and thrive

Yesterday, at long last, details of the Hatfield House talks emerged, albeit in the Guardian and the Times also discussed on Jeffrey Peel’s blog.  As a result, we now have substantial have clarity over the matters which we feared would give us much cause for concern.   

Putting the two reports together, we now have confirmation that Owen Paterson did discuss with the UUP and the DUP the possibility of a new unionist party or force which would have three core commitments.  These were   

• Non-sectarianism.

• Making the Northern Ireland assembly and the executive work.

• Upholding power-sharing with nationalists.

I would not blame any reasonable unionist for nodding his head in agreement on reading those bullet points.  Unfortunately, the first core principle in this proposal (non-sectarianism) is now impossible to achieve on the basis of forming a united unionist party or force.  Moreover, Unionism has to be relegated from being a dominant political ideology if we are ever to achieve normal politics in Northern Ireland.   

Earlier this week, following the news that Alex Kane had resigned from his post as UUP communications director, Lord Trimble published on his blog copies of the emails that were exchanged of emails between himself and Mr. Kane in November 2009.  That exchange has illuminated a wide difference in the thinking behind the UCUNF project.  Consider particularly the following points made by David Trimble.  

“On the project your test is whether Cameron will back the unionist cause. How is that cause to be defined? Is it the Union or “facing down” nationalists? The project has the potential to widen and deepen the union. I know that large numbers of Catholics are effectively little “u” unionists. I was talking to several at last night’s Queens University Association London event, where I was speaking on this matter. But big U ethnic unionism will exclude them and force them back into ethnic nationalism. 

The project was never about lining up the Conservative party alongside ethnic Unionism, but about replacing political structures based on constitutional and national issues, with politics based on social and economic issues using the same party structures that operate elsewhere in the UK. Incidentally for this we need the participation of Labour as well as the Conservatives. Between them Catholics can be offered something better than SF to vote for”  

Note particularly the words highlighted in bold.  In the paragraph that follows, he contrasts the scenario whereby the Conservatives line up alongside ethnic Unionism with “normal” politics which he describes as “politics based on social and economic issues using the same party structures that operate elsewhere in the UK”.  In other words “left – right” politics, whereby Conservativism and Democratic Socialism replace Unionism and Nationalism as the dominant political ideologies.   

When I wrote my essay on Conservativism, it was my understanding that the leaders of both the UUP and the Conservatives held a similar vision and viewpoint.   

I am sure that Owen Paterson regrets holding talks with both the UUP and the DUP at Hatfield.  He is still an exceptionally able politician who has done so much good work to help facilitate normal politics in Northern Ireland.  I have no doubt that he will be quick to grasp and accept the principles behind David Trimble’s comments. 

I am not yet quite so sure about the leaders of the UUP.   The exchange of e-mails between Trimble and Kane highlighted another significant difference in the expectations of the UCUNF project.  It seems that the Ulster Unionists believe that it is acceptable to change the current power sharing structures under legislation brought by a Conservative government, regardless of Nationalist sensibilities.   

Few would disagree that the current arrangements are politically dysfunctional and inefficient.  However, any change to the system without cross-community consensus is simply not going to happen under a Conservative Government.  As David Trimble makes clear, the Power Sharing structures were negotiated as part of a global constitutional settlement for Northern Ireland.  If they are altered without Nationalist consent, it will hurl Northern Ireland backwards into the darkness.   

Incremental evolution is what is needed to change the power sharing structures, not revolution.  Over a period of time, such evolution can and should happen in an orderly negotiated way.  Also, I do not believe that the SDLP is so far away from talking “turkey” about constitutional changes.  Consider the following remarks made by Mark Durkan on the subject of changing power sharing structures.  Here I repeat part of a post from Liam Clarke of the Sunday Times, September 14, 2008. 

“Durkan’s words were measured.  He described how the present system of all-party coalition at Stormont had developed with the SDLP’s support, and suggested that it may be nearing the end of its shelf life. In particular, he questioned the tribal system of “community designation” at Stormont which parcels out jobs to politicians on the basis of whether they choose to be nationalists or unionists.

“The system of designation was necessary because of where we were coming from but should not be necessary where we are going,” Durkan said. “I argued that such measures with their arguably sectarian or sectional undertones should be bio-degradable, dissolving in the future as the environment changed.”

He said it was necessary to have communal protection for nationalists and unionists, or Protestants and Catholics, while the new institutions bedded in, but that this essentially tribal arrangement should not become permanent. “As we move towards a fully sealed and settled process we should be preparing to think about how and when to remove some of the ugly scaffolding needed during the construction of the new edifice,” Durkan argued, making the case for a bill of rights to protect against abuses before any changes are made.

Durkan’s suggestion is for cross-community government with entrenched human rights safeguards, but not necessarily every party in government every time. He pointed to the cumbersome system of checks and balances which have paralysed decision making since devolution. “Protections of rights, interests and identities will still be needed but not only for, or only as, either unionists or nationalists,” he ventured. “

Surely this is the clearest indication that the SDLP is the party to do business with on the question of changing the Power Sharing structures.

There now needs to be some serious “head banging” and understanding between leaders of the Conservatives and the UUP with a view to being at one on political vision, long-term political objectives and the means by which they are to be achieved.  That should have happened before the pact was formed but there is still time to discuss it and arrive at a meeting of minds. 

The two recent meetings (Hatfield House and Schomburg House) have damaged UCUNF because they lend credence to the perception that they will too readily abandon their aspiration to bring non-sectarian politics to Northern Ireland in favour of short-term political advantage.  In reality, the willingness to hold those talks was driven by well-meaning but misconceived political vision.  The bottom line is that nothing has been agreed as a result of those talks.

Right now, leaders from both the UUP and the Conservative Party should be having meetings to review what has gone wrong and hopefully reach a conclusion that the Trimble way is the right way.  If they can surmount those difficulties and bring their membership behind them, I believe UCUNF can survive and eventually thrive.  There is still everything to play for.

Have the Conservatives made any political concessions to the DUP?

In my post yesterday, I published a transcript of the of part of the interview of David Cameron on the Politics Show on which Northern Ireland was discussed.  I resisted the temptation to write any analysis about it.  I needed a “head-scratching” sessioin.    

This morning, I still can not ignore the fact that David Cameron did not use the interview to deny that any political deal had been done with the DUP, particularly after Jon Sopel’s first question.  The Belfast Telegraph has also noticed this. Commenting on Lord Mandelson’s attack, they write:  

“His attack follows the disclosure that shadow Northern Ireland secretary Owen Paterson convened secret talks between the two main unionist parties at the country estate of the Marquis of Salisbury.  

The move has prompted speculation that the Tories are attempting to establish a pan-unionist front to restrict the number of seats the nationalist Sinn Fein and SDLP can win in the general election.”  

The particulars of that speculation are that the DUP will not contest seats in South Belfast and Fermanagh and South Tyrone.  This presumption has been further fuelled by the news that the DUP have suspended selection procedure for its parliamentary candidates.  It is possible (but unlikely) that the DUP have decided to unilaterally withdraw their candidates without any political concession from the Conservatives.   

In the interview with Jon Sopel, David Cameron insisted that the Conservatives would be even-handed (as between the Nationalist parties and the Unionist parties) in dealing with the peace process.   

If the DUP have been granted a concession of any sort, it will certainly affect the dynamic of the current negotiations on Policing and Justice and the DUP’s future political calculations.  David Cameron’s claim of even-handedness can only stand up if the Conservatives have not given any kind of political concession to the DUP.  

Last week, I invited Owen Paterson to clear the air for us and confirm categorically that no deal of any kind has been reached with the DUP.  It is in the interests of the Conservative Party and Northern Ireland that we receive that clarification.

Update:  Polling Analysis highlights how strong a motive the Conservatives would have had for making a deal with the DUP

Yesterday, Electoral Calculus updated its analysis and prediction on the state of the parties following the next general election.  It now predicts that there will be a hung parliament with the Conservatives just two short of an overall majority.  Northern Ireland is not included in its analysis.   On the basis of it, two seats from Northern Ireland would provide the Conservatives with an overall majority of one.

Lord Mandelson accuses Cameron of Playing politics with Northern Ireland

In the Politics Show today, Northern Ireland became part of the battleground between the Conservative and Labour Party.  I have transcribed below what was said in both interviews.  Firstly, Jon Sopel (“JS”) asked questions of David Cameron.

 JS       I want to talk about Northern Ireland as well which is an issue that has come up.  Why do you think it would be a good idea for your Northern Ireland spokesman to have…to have …been involved in a secret meeting. involved in …seem to be involved in setting up some pan-unionist front for the election?

DC      Well because what we want to do is to promote, particularly amongst the unionist parties the idea that the devolution of policing and justice is vitally important for completing devolution and for putting this on a stable footing and I think that’s actually a positive role that the Conservative Party can help to play and I think it is…you can see

JS       How can you be even-handed in dealing with all the parties in Northern Ireland, Sinn Fein, the SDLP when you’ve been sitting out trying to form a deal with the Unionist Parties?

DC      I don’t think that it’s a problem at all.  The Conservative Party has a relationship with the Official Ulster Unionist Party.  We’re going to put up joint candidates in Northern Ireland.  That’s been announced and is well known.  The Labour Party has a very close relationship with the SDLP members of Parliament.  They take the Labour Whip.  They sit with them in the House of Commons.  They vote and work together.  SO if your making accusations that I can’t be even-handed you8 have to make the same accusations against the Prime Minister that he can’t be even-handed.  Frankly, both accusations are wrong because the Prime Minister and I both support full scale devolution, including Policing and Justice.  We want that to happen.   There’s no difference between us on that.  When it comes to actually negotiating the Policing and Justice devolution where there is a very substantial potential bill for the British taxpayers the Conservative Party could not have been more helpful or more accommodating.  We’re one of the most supportive oppositions when it comes to Northern Ireland than we’ve had in our history.  I’m very proud of that because I want to see devolution happen.

JS       So what do you say to the charge that at best you’ve been naïve and at worst you’ve acted dangerously and jeopardised things.

DC      I think its just wrong.  I think everyone can see from the difficulty that’s taking place in these negotiations – that the difficulty is frankly between Sinn Fein on the one hand and the Democratic Unionist Party on the other – and they are having problems agreeing what is absolutely vital.  Now the question I ask myself is, “Is the Conservative Party playing a constructive role in encouraging – particularly the Unionist Parties, the ones we have frankly a closer relationship with in the House of Commons.  Are we playing a constructive role in encouraging devolution to take place?  Yes we are.  That’s a good thing

 Later in the programme, Jon Sopel interviewed Lord Mandelson who said this.

“They’re playing politics in Northern Ireland.  They’re seeking electoral advantage for the Conservative Party in Northern Ireland at the expense of the peace process and the devolved Government.  It’s very irresponsible and I suggest the all desist.

“They’re playing politics between the Unionist Parties and in doing that, they’re going to undermine the cohesion amongst unionists and thus undermine their confidence in making pretty tough decisions about where the peace process goes from here.  So I think they need to stand back – not seek party advantage and support the peace process.

UCUNF can expect more pounding in the media after Orange talks

Yesterday probably marked the lowest point for the Conservative / UUP pact since its inception 14 months ago but it could yet go lower to the point where the pact collapses.  

The Flare-up began on Thursday evening when it was revealed on Hearts and Minds that during December at Schomburg House, there had been a “confidential” meeting between the DUP and the UUP to discuss unionist unity, organised by the Orange Order. The meeting was attended by Sir Reg Empey and David McNarry of the DUP and by Peter Robinson and Nigel Dodds of the DUP.   

In the course of the programme, it was revealed that the discussions included candidacy at the Westminster Elections and the likelihood that Sinn Fein would hold the office of First Minister after the next Assembly elections.   

On Thursday night, Nigel Davenport continued to stir the pot on behalf of the BBC.  After taking soundings from Conservatives on their reaction to the Broadcast, he used rugby union analogy to describe how they had been let down by the UUP   

“More spooked I would say are the Conservatives who were blind sided by their partners the Ulster Unionists. Owen Paterson need not have gone to all that trouble booking Hatfield House if he had been aware that Bobby Saulters was already doing the job of bringing unionists together. The Conservative sources I spoke to tonight expressed some concern and dismay and said they would be looking for an explanation from Sir Reg Empey who attended the talks alongside Peter Robinson.”   

By Friday morning, all eyes were on Owen Paterson.  Writing for the BBC again, Michael Crick reported that Owen Paterson was seeking urgent clarification from Sir Reg Empey. He said  

“The Conservative Northern Ireland spokesman Owen Paterson is seeking an urgent meeting with the Ulster Unionist leader Sir Reg Empey today over the future of the Conservatives’ pact with the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP).”   

Owen Paterson’s objective in having that meeting was clearly damage limitation.  By 3.45 pm on Friday, Owen Paterson released the following statement:   

“In his capacity as Ulster Unionist leader, Sir Reg Empey regularly meets all strands of opinion throughout Northern Ireland. He referred ‘in passing’ to a meeting, requested in October and held in December, but I was not aware of the content or the participants.   

“As there was nothing of consequence arising from the meeting he did not mention it to me again. Sir Reg Empey has made clear to me that it has no bearing on our joint determination to stand together as ‘Conservatives and Unionists at the forthcoming Westminster elections to bring national, mainstream and non-sectarian politics to Northern Ireland.”   

By 5.00 pm, Sir Reg issued his response to the crisis (source Conservative Home)

 “The Ulster Unionist Party was invited in October 2009 by the Orange Order to a meeting with their Grand Master. On behalf of the UUP I accepted the invitation. Mr Saulters wanted a private and confidential meeting to discuss ‘ways and means of finding co-operation on the way forward.’ I have respected his request for confidentiality. Sadly this was not respected by others. Despite a conversation and discussion on the issues that Mr Saulters wished to raise, no agreements were reached.

 ”We are often asked to talk about Unionist cooperation where possible and about how best to provide stability for the future of Northern Ireland.  However the UUP is very much aware, given past history, that cooperation is not always achievable. Indeed it makes it much more difficult when a significant aim of one of the organisations you are dealing with is to destroy you. The Ulster Unionist Party will continue to have discussions with organisations on issues that are of benefit to the Union, but we will not be used as an escape route for others who have significant political difficulties.

“Let me also reaffirm my commitment to developing our relationship with the Conservative Party.  Along with our Conservative colleagues we will do all we can to promote, protect and preserve the Union and bring national politics unto the Northern Ireland agenda. The spectacle of recent days in our political journey at Hillsborough illustrates the need to get back as soon as possible to dealing with the issues that matter to people such as jobs, health and education.”

The question now is whether these press releases represent an an attempt to repair a hole in a sinking ship.  Before Crick’s update was posted, Jeffrey Peel and most of the commenters who contributed to his blog yesterday were of the view that the pact could not survive.  Meanwhile, on the Ulster Unionist side, Chekov published a scathing criticism of the conduct of the UUP leadership while Boballs insists that the UUP must clear up the mess.   In his last post, he has expressed his belief the pact can not survive.

This morning, the Belfast Telegraph reports that Sir Reg Empey is blaming the DUP for trying to destroy his party.  Is that news?  After all, why else would the DUP have negotiated at St. Andrews for the largest party to hold the first minister’s position?   Few are likely to be impressed with Sir Reg’s response to this crisis.  It  is unlikely to suppress rising anger within his party or more press speculation that the pact will unravel.  

This morning, David Gordon began the tomato throwing on behalf of the Belfast Telegraph.  Expect a pounding from other sections of the media over the next few days.

The non-sectarian way is the only proper way to oppose Sinn Fein

In my previous post, following the Hatfield House meeting, I invited Owen Paterson to “clear the air” on speculation that the Conservatives may be agreeing to or acquiescing in a pan-unionist pact involving the DUP, which amounts to an entrenchment of sectarian politics. 

Before I go on, let me repeat that there were perfectly legitimate reasons for having the talks between the parties concerned.  The possible collapse of the Executive is a worry.  The Conservatives, acting as the party about to form a Government, would be absolutely right to explore ways to save to the Peace process.  

I do not claim to have any influence over Owen Paterson, let alone David Cameron.  What is perfectly obvious though is that with neither of them having spoken further about the talks, there remains a stench in the Northern Irish political air.   Unfortunately, the stench has become worse as the week has progressed.  Peter McCann and Sheila Davidson have now revealed that part of their reason for resigning as candidates was a fear that the UUP would do a separate deal with the DUP.   Furthermore, as The Times indicates, Mr. Paterson has not yet held talks with the Nationalist Parties. 

The result is that Conservatives are now left with a credibility problem as far as their non-sectarian credentials are concerned.  That problem is now being compounded by the ill-informed writings of journalists and bloggers from across the water.

Once the Labour Party weighed in with their criticism of the Hatfield House talks, it was inevitable, as the night follows the day, that some Conservative journalists would rise to the bait.  Benedict Brogan of the Daily Telegraph seems to have been the first fish to bite this worm. His piece is clearly written without any discussion of one of the central aims of the Tory / UUP pact, which is to drive sectarianism out of Northern Ireland Politics. 

A much more thoughtful piece was written on Conservative Home by Paul Goodman.  Much of it contained entirely sensible reasons why the Hatfield House meeting should have taken place.  It is therefore a pity that he wrote this sentence in support of Ben Brogan.

“It’s essential, Ben wrote, “to find political ways to ensure Sinn Fein doesn’t end up the winner as the result of the failure of Unionism in Northern Ireland to get its electoral act together” (and such ways, incidentally, don’t necessitate a DUP/UUP merger).

This is the first reason why we were right to promote the recent talks between pro-Union parties.”

The words “to find political ways to ensure Sinn Fein doesn’t end up the winner” have not been fully explained but it is difficult to read those words in any way other than that the Conservatives should be prepared to embrace a pan-unionist pact. 

I reject that notion.  It is worth repeating the fourth paragraph of the pre-amble to the Memorandum of Understanding which the Conservatives and the UUP signed up to on 20^th November 2008. 

“Both parties recognize the need to change politics in Northern Ireland, are committed to reaching out to the increasing numbers of alienated voters, and developing non sectarian politics in Northern Ireland.”

There is only one, non-sectarian, way to oppose Sinn Fein.  That is to fight for the votes of people from all communities at elections.  That may look like an insurmountable task to some.  It is not, so long as Conservative and Unionist politicians are prepared to take a very long – term view of politics.

UPDATE

I have just stumbled upon an email circular which was sent to me on Friday 22nd January by David Fry, the Conservative Agent for Northern Ireland.  It reads

“During his two day visit to Northern Ireland this week Mr Paterson met with deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness MP MLA to discuss the ongoing political instabilities in Northern Ireland”

That partially answers the criticism  in “the Times ”  reporting on the comments of Alasdair McDonnell.  Perhaps Mr. Paterson should be talking to the SDLP as well.

Mr. Paterson, will you please clear the air for us

Last Weekend, the Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Owen Paterson, held a “secret” meeting with leaders of the DUP and the UUP.

At first sight, such a meeting would have seemed logical and sensible. With Sinn Fein threatening to bring down the Executive over Policing and Justice, seemingly more likely as a result of the Iris Robinson scandal, it would make sense to have these meetings to enable Mr. Paterson to be on top of his game when he assumes office as the New Northern Ireland Minister.  

According to a report by Henry McDonald in the Observer today, three of our prospective parliamentary candidates have resigned from the Party nomination because the talks were about entering into a political pact.  That is certainly a loss to the Conservatives and to the Northern Ireland electorate.  Of the three, I do know Sheila Davidson.  She would have made an exceptionally good candidate.   In response to the Observer report, Ian Parsley, who was present when the three resigned their nomination, has denied that the withdrawal of these three were anything to do with a prospective pact with the DUP.   Two of the three were Catholics.  That seems to be nothing more than an unfortunate co-incidence.   Perhaps Henry McDonald will have egg on his face for latching on to an assumption. 

I find it difficult to believe that Northern Ireland Conservatives are calling for Mr. Paterson’s head.  Mr. Paterson has done so much good work to give meaning to the Conservative cause in Northern Ireland.  He would not throw all that away in a “sectarian carve up.”  However, there is no doubt that Conservatives in Northern Ireland have been unnerved by the talks with the DUP. 

A statement from a conservative spokesman did indicate that the Conservatives would not be entering into any sectarian pact. I quote from the Observer report

“We remain absolutely committed to putting up 18 Conservative and Unionists candidates at the next general election to offer the people of Northern Ireland national, non-sectarian normal politics. Nothing that has happened in the past 24 hours deflects us from that,” the spokesman said. “We are absolutely clear that we will not be entering any sectarian pact. We remain committed to our existing pact with the Ulster Unionists, but David Cameron will do absolutely nothing that undermines political stability or puts the peace process at risk.”

So what exactly have the Conservatives agreed with the DUP that might be so unpalatable?   What does the last phrase in that statement mean exactly?

An agreement over the contesting of seats at the General Election? – The Conservatives have always consistently stated they would field 18 candidates.  They will not change that position.  It has been suggested that the DUP have offered not to field candidates in two of the seats in return for something else.  This is unlikely.  It would amount to a sectarian pact by the back door.    

An agreement not to vote against the Conservatives in the Commons if there is a hung Parliament?

There is nothing wrong, in principle, with negotiating terms with another party given this scenario, so long as the price is right.  If the price means adopting a policy which is inherently sectarian, such as the DUP position on parades (see below), it most certainly is not.

An agreement over the terms for devolution of Policing and Justice? – It is worth noting that as the UK Government, the Conservatives will have to take a neutral position on P & J with the object of bridging the gap between the DUP and Sinn Fein, if that is possible.  However, if Assembly elections are imminent, the Conservatives and the UUP are going to have to declare their hand in relation to the terms under which P & J should be devolved.

No matter how reasonable the Ashdown proposals may sound to people who do not live in Northern Ireland, they do not justify the abolition of the Parades Commission on merit.  The Commission now has years of experience and expertise behind it.  Support for the Parades Commission has grown within the Unionist community as they note its contribution to peace on the streets. 

Thirty seven of Northern Ireland’s 54 MLAs are members of the Orange Order.  The DUP policy on parades (and probably that of the UUP) has the stamp of Orange influence.  It is not a policy which is beneficial to Northern Ireland.  Furthermore, adoption of such a policy would be perceived as being sectarian.  The Conservative Party can not afford to be associated with it.

An agreement not to go into the Northern Ireland Government if Sinn Fein are the Largest Party at Stormont?

It is now possible, perhaps even likely, that the UUP will once again be the largest unionist party at Stormont after the Assembly elections but not necessarily the largest party.  The OFM and ODFM are equal in terms of power.  It does not surprise me that the DUP would refuse to nominate a DFM but what about the UUP?   If that is the UUP policy, it is wrong.  The Conservatives should be above that kind of childish nonsense.  They can not afford to be seen to support it.  In any event, it would be inconsistent with advancing the peace process. 

There are now rumours that the UUP is to enter into a compact agreement with the DUP in order to ensure they are the largest “party” at Stormont – thus preventing Sinn Fein from being able to nominate First Minister.  Well, that one would also have to go through the Courts, including the Appeal Courts and could fail in them.   Such an agreement, even if legal, would be the most sectarian of sectarian agreements.  If that is what the UUP want to do, it is hard to see how the Conservatives can enter into any agreement with the UUP on assembly elections. 

Has the Conservative leadership sold its soul in order to get more seats or buy an insurance policy for a hung parliament?  Without the information in the public arena, it is too early to judge but Owen Paterson now needs to answer those questions in detail in order to clear the air.

Cardinal Cahal Daly R.I.P

I am not officially back to writing posts after the holidays but I had to record the death of Cardinal Cahal Daly, formerly the Archbishop of Armagh and primate of the Catholic Church in Ireland who died on New Years Eve 2009.

Cardinal Cahal Daly

I will not dwell on his achievements.  There is already plenty in the press about them.  I acknowledge them sincerely.  His memory is a positive one for the Northern Irish people.

How the known unknowns could affect the General Election results in Northern Ireland

With 2010 around the corner, the General Election becomes ever more omnipresent. 

Voting outcomes in Northern Ireland at the General Election will be harder to predict than in any other region.  Since the Assembly Elections in 2007, so many new features have emerged (we will call them “known unknowns”) onto the political scene that the results of past elections can be viewed as nothing more than a starting point.  We may be in a new era of voting trends but until new patterns emerge, the old ones should not yet be ignored.

The tables below are the percentages achieved by the four main Northern Ireland political parties since 1992, excluding the Euro elections apart from 2004 and 2009 (because the votes for Ian Paisley and John Hume were personal votes). 

A = Assembly Elections.   C = District Council Elections   P = UK Parliamentary Elections  E = European Elections

	P 1992	C 1993	F 1996	P 1997	C 1997	A 1998	C 2001
DUP	13.10	17.00	18.80	13.60	16.00	18.14	21.40
UUP	34.50	29.00	24.17	32.70	28.00	21.25	22.90
SDLP	23.50	22.00	21.36	24.10	21.00	21.97	19.40
SF	10.00	12.00	15.47	16.10	17.00	17.63	20.70
Others	18.90	20.00	20.21	13.20	19.97	21.02	15.60

 

	P 2001	A 2003	C 2005	E 2004	P 2005	A  2007	E 2009
DUP	22.50	25.60	29.60	32.00	33.70	30.10	18.10
UUP	26.80	22.70	18.00	16.60	17.70	14.90	17.00
SDLP	21.00	17.00	17.40	15.90	17.50	15.20	16.10
SF	21.70	23.50	23.20	26.30	24.30	26.20	25.80
Others	8.70	11.20	11.80	9.10	6.70	13.20	22.00

The following graph below is a representation of these tables  (please click the graph to see it enlarged).

The graph shows that the voting strength declined for both the SDLP and the UUP before the Good Friday agreement.  The relationship between Sinn Fein’s level of support and that of the SDLP follows a much smoother trend than that of the Unionist parties.  This is due, in part, to the fact that the leading Unionist Party tended to attract a higher level of support at a General Election, where the first-past-the-post system of voting still exists, than at the Council and Assembly Elections.  However, averaging out these trends shows that between 1992 and 2007 the UUP has fallen from 35% to 17% (down 18%) In the same period, the DUP has advanced from 13% to 30% (up 17%).  In these 15 years, that would make a swing of 17.5%

The Sinn Fein advance would have began since it first entered elections in 1981.  After a brief relapse following the Enniskillen bomb in 1987, they reverted to their long term upward trend at the expense of the SDLP.  Between 1992 and 2007, Sinn Fein moved from 10% to 26% (up 16).  In the same period, the SDLP moved from 24% to 16% (down 8).  That represents a swing from SDLP to Sinn Fein of 12%.

The graph and the tables also indicate that the decline of the moderate parties seems to have been arrested at the latest European Election.  Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that Sinn Fein and the UUP are now at the head of Stormont.

The Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey has been an enigma in terms of the results of the Elections, for a number of years.   They show great inconsistency between the support of a party in terms of sympathy and allegiance and what happens at the polling booth.  In the 2007 survey, in response to the question “Which Northern Ireland political party do you feel closest to, even if you do not always vote for them?” respondents answered as follows:

	%
Democratic Unionist Party (DUP)	20
Sinn Féin	14
Ulster Unionist Party (UUP)	18
Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP)	20
Alliance	8
Other party (please specify)	2
None of these	15
Other answer	1
Don’t know	1

The results for 2008 show very little difference.

Democratic Unionist Party (DUP)	21
Sinn Féin	13
Ulster Unionist Party (UUP)	18
Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP)	19
Alliance Party	7
Other party	1
None of these	21
Other answer	0
Don’t know	1

At elections, a substantial number of voters opt for an extreme party.  The deviation from moderation seems to be greater on the Nationalist side.  Why is this? 

It is probably an instinct, in a sectarian voting system, that you vote for the party that you think will be strongest against the other (extreme) side.  Liam Clarke, writing in the Newsletter a couple of weeks ago, gave us this very insightful view.

Even the peace process was marked by an increase in support for the most extreme parties available, Sinn Fein and the DUP, who are now coming under pressure from yet harder line forces.

Part of the problem is that we human beings tend not to think of ourselves as extreme.

Our own views seem no more than common sense, the only response possible in the circumstances.

It is easier to spot extremism, blinkered views, perverse opinions and hypocrisy in those with whom we disagree.

And, having spotted these negative qualities, the next step is not to listen to the “self-serving nonsense” our opponents keep spouting.
We don’t have to hear them out to know they are wrong; it is easier to just stick to what we know to be right.

That leads me on to one reason why we often imagine that, as a society, we are really more moderate than the politicians we vote for in overwhelming numbers.

When Ian Paisley was still considered a hard liner, a party worker told me that many people voted for him but wouldn’t admit it to a journalist; they regarded it as a private matter like an insurance policy.

They counted on Paisley to raise the alarm if things were going wrong.
The same thing happened with Sinn Fein which for many years scored far lower in the polls than they did in elections – people didn’t like declaring themselves as Shinners, or even thinking of themselves as such, but they didn’t mind voting for them as a strong nationalist voice.

Clarke is probably right, subject to one modification. It probably does not matter if the strongest Unionist voice or the strongest Nationalist voice is extremist or moderate, so long as they are the strongest.   

This would suggest that the key to predicting the outcome of future elections lies in assessing who is the strongest party on a particular side of the sectarian divide.   However, that kind of voter mindset is liable to develop with a new set of circumstances.   It is still less than 3 years since all of the political parties accepted power sharing in Northern Ireland.   Could it be that voters will begin to assess the strength of a political party in more sophisticated ways than in the past?   Could it be that the ability of a party to negotiate, co-operate and govern in harmony with parties from the opposite designation will become a basis on which to judge a party’s strength? 

There are early signs that this may be starting to happen.  The Belfast Telegraph has began to take its own opinion polls.  In a follow up report, it published some but not all of its findings.  Its editor, Mike Gibson, made this comment:

This poll is a snapshot of course, but it is a very interesting snapshot.

“It suggests that we maybe moving into a different phase of political life here in which politicians are judged as much on their performance in the here and now as on their history.

“If so, that has to be seen as a positive step. If the message is that some people are recognising that politicians can begin the journey from conflict towards statesmanship it is to be welcomed.

“If the message is that our politicians must do more to leave their historical baggage at the door of the debating chamber that too is positive.”

This is a signal whifh neither Sinn Fein nor the DUP can afford to ignore, particularly in terms of how they handle the devlolution of policing and justice.  

The 2009 European Elections have already heralded a change in voting patterns on the Unionist side but none on the Nationalist side.  This suggests that up to June 2009, at least, the Northern Ireland electorate had not passed any judgment on the exercise of power sharing.  Rather, it was a neutral factor.

13.7% of the Northern Ireland electorate voted for Jim Allister of the TUV as a first preference vote at the Euro Elections.   Could it be that some former TUV voters are so disaffected by the fact that the DUP share power with Sinn Fein that they have decided never to vote for the DUP unless there is no unionist left? 

The fact that Nicholson was the first Unionist MEP to be elected on the 3^rd count, overtaking Diane Dodds of the DUP after the elimination of Jim Allister gives credence to that proposition.  Some of the TUV vote could also have been a personal vote for Allister or perhaps an ominous sign that amongst some of the Unionist voters, Jim Allister is now considered to be the strongest voice in Unionism.  In North Antrim, where Allister intends to stand at the General Election, he has a strong chance of establishing a new power base.

So far as the UUP are concerned, it is far too early to say whether the link-up with the Conservatives has benefited them electorally.  The Euro Elections came too quickly for the parties to put forward much more than a dull, but safe, campaign to secure the election of Jim Nicholson. 

One of the objects of the joint Conservative UUP pact is to bring an end to sectarian politics.  From the trend shown by the European Elections, I do not expect many more than token numbers of Catholics to switch their allegiance from one of the Nationalist parties at the next General Election. 

However, there are other factors which could benefit UCUNF.  The first assumes that amongst the Unionists, the TUV supporters will either vote for a TUV candidate or (if none) switch to a UCUNF candidate in an anti-DUP vote. 

What the Conservatives really want, as a first major step towards dominating politics in Northern Ireland, is to be seen, together with the UUP as the strongest voice in Unionism.  David Cameron is by far and away the most charismatic figure in the Unionist camp.  As to his likely impact and that of the Conservative campaign as a whole, we are in uncharted water.  It probably all boils down to the degree of interest taken by Northern Ireland voters in national politics.  If interest in National politics starts to take off properly in Northern Ireland, the Conservative campaign will make an impact. 

One other factor which would benefit UCUNF is if the Executive is brought down.  Such an event would almost certainly cause considerable damage to the DUP.  In that scenario, UCUNF would probably emerge as the largest unionist force.  This possibility is discussed further on.

On the Nationalist side, there will be a new SDLP leader by the time of the General Election.  It had previously been thought that Margaret Ritchie would win the leadership contest.  More recent insight suggests that the race is much closer with McDonald being seen as the “tougher” looking politician.  Toughness is something which the SDLP needs in its leadership.  Perhaps the long leadership election campaign will help both of these candidates to develop as tougher leaders.

Within the media, the question rages as to the extent of the damage to Gerry Adams’ reputation over his handling of his brother’s position as a Sinn Fein worker.  Within Northern Ireland at least, Sinn Fein has Martin McGuinness as a second political talisman.  A recent opinion poll has suggested that Martin McGuinness is the most popular of all ministers.  The Adams family scandal has a long way to run but so long as McGuinness is not implicated over the decision to ignore Liam Adams’ abuse of his daughter, I would expect little damage to Sinn Fein at the General Election.  Over a longer period, the scandal is much more likely to cause it much more damage as the drip feed of constant media exposure wears down the resistance of its supporters.

There is one more “But.”  Would Sinn Fein be damaged at the General Election if it brought down the Executive over Police and Justice? 

This is probably the one issue at Stormont which could influence the General Election.  If the Executive is brought down, the combined effect of this event and the Adams family scandal could be a lethal cocktail for Sinn Fein leading to a violent swing away from their core vote.  In that scenario, 3 seats could be lost (Fermanagh / S. Tyrone to UCUNF, West Tyrone to the SDLP and Newry Armagh to the SDLP).

That is a very big “if”.  It is hard to believe that Sinn Fein will have any stomach for bringing down the Executive but they will now need the DUP (who also have an interest in keeping the present administration alive) to find them a way out of the P & J crisis without losing face. 

As we move into the New Year, we wait in eager anticipation as these known unknowns to developing and possibly alter the political map of Northern Ireland. 

My prediction for the 18 Northern Ireland seats at the General Election (which assumes that the DUP and SF reach an understanding over P & J).

DUP  6   (down 3)

SF     5    (no change)

SDLP 3   (no change)

UCUNF  3  (up 2)

TUV  1 (up 1)

Finally, a very Happy New Year to all readers of this Blog.

Election 2010: the Northern Ireland seats really do count

Writing in the Sunday Times today, Michael Portillo forecasts that David Cameron will be Prime Minister “whatever the Maths.”  In other words, even if there is a hung Parliament which gives Labour a larger number of seats, Labour will not be allowed to be the Party of Government.

If the Conservatives are the largest party in Parliament, then there is no doubt that David Cameron will form the next Government.  The scenario that I have trouble with is where Labour has the largest number of seats in a hung parliament but where that number is still significantly ahead of the Conservatives. 

Portillo says

“If Labour fails to secure a majority — even if it wins more seats than the Conservatives — it ought to be booted out and in all likelihood would be.”

Portillo’s argument centres on the attitude of the minority parties, particularly the Liberal Democrats.  He says

“It would be especially difficult for the Liberal Democrats to support Labour if it had lost to the Tories in terms of the popular vote — the number of actual votes cast — which seems all but certain.”

Thre is little doubt that Clegg would not support Labour if the Conservatives were the largest party in Parliament.  Clegg partly declared his position on this scenario more than 18 months ago.  Clegg would support the setting of a budget but reserve the right to oppose public non-financial measures taken by the Government.  In the first year of the new parliament (at least), Cameron would effectively have a free hand to govern.

What is Clegg’s position if Labour is the largest party?  

The Conservatives only need a (uniform) swing of 1.5% against Labour to become the largest party in terms of the number of votes cast.  However, because the Conservatives pile up their supporters in the safe seats, they would need a (uniform) swing of 4.4% to become the party in Parliament with the largest number of seats (source: UK polling report swing calculator).   

Speaking to the BBC on the Andrew Marr show, Nick Clegg recently said

“Whichever party has the strongest mandate from the British people, it seems to me obvious in a democracy they have the first right to seek to try and govern, either on their own or with others “ 

What does “strongest mandate” mean – the largest number of MPs or the largest number of votes cast?  Unfortunately, the point was not properly “nailed” in that interview. 

If it means the largest number of votes cast, then on a 1.5% uniform swing, the Conservatives could end up with just 234 seats compared with Labour’s 324.  Labour would only be 2 seats short of an overall majority in Parliament.  In practice, with Sinn Fein winning 5 seats and not sitting in parliament, they would effectively have an overall majority. 

Let us now suppose that there is a uniform swing against Labour of 4.39%.  In that scenario, the Conservatives are just short of being the largest party in Parliament.  Labour would be the largest party in Parliament with 282 seats but with only 31.8% of the votes cast.  The Conservatives would have 37.66% of the vote and 281 seats.  Labour would be 44 seats short of an overall majority.  There is no way that Labour could effectively govern without the support of the Lib Dems.  The Conservatives might be able to form a Government with the forbearance of the Lib Dems but it would be highly unstable.  It would not be possible for the Conservatives to legislate the most controversial aspects of their manifesto.  A further General Election (perhaps within 2 years) would seem likely.

In between the two extremes of Labour having the largest number of seats in a hung parliament, there is a grey area where the smaller minority parties could make the difference.   In such a scenario, MPs from the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the SDLP and the DUP could extract concessions from Labour to keep them in power.  For example, they could agree not to alter the Barnett formula.  Such a strategy would not be without considerable risk for Labour in the medium and longer term. 

In the end, the onus is on the Prime Minister to offer his resignation to the Queen.  If Labour is still the largest parliamentary party, they would be within their rights to review the possibility of continuing in Government.  There is already some historical precedent.

In February 1974, Labour won the largest number of seats (301 against 297 for the Conservatives) but fell short of an overall majority by 19 seats.  The outgoing Prime Minister, Ted Heath, did not resign immediately.  He only did so after attempting to form a coalition Government with the Liberals, led by Jeremy Thorpe.  In theory Ted Heath could have tried to form a coalition with the Ulster Unionists (then 11 MPs) but the price would have been the dismantling of Sunningdale.  Harold Wilson became prime minister for the second time but his Government did not have the stability that it needed.  After some of its bills were voted down in the Commons, Wilson called another general election later that year.  Labour won the October 1974 election with a slim overall majority.  They held power until May 1979.

In theory, even if Labour is the largest party in a hung Parliament, they could continue in Government so long as they are not too far short of an overall majority.  It is hard to say what the “tipping” point would be here. Labour could probably just about continue in power 20 short of an overall majority with the sort of deal that I have suggested. Labour would be in this position with a uniform swing against them of about 2.7%. The likelihood?

In their worst opinion poll this year (November 15), the Conservative lead was only 6%.  (Con 37%, Lab 31%, L.Dem 17%) Even on those figures, the Conservatives would still (just) be the largest party in Parliament. 

The bookies will not take your bet on David Cameron becoming Prime Minister.  However, the events of 1974 demonstrate how difficult it is for the party in power to govern efficiently and securely without a sufficient number of MPs.  It also is a reminder to all of us in the Conservative Party and the UUP that the votes cast for the Northern Ireland Parliamentary seats will play a crucial part in determining the strength of the next UK Government.