The GAA, Nationalist Identity and Sectarianism

In recent times, the GAA has been compared with the Orange Order as being its Republican equivalent.  At the end of the continuum of sectarian bigotry where criminality festers, a GAA clubhouse is just as likely to be damaged as an Orange Hall. 

Just over a year ago, Margaret Ritchie MLA and Minister for Social Development set the cat amongst the pigeons when she attended a GAA conference in Belfast.  At the conference, she addressed sectarian attacks on Orange halls and GAA venues.  Her remarks on that subject were reported in the press and went down badly with members of the Orange Order.  In response, they handed her a letter of protest. 

On December 3, 2008, the Belfast Telegraph reported as follows:

 “The minister condemned all such attacks, but reportedly said that the GAA and Orange Order could not be described as reflections of each other, insisting that the GAA had reached outside its nationalist heartland towards other communities.

She was quoted as saying: “While the loyal orders have some progressive people around who wish to move them forward to a better place, they remain unlike the GAA, sectional and sectarian and deeply divisive in our community.”

At first sight, Margaret Ritchie’s viewpoint is not an unreasonable one to arrive at when one compares the big differences between the two organisations. If one organisation is about religion and the other about sport, they cannot possibly be opposites.  Furthermore, there is no rule against a person from any particular religion from joining the GAA.  In the case of the Orange Order, Catholics are excluded from membership. 

I differ with Margaret Ritchie’s remarks in two respects.  It is wrong to say or imply that the GAA does not have any connection with sectarianism.  I also take issue with her comment that the GAA had reached outside its heartland towards other communities.  The reality is that their success in this area has not been more than minimal and whilst it is fair to say that some Protestants have been involved in Gaelic sports, the GAA certainly has certainly not integrated with the Unionist Community.  At this point, I would like to discuss another sport played widely in Ireland which does integrate Nationalists and Unionists – Rugby Union.

Lord Maginnis is a well known member of the UUP.  He is my former MP.  He identifies himself as British.  Many years ago, Maginnis also used to call himself Irish.  That he felt the need to suppress the Irish part of his identity was part of the tragedy of the troubles.  It was a reaction not simply to terrorism but to part of the Republican campaign which was to squeeze out and eliminate the British identity from Northern Ireland.  Yet Ken Maginnis is still an Irishman.  He is also a fan of rugby and devotedly follows the Irish team.

The Irish international rugby team represents the 32 Counties of Ireland internationally.  It is not the only sport which represents both parts of Ireland but certainly the only major one in Ireland.  Before the match, the National Anthem Amhrán na bhFiann is played.  Though it was tolerated by them, Irish Unionists did feel somewhat excluded by its inclusion.  In 1995, the IRFU commissioned Phil Coulter to write a politically neutral anthem for the Irish Rugby team.  The song, Ireland’s call has been proudly adopted by all Irishmen.  By that action, the IRFU effectively nailed any identity problem that it might have had with its National team.  Ireland’s Call has now been adopted by the Irish Hockey, Cricket, Rugby League and A1GP international teams.

Unlike the IRFU, the GAA’s identity is tied to Nationalism.  This is not surprising given its history.  At the time of its inception, it formed part of a wider movement of cultural Irish Nationalism which now forms part of the history of the birth of the 26 county Irish State.

Throughout its existence, the GAA has nurtured its Nationalist identity through pre-match rites, its rules and its literature.  Rule 15 requires that the flag of the Republic of Ireland is flown and that Amhrán na bhFiann is played at all matches.  It was also an isolationist institution until relatively recently.  At one time, a player of Gaelic sports was banned from playing other sports.  Some of its past rules such as the ban on British security forces playing GAA games were undoubtedly sectarian. 

Unofficially, the GAA has been linked to Republican terrorism.  In the past, there have been allegations that it funded the IRA.  It is also alleged that some clubs continue to glorify IRA men. 

I would certainly not wish to brand all GAA supporters as IRA supporters or sympathisers.  Many of the people I know who are also GAA members would have nothing to do with the IRA or its memory but it is a fact that every now and then, some members of the GAA organisation make overt gestures of sympathy for the IRA in the name of that organisation. 

Rule 7 of the GAA rules strictly forbids sectarianism. Unfortunately, the rule on its own is impotent.  The GAA has failed to prevent a culture of sectarianism from having developed in its own following, hence the appalling case of Darren Graham, a protestant who was forced to give up playing Gaelic Football as a result of sectarian abuse.

For all of the above reasons, it is hardly surprising that the GAA is perceived by many as being a sectarian organisation and one which the Unionist Community is generally alienated from.  

The GAA carries with it the nurturing of the ancient Irish sports, such as hurling.  These sports are a part of Irish heritage.  Elsewhere on this website, I have argued that the Irish Language should not be allowed to be hijacked by Republicanism.  That argument extends to all other parts of Irish heritage.   No part of Irish heritage should be the preserve of a single community. 

So can the GAA move forward from here?

In a sense, only they can answer that.  It all depends upon what they want from their longer term future.  Do they wish to enhance the interest in their sport?  Do they wish to adopt a modern sporting ethos by removing politics from its aims and objects?  Do they wish to improve community relations in Northern Ireland and combat sectarianism?  I believe that they can achieve all of those things by doing one thing.  That is that they follow the Irish Rugby Football Union model and take measures to change their identity to a cross-community one.  For example, could they eliminate rule 15? 

I am not the first person to make this argument.  Ed Curran of the Belfast Telegraph has reached a similar view about the GAA.  Whether anybody inside the GAA will give these issues serious thought is another matter.  We can but hope that matters will change for the better.

Paisley’s praise for McGuinness – Is this a response to Jim Allister?

Last night, I received an interesting comment from Horseman on the post entitled “Allister sets a nasty trap for Peter Robinson“

He has identified a possible scenario where the DUP does indeed lose 9 more MLAs than McGuinness and suggests that some UUP MLAs could defect to the DUP in order to keep them as the largest political party. 

The last  UUP MLAs to defect  to the DUP were Jeffrey Donaldson, Arlene Foster and Nora Beare just after the Assembly elections in November 2003.   Much water has passed under the bridge since then.  The UUP’s decline was arrested during the Euro Elections.  However, any kind of disaffection can drive a politician to defect.   For example, there is no telling whether some left-wing Ulster Unionists, who are already upset about the electoral pact with the Conservatives, might be tempted to go that way.  

I think it is unlikely that any UUP MLA would defect for that reason.   Most UUP supporters see the DUP as having peaked and begin a long-term decline into obscurity.   The loss of 9 or more MLAs will add credence to that – the more so if the UUP then becomes the largest party at Stormont.   It is also possible that DUP MLAs could defect to the UUP to make them the largest party in protest at Peter Robinson failing to nominate the deputy FM.  Perhaps we should not get too carried away.   Politicians do have a responsibility to re-assure the voters that they will play by the rules and not seek to de-stabilise the Assembly, the Good Friday agreement and the St. Andrews Agreement for sectarian motives.   

Meanwhile, this morning, supporters of Jim Allister’s TUV could be choking in the corn flakes as they read the report in the Belfast Telegraph entitled “Ian Paisley praises Sinn Fein over Northern Ireland power sharing”

Or will they not be delighted?  Maybe they will think ‘We were right to form our own movement. This man really has lost it’

Politicians rarely make remarks which they know will upset and annoy some of their own followers without making some sort of political calculation.  So is there anything significant about Paisley’s remarks?

For many years, we have listened to “smash Sinn Fein” rhetoric from Mr. Paisley and his disciples.  This rhetoric did not stop when the DUP finally went into power sharing with Sinn Fein following the St. Andrews Agreement.  Only a few months ago, it still formed part of Diane Dodd’s European Election campaign.

Could it be that the DUP have finally recognised that the contradiction is working against them and that a new approach is needed?  Mr. Paisley could easily have said that his hard-line has been the reason why Sinn Fein have “danced to the DUP tune”  in Government.  However, actually praising Sinn Fein goes one step beyond that. 

Could it be that the DUP have seen Allister’s trap and have began to pave the way towards accepting Martin McGuinness as First Minister in 2011?

Jim Allister sets a nasty trap for Peter Robinson

In his post yesterday, Horseman has set out to put flesh on the bones of Jim Allister’s article on his website in which he sets out his plans to wreck the mechanism of power sharing in its present form.  

Horseman rightly highlights the amendment to the Good Friday Agreement brought about under the St. Andrews Agreement whereby the party with the largest number of MLAs gets to nominate the First Minister.  

According to Horseman, Allister’s plan depends for its success on

(a) The DUP losing 9 more seats than Sinn Fein

(b) Sinn Fein having the largest number of MLAs at Stormont

(c) the DUP refusing to nominate for Deputy First Minister.  

Is (c) really likely to happen?  The reality is that the offices of First Minister and Deputy First Minister hold equal power.  The Assumption seems to be that the DUP leadership is incapable of swallowing its own pride.   

There is one further possible scenario.  That is that the UUP becomes the largest party.  Would Sir Reg refuse to nominate the Deputy First Minister?  I don’t think so.   

Peter Robinson has to be asked what his party would do, given that scenario.  The voters of Northern Ireland (particularly those who currently support the DUP) have the right to know that.  Robinson would then be in rather a dilemma.  

If he says he would not nominate for DFM, he leaves his party is open to accusations of (a) reneging on a constitutional arrangement which his own party negotiated (b) failing on their own promise to “control” Sinn Fein through power sharing.   If he says that he will nominate, he will upset a large section of his own supporters who would find that too difficult to stomach and more likely vote for the TUV.

Jim Allister has set a nasty trap for Peter Robinson.  He and the DUP will have great difficulty avoiding it.

Will voters think the DUP an irrelevance at Westminster Elections?

The Glasgow North East by election was predicted by most of the political punters but the scale of the Labour win did come as a shock. 

Scottish voting patterns are hard to decipher at the best of times.  Willie Bain, the new Labour MP apparently ran an ‘insurgents’ campaign’ protesting the decisions made by the SNP government in Edinburgh. 

That does not appear to be the entire reason for the win though.  An opinion poll taken for the TNS/BMRB Herald on 3^rd November indicated a huge difference between voting intentions for the Holyrood Parliament and the Westminster Parliament. 

	Labour	SNP	Cons	L.Dem
Holyrood	32	40	13	11
Westminster	39	25	18	12

It seems then that some 15% of Scottish voters are prepared to vote for the SNP at elections for the Scottish Parliament and either Conservative or Labour for the UK Parliament.  Does that now mean that the SNP is an irrelevance at Westminster in the eyes of a large proportion of Scottish voters?

This situation does beg an interesting question for Northern Ireland politics.  It is appreciated that the circumstances are entirely different and it is not exactly comparing like with like.  For example, Sinn Fein supporters are quite happy to vote for their party even though they do not take up their seats at Westminster. 

However, there is a new element approaching Northern Ireland politics – the Conservatives, in alliance with the UUP, are offering all voters in Northern Ireland the chance to vote for the next UK Government.  

Will voters start thinking that the DUP is now an irrelevance at Westminster?  Will TUV voters start to think along those lines if they do not have a candidate to represent them?  Time will tell.

Apologising for the past wrong of your forbears

Yesterday, I woke to the horror of a piece of recent British history that I was completely unaware of – the sending away of the British children to Australia purely to “unburden” the British authorities. 

Australia was a young sparsely populated country in need of more people for its development.  In those days, the Australians did not want Asian immigrants.   What better way to enhance that development than to import children of white Anglo-Saxon British stock?  It probably seemed like a reasonable arrangement at the time.

Fast forward to 2009.  The Australian Government has now apologised for its part in the ordeal and it appears that Gordon Brown is now about to apologise for the British side of the arrangement. 

This is not the first time, nor will it be the last, that a politician has apologised for events that he personally he had nothing to do with.  In 1970, the West German Chancellor Brandt expressed sorrow and Germany’s responsibility for the holocaust.  The late Pope Jean-Paul II apologised for the treatment of Galileo by the Catholic Church.  In 2000, Tony Blair apologised for the wrongful conviction of the Guildford four.  In 2003, the Queen gave an apology for the ethnic cleansing brought about by the deportation of Acadians in Nova Scotia in 1755.   A couple of months ago, Gordon Brown apologised for the treatment of Alan Turing, a code breaker during the Second World War.  In 1954, he committed suicide after being prosecuted for homosexuality and then being forcibly treated with female hormones.  The overwhelming majority of these political apologies have happened in the last 40 years.

Political apologies have a purpose.  Taking responsibility for an event, even when a politician had nothing to do with it, is a way of contributing to the healing process felt by victims. 

Ah, you might ask how can anybody be a victim when the wrongdoing happened before they were born? 

A “victim” for these purposes does not have to be the person who suffered the wrong directly.  It can be a relation or a group which inherits a communal memory which affects relationships amongst the living many years later. 

Is there anything to apologise for in Northern Ireland in 2009?  If so, who should do the apologising and when should it be done?

The apologies, if they are going to be made, have to be considered very carefully.  An apology should be saved for the time that it is going to make the most impact.  It certainly is not a good time to apologise if the “victim” or communal victim is not going to be able to accept the apology and move on. 

There are various groups or parties in Northern Ireland that have some apologising to do.  If they are interested in better community relations, then now is the time to plan their apology.  I am not going to single out any group or party here.  Those reading this post will be able to think of plenty of wrongs which politicians should take responsibility for.  My specific interest is in relation to the British Government.  Does it have anything to apologise for in relation to Northern Ireland?

In 2002, Tony Blair apologised to the people of Ireland for British conduct during the potato famine.  That was a good start and it went down well with people in the Republic of Ireland.   Is there anything else the Government could do?

I don’t wish to gainsay the findings of the Saville report.  However, I suspect there could be some adverse findings against the British Army.  If there are such findings, then the apologies should be without hesitation and be as remorseful as it is possible for a Government to be.   

There is, however, one particular event or series of events for which the British Government does have some responsibility – a fact which does affect community relations today.   It is a fact that before 1972, the British Government neglected Northern Ireland in terms of its failure to intervene against democratic and civil rights abuses.  

When the Conservatives win power, I would like to see such an apology being made on behalf of the British Government but timing and sensitivity is extremely  important.  

If it is not handled correctly, it will incur adverse criticism, as happened when two years ago, Peter Hain apologised for the role that Wales and Northern Ireland played in the slave trade.  Now that the UUP is in alliance with the Conservatives, it is essential that they are involved in the planning of that apology and that they are ready to make their own as well.

A great Irish soldier

According to the Belfast telegraph, the President of Ireland, Mary McAleese may join the campaign to have Blair Mayne of Newtownards posthumously awarded the Victoria Cross.

A few weeks ago, I watched a TV documentary about Blair Mayne presented by former racing driver Eddie Irvine.  Before the programme, I knew nothing about him but I was left in no doubt that his exploits were enough for him to deserve more than just one Victoria Cross. 

Whether he receives the award or not, I have no doubt that historians will record him in the list which inlcudes Wellington and Montgomery as one of the greatest Irish soldiers to serve in the British Army.  Long may Blair Mayne be remembered.

Ritchie’s speech looks like the SDLP’s suicide note

Today, Margaret Ritchie made the opening speech of her campaign for the SDLP leadership.   It has been published on Slugger.

Ritchie has reacted to political commentators who wanted to see her answer questions about her vision.  She began by talking about the economy.  She said this

“We have already shown in devolution that we have stronger ideas for developing our economy – both in the North and throughout the wider island. And clear thinking to bring our region out of recession”

OK, so devolution brings out the big ideas in the minds of the SDLP but what about delivering them?  What exactly were those ideas?  Ritchie does not say what they were but she then talks about “bigger” plans

“But we have bigger plans: we want more economic independence from Britain – and ultimately our own taxation and welfare regimes. Northern Ireland needs to be able to retain the gains made through better economic management. We believe in devolution so we want more of it. Broadcasting and Telecoms too”

For those not familiar with the Northern Ireland constitution, it is worth recalling how Government Power is divided up.  The Northern Ireland Act 1998 divides Government Power into three groups – excepted matters, reserved matters and transferred matters.  Transferred matters are the powers already passed to Stormont.  Reserved matters, which still include Police and Justice, are powers which may be transferred to the Northern Ireland Assembly at a future date.  Excepted Powers are those unlikely ever to be transferred.  Here is the complete list

 Reserved Matters

• Criminal law
• Police
• Navigation and civil aviation
• International trade and financial markets
• Telecommunications/postage
• The foreshore and sea bed
• Disqualification from Assembly membership
• Consumer safety
• Intellectual property

Excepted matters

• Royal succession
• International relations
• Defence and armed forces
• Nationality, immigration and asylum
• Taxes levied across the United Kingdom as a whole
• All elections held in Northern Ireland
• Currency
• Conferring of honours
• International Treaties

So Ritchie wants telecommunications and postage to be transferred.  Is that such a big idea?  When you look at the list of reserved matters, there is not much that is left of particular note.  Police and Justice are the big ones and will soon go.  Consumer safety and Intellectual property rights will be subsumed to European Law.  Her proposal for a Northern Ireland taxation regime relates to excepted powers.  This is a complete non-starter.  However, what she said next that will have got the unionist hands scratching heads. 

“At the same time we want to deepen our North/South economic integration. And get serious about the green economy as a source of competitive advantage.
As a first step we will campaign for an all-island independent Environmental Protection Agency and a single all-island Regulator for Energy.”

There is nothing wrong with wanting to deepen economic integration with the Republic of Ireland, provided this is designed to promote business and does not involve any transfer of powers.  However, setting up an environmental protection agency does imply the transfer of powers.  That would require special legislation from the UK Parliament, which would not be enacted unless there was all-party consensus in Northern Ireland.   It also smacks of a policy which has as its ulterior motive not the economic well-being of Northern Ireland but an incremental slow-creeping step towards a united Ireland. 

Credence for this deduction comes from the words of Ritchie herself.  Later on in her speech she unambiguously puts nationalism at the centre of her vision for SDLP policy.  After setting out her desire for a United Ireland, she says this

“I will take our unique ideas for achieving unity to the very heart of decision-making in Dublin. I will campaign hard for the establishment of a new all-party Commission with a clear remit to agree a modern, inclusive vision for a United Ireland.”

So there you have it.  So long as Ritchie is leader of the SDLP, Nationalism will be at the centre of that party’s politics.  More Nationalism and republicanism in Northern Ireland would be an unwelcome distraction from normal “bread and butter” politics.  Contrary to Ritchie’s laudible aim of reconciling society, such policies are divisive. 

I have already stated in an earlier post that the SDLP can play a role in the elimination of sectarianism from politics by “parking” nationalism and campaigning with the Labour Party. 

Margaret Ritchie, instead trying to steer her party away from Sinn Fein has decided to do an ‘about turn’ and rally the SDLP army to make one more glorious charge for the ground lost to Sinn Fein. 

Do the SDLP rank and file realise that this is about to happen?  I fear not.  The following words come to mind

“Not tho’ the soldier knew, someone had blunder’d… Charging an army, while all the world wonder’d.”       ["The Charge of the Light Brigade" - Tennison (1854)].

Ritchie’s speech looks like the SDLP’s suicide note.

A great party

On his blog, Jeffrey Peel has picked up upon the statement by Deirdre Nelson that the UUP and the Conservative Party were “two great parties.” Quite bluntly, he said that the UUP are nothing of the sort. 

Jeffrey Peel’s post attracted criticism. I am not surprised about that. In fairness, I don’t think he is either. As for what I think, I won’t be drawn about whether the UUP is or isn’t a “great” party.

Most Ulster Unionists would acknowledge that they are natural Conservatives. I have heard it said that this figure is approximately 85%. Perhaps that proportion would not be as great if the UUP had not lost a large section of its support under David Trimble’s leadership. 

The vast majority of Ulster Unionists (not necessarily MLAs) see their future as being bound to the Conservative Party. I do not doubt that the UUP will be ready to merge with the Conservatives within the next few years.

The UUP is, of course, a party formed out of the Ulster Unionist Council which had been affiliated to Conservative Party through the National Union of Conservative and Unionist Associations.  Symbolically speaking, a merger of the two parties would be the equivalent of body undergoing a medical operation to put back one of its lost limbs.

However, just as medicine can not ignore potential infections so also can Conservatives not afford to ignore the difficult problems facing a partnership or merger with the UUP. At the end of his post, Jeffrey Peel says that the Conservative/UUP partnership is

“…… about the removal of a sectarian brand from Northern Ireland politics. Conservatives here should not forget that.”

We can never ignore the problem of sectarianism. Indeed, it is not being ignored either by the Conservatives or the UUP.  To give the UUP credit, they had already moved in the right direction away from sectarianism before their partnership with the Conservatives. Their brand of Unionism is now more people-centred than it has ever been. “A place for all of us” is certainly not a reference to a place for one section of the sectarian divide.

To complete the answer to Jeffrey Peel’s last comment, the removal of the sectarian brand is not the entire reason that the Conservative leadership is interested in developing conservativism within Northern Ireland. The Conservatives and the UUP want the people of Northern Ireland to be able to vote for a party which will form the next government.    In another letter published by the Belfast Telegraph on 4th November, Cllr. Deirdre Nelson, to her credit, has made reference to both of those objectives. 

That last objective will be delivered in the next few months followed by the election of David Cameron as our Prime Minister.  At that point, we will all have a great party.

Conservatives must explain Europe until they are ‘blue in the face’

When I saw the headline in the Times this morning which said “Cameron on brink of dropping referendum promise over Lisbon treaty,” I was annoyed.  Not at David Cameron, I hasten to add, but the journalist who wrote it.  Why? Because it is misleading.  Worse still is a headline in the Belfast Telegraph indicating that Cameron has signalled a U – turn.

Why is it misleading?  Because it gives the clear impression that after the Treaty is ratified by all European states, you can simply turn the clock back and de-construct it with a referendum. 

Once all European States have ratified the Treaty, it becomes part of European Law.  Those new elements of European Law can not be separated from all the other European law.  Therefore, when David Cameron says that the Conservatives will re-negotiate those parts of European Law which are not acceptable, that is entirely consistent with their previous policy.  It is a responsible policy.  It is advancing Britain’s best interests. 

Putting this into political context, those who believe that having a referendum before the Treaty is ratified can be the same thing as having a referendum after it is ratified are deluding themselves. 

The latter would be tantamount to a referendum on EU membership in its entirety.  UKIP will now accuse the Conservatives of “reneging on their promise.”  Those who are informed will know this is a dishonest argument.  UKIP’s policy is totally impractical and unworkable in practice.  Conservatives need to get that message across, very clearly, and must keep explaining that point until they are ‘blue in the face’

SDLP leadership election very important for Northern Ireland’s future

The SDLP leadership election is an exceptionally important one from the point of view of the future direction of Northern Ireland Politics

Liam Clarke’s article in today’s Sunday Times sets out the background and the backdrop.  Few would disagree that since John Hume handed over the leadership of the party to Mark Durkan, the latter has been able to prevent the Sinn Fein “cuckoo” from starving the SDLP of voters who would normally be expected to vote for them.   

As well as being ‘cuckooed’ the SDLP, has have been out-spent, out-organised, out-marketed and out-rhetoricised by Sinn Fein in all of the elections from 2001 to 2007.  Supporters of the SDLP had hoped that following a term in office, where Sinn Fein’s political shortcomings were laid bare for all to see, that they would see a revival in their fortunes.  That did not happen in the 2009 euro elections.  The only ‘crumb’ you could give to the SDLP is that the decline in their vote share may have been arrested.   

I say ‘may’ because I am not sure about that at all.  During the Euro elections, Sinn Fein were not ‘firing on all cylinders’ knowing that Barbara de Brun’s election as a Euro MP was a banker and concentrating their resources on trying to get an MEP elected in a ROI constituency.  The SDLP put up an able and respected candidate in Alban McGuinness.  Alas, all they were able to achieve was an increase of 0.3% of their share of the vote.   

I have said previously on this blog site that Catholic voters who by their nature share core Conservative values are the target of future Conservative election campaigns in Northern Ireland.  Almost certainly, most of those voters habitually support the SDLP.  Earlier this year, Mark Durkan alienated some of those supporters over his remarks on academic selection. 

However much commentators will today ridicule any notion that the Conservatives in Alliance with the UUP can win the support of Catholic voters, make no mistake about one thing.  Those voters are on the Conservative menu.  The trouble is, with the exception of those few with a lot of political foresight, it is probably too early to expect members of the SDLP to see the Conservatives as a threat.  That is unfortunate because it does mean that the SDLP are more likely to continue looking at Sinn Fein to see if there is a way they can win back previous support.

I do not believe the SDLP can ever ‘out-nationalist’ Sinn Fein.  There are signs that the SDLP have been thrashing around looking for ways to achieve this.  For example, they produced their own draft Irish Language Act.  It was an extremely Nationalist document which went way beyond what was likely to have been negotiated at St. Andrews.  Another ploy the SDLP have tried over many years is to ‘out-moralise’ Sinn Fein by reminding the electorate that they do not carry the baggage of violence that is so closely associated with Sinn Fein’s past.  It may be that the supporters they have left will never vote for Sinn Fein for that very reason.  However, as a populist trick to win back previous voters, it will never work.

Most commentators, including Liam Clarke, have pointed out that of the two candidates on offer, neither of them have the charisma to “light bonfires” in the minds of the voters.  So where does the SDLP go from here?

In his interview with the BBC, former leader Seamus Mallon talks about the need for ideology.  I believe that he is talking about non-nationalist ideology, particularly since he expressed the need for all Northern Ireland parties to do something similar.

In my opinion, there is only one direction in which the SDLP can go to avoid medium term political extinction.  I have already summarised this in a comment on Slugger at this thread comment No. 35.  I repeat what I have said here:

“Firstly, the SDLP should make social democracy its dominant working ideology and “park” its Nationalist ideology.  In other words, it would only need to draw on its Nationalist ideology if there was a referendum on a united Ireland.  In a sense, that is a mirror image of what the Conservatives want to do with the UUP – to make Conservativism the dominant ideology and “park” unionism.

Keeping Unionism and Nationalism out of election politics can be done with the overwhelming majority of day-to-day political issues.  There are some political issues that are not.  That brings me to the second strand of the proposed solution.  …..  It is that those parties who want to take sectarianism from politics come together and set up a joint committee. The task of that committee would be to negotiate a way forward on the basis of consensus.  Each party involved in these talks would have to agree to certain ethics.  Those might be (a) to vigorously look for solutions which are in the best interest of NI as a whole and not just one section of it (b) that no any elected member of any political party involved makes a public statement of their personal point of view (c) That no public statements are made about the work of that committee except jointly agreed statements. An agreement of this kind would require parties to discipline their members when making public statements on certain topics such as parades.

Most of the kind of issues that I am talking about here are likely to be cultural issues.  For example, I think it is entirely possible for such a joint committee to agree a way forward for the Irish Language.

The task of breaking the sectarian mould for either UCUNF or the SDLP does not end there. The parties still have to develop trust with those voters that they are asking to cross the sectarian divide. That leads me to the third strand.

An open Alliance with the UK Labour Party running along similar lines to the UCU-NF pact would not just give all NI voters the opportunity to vote Labour on Westminster issues.  That would swing the door wide open to would be protestant labour voters.

What would hold the SDLP back from such a course?  I think it is something to do with the view they take of Sinn Fein as their competition.  If they did pursue the path I have suggested, who is to say that they will not do Sinn Fein a lot of damage”

As readers will observe from this comment, there is a recognition from this proposal that a joint or multilateral party effort to take sectarianism out of Northern Ireland politics is more likely to succeed than if only one party is trying to achieve it.  Furthermore, I believe that a similar initiative will happen.  It is a question of  ‘when’, rather than ‘if’. 

I understand that this election is not likely to happen until their party conference in February.  In all sincerity, I hope that that SDLP membership ‘graspes the nettle’ and uses the time to develop this theme for its sake and for the sake of Northern Ireland.