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.

Very soon, Sir Reg.’s thinking time in the shower might not be enough

If you are a businessman or just somebody who works very hard who is taking his holiday break, you are likely to spend the first few days getting over your tiredness. 

During the next phase of your holiday, you feel fantastic and feel on a high.  It is in that second phase that your mind could look back on your work or business.  You might identify the things you could do better.  You might think of ways of being more productive.   You might think about new ways of marketing the business or the interests of your employers.  Ideas might come to you which would probably not have done when you were working hard keeping the wheels of the business or workplace turning.  Is that you?

The limitations of mental endurance apply to politicians just as they do to everybody who works hard.  The leader of a political party that has just won a General Election, after being in Opposition, will have found time to plan strategically for their term in Government.  Yes, the Leader of the opposition works very hard but he or she has more time on his hands than the Prime Minister to plan strategically about future of his Country. 

Gordon Brown has to work exceptionally hard just to cover his administrative duties as Prime Minister.  The summer is really the only time that the Prime Minister has to have a proper break and do some creative thinking.  I am not suggesting that Gordon Brown would be doing any creative thinking.  It is very difficult when the policy theme which glided your political faction into power has run out of steam and I suggest that the New Labour ideal has indeed run out of steam. 

Coming back to the main point, I have been concerned for some time about the position of Sir Reg Empey.  Sir Reg. has done a wonderful job steering his party towards accepting the alliance with the Conservative Party.  He has also done a sterling job as a Minister in charge of Employment and Learning. 

There is still much work for Sir Reg to do as party leader.  When the General Election is over, his leadership will be needed, as never before.  He will have two big strands of planning to contend with.  The first is to plan strategically for administration following the next assembly elections.  The second is to negotiate an extension of the Alliance with the Conservatives and the policies which will shape the agenda of the next Assembly administration.  By the time that the next election is over, the Conservatives will be in power.  In a sense, the Conservatives will depend upon the UUP to lead the creative planning for the next assembly.

A lot of time is going to be taken up with all of these matters.  Furthermore, Peter Robinson and Martin McGuiness could call the Assembly Elections before the full four year term has expired.  With that in mind, I would like to see Sir Reg. stepping down from the Ministry of Employment and Learning and appointing another UUP MLA to the post.  Who should be appointed?  That is, of course another matter.

Very soon, Sir Reg.’s thinking time in the shower might not be enough.

Should Parades be devolved with Police and Justice?

Yesterday, I was kicking myself.

On Slugger O’Toole yesterday, there appeared two posts relating to the consequences about decisions relating to Parades. I was kicking myself because I had not thought about the impact of evolution of Police and Justice on decisions made relating to parades.

The Powers of the parades commission arise out of the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998. That Act sets out the powers of the Parades Commission and the Supervisory and Complementary Powers of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

It is not difficult to foresee a future Police and Justice Minister coming under attack and flack.  If, following devolution on parades,  a decision by the Commission or the new Minister goes against an interested party, it has the potential to undermine the building of confidence in the new Ministry.  I foresee the Minister being lobbied and pilloried in a stream of attacks at Minister’s question time by MLAs representing either the Orange Order or Resident’s Associations and making sectarian political mischief.

I am not saying that the Assembly is not the appropriate place to air political discord.  It does that already. Indeed, it has the ability to soak up sectarian issues and sometimes clear the air.

My fear is that a transfer of responsibility relating to parades is too much in one go.  It will need a minister of exceptional skill and ability to diffuse difficult issues without the added problems of parades.  I would like to see powers relating to parades being devolved sometime later in the future to enable public confidence in the new ministry to set in. 

Perhaps that proposal is no longer feasible.  Perhaps that would unravel the deal which has been made between the DUP and Sinn Fein to transfer these powers. Perhaps this is another reason why the Government should have included all the parties in the negotiations.

My wish now? – That my fears are unfounded.

There is nothing British about this lot

I was not able to watch Question time on the BBC live last week.  However, I did listen to it on the radio in my car. 

Nick Griffin

There have been a number of issues raised about the BNP.  Should they be allowed air time?  One of the parallels I can think of is the during the late 1980s when the Conservative Government under Margaret Thatcher made it illegal for the television and radio media to broadcast the voices of members of Sinn Fein.  Mrs. Thatcher is famously remembered for this quote

“starve the terrorist and the hijacker of the oxygen of publicity on which they depend.”

Unfortunately, the attempt to block out Sinn Fein was ineffective.  Broadcasters were still allowed to show members of Sinn Fein being interviewed.  What they could not do was broadcast their voices.  Broadcasters got around this, firstly, by introducing subtitles.  Later, broadcasters switched to dubbing.  Sinn Fein members’ voices were replaced with those of actors.  The whole clampdown ended in farce.

Of course, the Government could have taken further measures to prevent imitation broadcasting of terrorists.  They did not. 

Fast forward to 2009.  Peter Hain and others have criticised the BBC for allowing Nick Griffin a platform on Question time.  Let us forget the 1980s and suppose that refusal of access to air time on radio and TV was actually effective in limiting the BNP’s political interests.  Would it have been right?

The BNP has 2  class=”hiddenSpellError” pre=”2 “>MEPs and 56 councillors.  Whether we like it or not, the BNP represent a certain section of the electorate.  However, it can also be argued that by the time they were proscribed, Sinn Fein also had elected representatives. 

The BNP may be a group of thugs and fascists but they are not the political wing of a terrorist organisation.  There is no provable link between what they say over broadcast media and terrorism.  Peter Hain is perhaps still emotionally driven by the anti-fascist and anti racist passion of his youth.  During the late 1960s, he (then as leader of the Young Liberals) led protests against sports links with South Africa.  However, he is an experienced politician and a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.  He should, at this stage of his career, have a more mature and rounded view about the balance of the Public Interest. 

On the programme itself, Griffin was made to look ridiculous.  Two incidents stand out.  One was his attempt to justify his change of opinion about the Holocaust.  The other was his attempt to be an apologist for the Ku Klux Clan.  I don’t believe the broadcast will have advanced the interests of the BNP at all.  If anything, I think it will diminish them.  The BBC is to be congratulated for taking its difficult and controversial decision.

The overwhelming majority of decent people abhor everything the BNP stand for.  Perhaps one of the worst aspects of their existence is their name.  Lets be absolutely clear.  There is nothing British about this lot.