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.
Filed under: Assembly, Conservative Party, DUP, Owen Paterson, Parades, Police and Justice, sectarianism, Sheila Davidson, Stormont, Unionism, UUP Tagged: | Assembly, Bigotry, Conservative Party, DUP, General Election, Hung Parliament, Normal Politics, Northern ireland, Northern Ireland politics, Orance Order, Orange Order, Owen Paterson, Parades, Peter Robinson, Police and Justice, sectarianism, Sheila Davidson, Stormont, Unionism, UUP
Bit of a curate’s egg here. At the odd phrase, I even found myself nodding in sympathy: just the kind of thing one does at the crematorium.
Except …
NI is not to be carved up, again, at some weekend gathering, among an exclusive clique, in some English stately home. That nonsense started when Bonar Law and Churchill, at Balmoral in the summer of 1913, came up with the notion of excluding the nine counties of Ulster. Argue from that point, should you dare.
So, come clean: what happened, under the auspices of the Salisbury family (hereditary owners of the Tory Party)?
Was it:
[a] a regular occurrence between the Tories, the UUP and DUP, which, on this occasion, for some reason, had to be kept away from the public glare?
[b] Owen Paterson, as Tory Shadow for Northern Ireland, doing the decent thing, elbowing aside Secretary of State Woodward, and oiling the squealing wheels of Unionist Policing and Justice “policy”? If so, was this agreed with the Secretary of State, because, after all, Conservative policy is to support the “Process”? In which case, does this mean that Peter Robinson and the DUP leadership want such movement? Then why, again, did all this ultra-altruism need to be kept from public scrutiny?
or:
(c) Was the Hatfield House Cabal, in part or in whole, a stitch-up of NI constituencies merely to benefit the London Tory machine? In which case, for very obvious reasons, would you agree this had to kept away from the public, and indeed most of the UUP and DUP? And therefore that the affronted “nominees” have good grounds for resentment?
When will some light be shone on this apparent mess. Too much speculation in a vacuum can only be damaging. I need an answer before considering my resignation.
Its people like Jeff peel who are stirring the pot and have caused nothing but trouble with there demands who would be better off in the alliance party .Peel has done nothing but try to undermine everything.
I find it hard to even believe NI tories would call for owen to resign he has done more to put the Conservatives on the map here then anybody.if seymour you are siding with the likes of peel you should resign from the conservatives and go and join the alliance party.Which hopefully peel will be doing soon
This seymour is what Ian parsley has said on his blog [ed: part of comment deleted here]
It is well known that there is a small minority of people in both parties unhappy at the link-up, and that is their right. However, the facts of the matter are quite simple. Three nominees stated their intention to withdraw on the basis that they could not wait around indefinitely for the selection process (which has indeed taken longer than intended) to be completed – a process entered into by all of us with no guarantees.
That they have withdrawn this time around just as the process nears its completion is particularly unfortunate, but it certainly does not preclude them from standing at future elections. The fact remains that both the Conservative and Ulster Unionist Parties are on the up, and that the people of Northern Ireland will have 18 Conservative and Unionist candidates to vote for at the forthcoming General Election – candidates from all backgrounds who stand for a genuinely new type of politics as well as a much needed change of government.
seymour this disgusting unionist carcass is not something you should have ever associated yourself with. it also amazes me frankly that you should have ever associated yourself with the british tory party. never have aneurin bevan’s words been more true: they are not merely vermin, they are lower than vermin.
Paul,
It is ridiculous to blame Jeffrey Peel for the speculation arising out of the Hatfield House talks.
Ian Parsley’s comments do not serve to re-assure anybody, least of all Brian Somers who commented earlier.
With David Cameron himself admitting that the talks could have involved discussions about a possible hung parliament, speculation as to what has been agreed at those talks will soon become a crisis if Conservative leaders do not speak up soon.
Paul,
It is ridiculous to blame Jeffrey Peel for the speculation arising out of the Hatfield House talks.
Ian Parsley’s comments do not serve to re-assure anybody, least of all Brian Somers who commented earlier.
With David Cameron himself admitting that the talks could have involved discussions about a possible hung parliament, speculation as to what has been agreed at those talks will soon become a crisis if Conservative leaders do not speak up soon.
You know full well peel has caused nothing but trouble you yourself have at times attacked the UUP for nothng but selfish reasons trying to set the agenda the problem with some of you NI Tories is you have being pushing to hard too soon you have more or less tried to dictate whos standing where you try and say what name should be used,you even tried to pick the logo so dont give me there will be a crisis [ed: partly deleted...] The NI tories polled a pathetic 3000 votes in NI.And and you expect to set the agenda in all of this. [ed: partly deleted]
Dub,
I dont know what you mean by “unionist carcas” I have been a lifelong supporter of the Conservative Party and dont intend to change that.
The famous quote of Bevan, which you have raised, is not something he would want to repeat today, particularly when there is no greater supporter of the Heath Service than David Cameron.
I look forward to the 18 CU candidates being selected and announced and the day when David Cameron comes to NI to endorse them.More than can said of a few arrogant NI tories.I would hope that after the gen election.I would then hope the UUP ditch the NI tories given there stunts and attitude and arrogance.And move on without them to stand on there own to poll the pathetic NI tories results highlighted in this thread.
torystoryni at 10:56 am:
You political nous would be more credible if you knew the difference between Aneurin Bevan (as Dub clearly did) and Ernie Bevin.
Thank you Malcolm. My mis-spelling.
seymour Taken from conservative home blog
http://www.conservativehome.blogs.com
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
The recent talks with the UUP and DUP were all about trying to bolster peace and security in Northern Ireland
UK map with union jack flag Ben Brogan wrote a bracing and indignant polemic on his blog yesterday championing David Cameron’s right to be a Unionist politician, which Tim highlighted here. 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. But there’s also a second reason, which has nothing to do with promoting the Union – or dishing Sinn Fein – and has everything to do with saving the peace in Northern Ireland. It’s to our credit, and has been so far neglected by the mainstream media.
The best way in which to begin thinking about the current political deadlock is as follows. If the devolution of policing doesn’t take place, the Northern Ireland Executive will probably collapse, to be followed by Assembly elections – only a few weeks before a general election, if we assume May 6 or later.
These elections will almost certainly take place against a fragile security situation. A simple net search finds that only yesterday, for example, police shots were fired in Carrowdore, County Down. I wrote on Monday about the possibility of Northern Ireland’s political settlement and security stability unravelling – right at the very start of a Cameron Government.
Owen Paterson thus had a second reason to encourage talks between Northern Ireland’s two largest parties. As Ben argued, the first reason – finding a common understanding from a pro-Unionist perspective – isn’t dishonourable. After all, Irish political parties will sometimes discuss politics from a nationalist view with both Sinn Fein and the SDLP, and at the same time.
But the second reason boasts – to echo an old phrase from the politics of the Province – no “selfish, strategic or economic interest”. As I say, the only way of preventing the Executive’s collapse is the devolution of policing. The DUP are more likely to agree it if the UUP back them up. This is the outcome that Owen was trying to achieve at Hatfield House, thus averting a crisis on the watch of a future Conservative Government and, more importantly, bolstering peace and security in Ulster.
Downing Street was therefore recklessly irresponsible yesterday to brief against the Unionist-Conservative talks. You may or may not support the devolution of policing. But the Conservative front bench does – and it’s preposterous for Brown’s spin machine to criticise us for seeking to bring about an outcome which they themselves support. It’s noticeable that Sinn Fein hasn’t jumped on the Downing Street bandwagon to date. Alasdair McDonnell of the SDLP has – but his Party, of course, takes the Labour whip at Westminster, and he’s fighting a leadership election within the week.
Brown is trying to have it both ways. If we’d not sought to ensure the devolution of policing, we’d be accused of “standing back and letting the peace process collapse”. Now that we have, we’re apparently “endangering Northern Ireland peace”. Shouldn’t the Prime Minister be pouring oil on Ulster’s troubled waters rather than fuel on a small media fire? I wrote on Monday that Northern Ireland can’t be fully covered from the mainland. But some things are obvious even from here.