As I write, there is a recount going on in my constituency, Fermanagh and South Tyrone. On the second count, Gildernew won by two votes after Connor won the first count.
I voted SDLP, as planned. So also did my wife and daughter. My eldest son, who is at University, was not able to come home to vote. Still, it is incredible to think that my household could have changed the result in this constituency, if indeed it turns out that Gildernew wins by one or two votes.
Would I have voted differently if I had expected this result? Certainly not. In fact, the idea of ensuring that a sectarian unionist candidate fails is very satisfying. If Connor fails to win the seat, then Unionists will know that they will never win the seat again as sectarian unionists because the demographic trends are towards Catholics increasing as a proportion of the overall population. I would hope that unionists would then start using their heads and get behind a proper campaign to defeat the likes of Sinn Fein on the basis of their policy, not their identity or their past association with the IRA.
As for the Conservatives, they need to seriously consider their position vis a vis the Ulster Unionists. It is quite clear that the pact failed and failed badly. Some will point to strategic errors which contributed to this. In a sense, may be a good thing that happened. The Ulster Unionists have demonstrated that they are not capable of moving away from sectarian thinking, let alone sectarian political acts.
There will undoubtedly be a change of leadership in the UUP. Jeffrey Peel believes UCUNF is dead. At the very least, it needs a life-saving act. Whilst I will not, at this stage, turn my thumb to the ground, I would need to be convinced that there had been seismic shift in the core power and control of the UUP. Only after that happened, would I entertain any thought that there should be a new pact.
For all of that, a powerful ray of light shone on the anti-sectarians last night. Naomi Long achieved an incredible result in unseating Peter Robinson. The Alliance Deputy leader’s triumph did not just occur in East Belfast. That party’s share of the vote increased all around Northern Ireland.
It has been a good year so far for the Alliance Party. David Ford’s elevation to Minister for Policing and Justice will raise the profile of the Alliance Party. Who now knows what Long’s success will lead to next? This Alliance advance could be the start of a trend away from sectarian politics.
If it were not for the fact that the Alliance Party is opposed to retaining the grammar school system, I would now be seriously thinking of joining that party. Despite this policy difference, should they ultimately turn out to be the only party capable of breaking the mould of sectarian politics, then I will be right behind them.
Filed under: Alliance Party, Conservative Party, Nationalism, Northern Ireland politics, Peter Robinson, SDLP, sectarianism, Sinn Fein, UCUNF, UK Parliament, ulster unionist party, Unionism, UUP, Westminster Tagged: | Alliance Party, Conservative Party, David Ford, General Election, Naomi Long, Nationalism, Normal Politics, Northern Ireland politics, Peter Robinson, SDLP, sectarianism, Sinn Fein, Tory-UUP linkup, UCUNF, UK Parliament, ulster unionist party, Unionism, UUP, Westminster
Seymour, well said. As it happens I voted Alliance yesterday for the first time. For me the most important theme in this campaign was the growing sense that sectarianism in our politics has to be rejected. Like you I disagree fundamentally with much that the Alliance Party stands for in terms of policy – but a move towards secular non-sectarian politics is beginning to happen here. That is the comfort I take from last night’s result. I was delighted that Naomi was elected in East Belfast. A great result. I do hope she takes the Liberal Dem whip. But, sadly, I don’t think she will.
This post will be nearly identical to the previous one I made on this blog,
However it still amazes me that the people who lead this party locally for so many years, are so fickle, and uncommitted to the conservative policies the party is trying to promote.
It’s very well and good to go and blame Patterson and the UUP for our recent failings, but the commitment of senior conservative members to secularisation rather than conservatism leaves a lot to be desired within a CONSERVATIVE party.
Now I am in no way commenting on secularisation, or the destruction of sectarian politics, merely on the past seniority of the ConservativesNI. Certain people have lead this party into the mess it is now in, and need to stand up and take the blame rather than blaming others.
Joel,
My blog was not directly about the mess we are in but if you want my take on who was to blame for what went wrong, here it is
(1) The Hatfiled House talks followed by the approval of a candidate for Fermanagh / South Tyrone. This is the fault exclusively of the Conservative and UUP leadership. It was not, as far as I am aware, agreed by any of our Northern Ireland officials.
(2) As to our performance in the General Election, most of the mess can and should be laid at the door, partly because of the action to approve a candidate for FST, and party because of the conduct exclusively the fault of the UUP. The latter can be divided into the following: (a) delay with candidate selection; (b) the persistent equivocation and overtures made by the UUP on doing deals on South Belfast and FST; (c) having a meeting at Schomberg House which they ought to have known, would come out into the open; (d) their weak handling of the Lady Sylvia Hermon problem; (e) their lack of nouse on the parades issue ; (f) a failure by the UUP to take reasonable steps and make reasonable progress to de-toxify their brand to facilitate non-sectarian politics;
You could also argue that the Conservatives were wrong to enter into a pact with the UUP in the first place.
I dont think there was anything wrong with the concept but I think that Conservatives failed to do a proper due diligence on the potential pitfalls of the pact. Alternatively, they knew of the pitfalls and the dangers and took a reckless gamble with the medium and longer term reputation of the Conservatives here in Northern Ireland.
I dont want to give a conclusive answer on that question. I dont know enough about what went on behind closed doors before 20th November. However, there is a case to answer. I had bad vibes soon after the pact was announced. Only 2 months before the pact was announced, Sir Reg was in talks about an (sectarian) agreement with the TUV in relation to the European Elections. It was also very clear to me early on that the UUP leadership never seemed interested in dealing with sectariansim or making any attempt to change the nature of political campaigning in Northern Ireland. Did you ever hear Sir Reg or any UUP leader criticise the Nationalist parties because their policies were socialist? It was a theme I repeated on my blog over and over again. This seemed to fall on deaf ears.
I could go on. I will leave it there.
What a beautiful day! UCUNF has been the greatest thing ever to happen in the history of British Unionism in Ireland. The UUP is now dead. There is only one unionist mp left in Belfast. Emptyhead is gone and Gildernew has won an unbelievable victory. UUP rot in peace. The Tory Vermin have at last done Ireland a favour. Our nation can now start to re assert itself. Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter, Ulster and Ireland will thrive without the dead hand of integrationist British unionism.
I agree with everything that you HAVE said,
but what is missing (and consistantly has been from ConservativeNI bloggers) is the admission that before the UCUNF mess that made it’s appearance in the last year, the Conservative party locally was not KNOWN for its stance on Government spending, Education, Enterprise, Personal Responsibility or Cultural Regeneration but rather for being Anti Orange, Anti Ulster Scots, Anti Creationist and Pro Richard Dawkins.
Not that any of these things in themselves were bad ideals, but we must ask, which other parties have built a vote base based entirely for what they are against… DUP, TUV and the UUP….
Is it a shock then that we have fallen into their parochial mould?
Ideally we should have been winning people over with our centre right politics rather than our rejection of so called ‘mumbo jumbo’ within NI society, we chose (unofficially) to be known for the latter.
I see your point Joel. Being in Northern Ireland, there are certain problems unique to it that you can never avoid talking about completely. However, that is only part of the problem. The rest of the problem has been entirely about our relationship with the UUP, which I discussed in the previous comment.
Our organisation never got the chance to advance real Conservativism because “u” word was allowed to dominate politics. That happened because of the conduct of the players that caused the events to occur that I have referred to in the previous comment.
Once the “u” word started to dominate, Conservatives have tried to deal with its infection by holding themselves out as against associated features of it which contributed to its toxicity. Conversely, I think that if the UCUNF partnership ended and we were back on our own again, we would go back to being ourselves again.
Hello Dub,
I wondered when you would start crowing. It is indeed a beautiful day. Of course, let it be said that you see the beauty of today differently from me.
Aside from the fact Clegg hates Brown, the LibDems cannot afford to contest another election. They are nearly broke. They will make a deal with the Tories – they will support the impending Emergency Budget. Labour will be take the place of HMLO and ‘nit-pickingly’ oppose the budget but would have passed much the same had they a majority anyway. Cameron will offer the Libs a referendum on AV (which is not PR) and STV in an elected House of Lords. The government will fall within a year.
To be honest, I’m actually quite surprised at how well Labour did- about 5-6% down on 2005 – which is remarkable when you consider that the fiscal crisis and the massive budget deficit they’ve left. And their performance in Scotland was impressive.
If I was Cameron I’m not sure I would want to be PM at this stage. The massive cuts will put the electoral victor out of power for a generation, according to Mervyn King, the governor of the BoE. If I was George Osborne the first thing I would do after grasping the reigns would be to ask the IMF to do an audit of Britain’s debts. I wouldn’t be surprised if, like the Greek government, Brown had cooked the books.
When Scotland and Wales were granted devolution, the Tories did not abstain from directly contesting constituencies or form electoral pacts with other unionist parties to disadvantage nationalists, even though they had resolutely opposed both devolution projects. On the contrary, they redoubled their efforts to keep British politics alive in the devolved assemblies, and opposed Nationalists and left-wing unionists equally. The paranoia exhibited by the DUP and UUP over any prospective Nationalist gain is without logic. Even if Sinn Fein, in theory, won every NI seat, it would do nothing, as a change in sovereignty can only be effected by a referedum. And if a Unionist in Northern Ireland wants to part in the government of the state he lives in, he cannot do it through these purportedly Unionist parties – because they do not even stand for election throughout the Kingdom. Because NI has been cut off from the political life of the state – sad old farts bickering over partition is only thing any election could ever be about. It’s one of the great historical paradoxes of Northern Irish politics that the less British Unionists became, the more hysterically anti-Irish they became in consequence.
Anyway, congrats on the failure of UCUNF. I knew you weren’t happy about it – there was always a huge disparity in content between your posts and the auto-links to UUP press releases on the right of your blog. The UUP is now in turmoil and will probably split three ways (just imagine what Lady Hermon is thinking). It would be best if it committed (corporate) suicide and resigned itself to the history books.
What now for the NI Tories?
Let me get this straight. Rather than voting for a candidate with the endorsement of your own party (who would come under the tory whip were he to have gained the seat); you chose to vote for a candidate with no realistic hope of winning, and who could if they had won, could potentially form a minority socialist government with labour. Go figure.
I note your “masterful” diagnosis of the party’s failure singularly fails to mention david cameron’s spectacular cock up.. Selective memory probably.
Andrew,
Presumably, you are making reference to David Cameron’s overtures on public spending. It was not selective memory. I did forget about it but that is probably because I did not think it would have altered the pattern of voting very significantly.
As to why I voted the way I did, I repeat what I said previously that getting rid of sectarianism in Northern Ireland is a bigger priority than supporting one candidate that supports the Conservatives. I voted SDLP to show solidarity with Conservative Catholics who in a non-sectarian society might want to vote for a conservative party.
Shane,
Thank you for your comment. As for what happens next with NI Tories, I have my ideas. I have written a post on that for tomorrow.
Then your analysis is skewed. Self-interest is one of the most powerful motivators there is. Did you note that the decline in the surge in Conservative popularity in England can be traced directly to the Osborne speech where he first started mentioning massive cuts in public spending? Or that the DUP almost ran their campaign on the back of said comments – they obviously thought there was some mileage there.
Personally I know at least 3 or 4 lifelong UUP voters working in the public sector, which makes up something like 40 – 50% of NI’s economy, who chose to reconsider their vote as a direct result. Certainly when contrasted to a “delay in candidate selection” I think it had a considerable impact.
What do you mean getting rid of sectarianism? If you’re inferring an end to unionist/nationalist politics, which you presumably are, that’s a) a pipe dream; and b) idiocy. It’s like saying we should strive to get rid of right/left politics in Great Britain. At any conceivable level (economic, political, cultural), the union is the most important issue in Northern Irish politics, and will continue to be so as long as Northern Ireland as a state continues to exist. A few thousand extra votes from disenchanted residents in East Belfast isn’t going to change that (they went to a candidate who is nominally unionist anyway, is she sectarian?). In any case, I don’t see how voting SDLP is any less “sectarian” than voting for an independent unionist – the SDLP define themselves predominantly by their nationalism.
Andrew,
At any conceivable level (economic, political, cultural), the union is the most important issue in Northern Irish politics
Absolutely not – it is a proxy issue for the real one, which is our divided society and who has the upper hand in it. If it were a genuine political issue, then it would be argued on its own merits. Instead, the argument is always couched in the language of tribal identity. Nobody seriously tries to persuade the other side to change its mind, because being a unionist or a nationalist has everything to do with birth and very little to do with reasoned argument.
That’s not to say that the union isn’t an issue – of course it is. But there are a hell of a lot of more pressing ones, such as jobs and education. These will continue to be issues no matter whether there’s a United Kingdom or a United Ireland.
Seymour,
It seems what you’re looking for is a centre-right equivalent of Alliance, a “middle-NI” party in the words of commenter Slug on another blog. Perhaps it’s high time somebody started one.
I think I’ve already addressed this issue on your blog.
“If it were a genuine political issue, then it would be argued on its own merits. Instead, the argument is always couched in the language of tribal identity”.
That’s just incorrect; at an academic, and political, level the merit/demerit of the various pro/anti union arguments have been discussed ad nauseum. Debate over the merits of the union has, and this should go without saying, generated more literature than ANY other issue in Northern Irish politics, and, of itself, that’s sufficient warrant for my claim that it is the most important issue in Northern Irish politics. Nor can you deny that, as a single issue (leaving aside its merits), it determines how more people in Northern Ireland vote than any other – making it, pragmatically, the most important.
Its also completely fallacious to argue that just because the argument is steeped politico-cultural identity that, by reason, it becomes devoid of political import. In many societies the politics you mention, right/left etc. are intrinsically connected to social identity, but that doesn’t mean those issues thus become insignificant.
“Nobody seriously tries to persuade the other side to change its mind”.
As I said above, that’s completely unsubstantiated. In fact, its demonstrably false – one of the central aims of the whole UCUNF project was to shift to locus for unionism away from identity politics and towards rational argument. Northern Irish politicians of various ilks, Hume, McCartney, even groups like Eirigi or the 32 county sovereignty movement, devote their lives to trying to convince others to change their mind.
“because being a unionist or a nationalist has everything to do with birth and very little to do with reasoned argument”.
For the vast majority of people that may be true, but that’s a feature of politics writ large, and lends no credence to your basless argument. Nor does it detract from the fact that the union is the most important issue in politics here.
“But there are a hell of a lot of more pressing ones, such as jobs and education. These will continue to be issues no matter whether there’s a United Kingdom or a United Ireland”.
Whilst I agree one hundred per cent that, due to the principle of consent, its not an immediately pressing issue, holistically, even if you measure importance in terms of wealth creation, it’s still the most important. If Northern Ireland was to join the Republic tomorrow it would be economically devastating. Besides, as I mentioned above, what is considered significant in politics, as in life generally, comes down to what people consider to be significant. In Northern Ireland, that’s the union. You may disagree, but I think you’d concede that you’re in the minority.
[...] Major laments that with the UCUNF project on its knees, he is left without a political home. The Alliance Party [...]
Northern Irish politicians of various ilks, Hume, McCartney, even groups like Eirigi or the 32 county sovereignty movement, devote their lives to trying to convince others to change their mind.
The changes in political fortunes within the unionist and nationalist blocks are many times more significant than the changes between unionism and nationalism, which are driven almost entirely by demographics.
I will concede that I am in a minority in believing that the constitutional issue is not the most important one facing Northern Ireland. Just because others believe that it is doesn’t make it so. You are essentially arguing that the issue is important because most people think it is important. Psephologically, this is so. Objectively, I beg to differ.
“You are essentially arguing that the issue is important because most people think it is important”
Not quite, read the post again. I’m arguing that it is important on (almost) every conceivable level. It would continue to be important even if everyone thought like you. As I posted previously, “even if you measure importance in terms of wealth creation (which you obviously do – c.f. mentioning jobs as a key issue), it’s still the most important. If Northern Ireland was to join the Republic tomorrow it would be economically devastating”.
But you’re right to identify that the thrust of my argument is that what we consider to be important ultimately comes down to subjective value statements. How do you define importance? Its an ethical question, but any attempt at objective definition you could care to provide is fundamentally reducible to some state of affairs you personally consider good, or important, for its own sake.
Andrew,
Perhaps you are right that more than just an insiginificant number of Unionists were influenced by David Cameron’s remarks. Let us suppose that it did. I notice from a report in the Belfast Telegraph that the turnout was down in Fermanagh and South Tyrone. It makes it rather a delicious irony that he effectively killed off the chances of the sectarian candidate that he helped to set up.
Andrew,
If Northern Ireland was to join the Republic tomorrow it would be economically devastating
Perhaps, but it’s not going to join the Republic tomorrow, and there’s nothing that the politicians can do about it. Even if you do believe that the Union is the most important issue, it is irrelevant to Westminster, Assembly and council business. Until a border poll is called, there are other things to be getting on with, and the constitutional issue is a distraction.
AndrewG
There’s everything that politicians can do about it. Even if it’s not tomorrow, sooner or later demographics will shift, and I, for one, don’t want to live in a country joined to one of the most economically unstable countries in the EU.
That’s why its imperative that unionism demonstrate – to all of Northern Ireland’s population – the vast economic and social benefits of being part of one of the world’s major powers. Unionists need to continue to convince people from the Catholic community, as they have successfully done in the past, of the importance of the Union.
You’re naive to think the Union is set in stone – whilst Northern Ireland’s ultimate constitutional position is legally fixed through the GFA – one only has to look at the overtures towards ceding joint authority were power sharing to collapse to see that a gradual surrender of sovereignty is a live option – and I very much doubt that the UK taxpayer would be happy with keeping up the current level of funding if the ROI began to intervene more heavily in Northern Irish affairs.
Things like taxation and foreign policy are utterly irrelevant to Assembly and local council business – that doesn’t stop them being incredibly significant. The question of the union is as relevant as that of a federal Europe and entire parties have been founded in the mainland on the back of that issue alone.
Seymour
You seem to enjoy mooting that word sectarian; but you seem singularly incapable of defining what it actually means. Would you care to enlighten me as to how a united unionist candidate is any more “sectarian” than a nationalist one? I’m having a hard time working it out.
Andrew,
Of Course Sinn Fein is also sectarian. Can I add that I did not vote for them!!!
I was referring to the SDLP.
Andrew,
The SDLP has the virtue of refusing to entertain an agreement to field a single candidate from the Nationalist/Republican community but I think you know that already.
I will not get into a lengthy discussion on the definition of sectarianism, not least because the term has more than one definition and has slightly different applications to different circumstances.
However, I have already posted a definition. Please click the tab at the top right hand corner of this blog.
I don’t think that argument follows. If, as you seem to imply, by virtue of being either nationalist, or unionist, a party becomes sectarian (incidentally, the NI tories, prior to UNUCF were a unionist party – meaning they fall under that umbrella) it’s difficult to see how they become any less sectarian by virture of not having made an electoral pact. In any case, its not like the sdlp oppose electoral pacts in principle, their decision was rooted in pragmatism, i.e. the fact that sinn fein mps don’t take their seats in westminster – erego there is no nationalist representation.
Yeah, I looked at that. But it’s application to this discussion makes about as much sense as your post on religious screening for electoral candidates. Quite apart from the fact that everyone knows the recent conflict in Northern Ireland has very little to do with religion and everything to do with nationalism and politico-cultural identity, the decision to field a joint unionist candidate is in no way connected to religion. Several of the UNUCF candidates for the recent election were Roman Catholic, and Rodney Connor could well have been Bhuddist for all we know.
Andrew / Charlie,
Perhaps “sectarianism” is not the correct word to use to describe the problem which we all know exists.
One of the aims of the Conservatives is to bring about normal politics so that voters vote on the basis shared values and policies that affect their everyday lives – not their constitutional preference.
By endorsing a single unionist candidate, Conservatives have set back that objective. My vote was a protest against the breach of the MOU.
If there is a single unionist candidate agreed again by the Conservatives for Fermanagh in the next election (which may be soon) then that will not be tolerated either. I dont think the Conservatives will make that mistake again. I believe they will put up their own candidate.
I have said enough on this subject.