Conservatives prepare for UUP failure but they might still be hedging

At long last, agreement has finally been reached between the Northern Ireland Regional Conservatives and the Conservative leadership on a strategy for promoting Conservativism into the future.

The Party has issued the following announcement copied by email to the membership:

“The Conservative Party in Northern Ireland has committed itself to an ongoing programme of campaigning and development and will shortly move into a new campaign headquarters in Bangor, Co. Down. A full time member of staff will be based at the headquarters and one of the Party’s most senior campaign directors has been appointed to liaise with the Party in Northern Ireland.

The Party is committed to the development of progressive centre right politics which offer the electorate of Northern Ireland the opportunity to cast their votes for and participate directly with the national Government of the United Kingdom.  The Party will continue to review how Conservatives in Northern Ireland can play a full part in the Conservative Party as in every other part of the United Kingdom and senior Conservatives in Northern Ireland will work with the Board of the Party to develop that relationship.

Central to that development will be the Party’s desire to see Conservative Associations formed in every Northern Ireland constituency and an active programme of membership recruitment at a local level.

Conservative Party co-chairman Baroness Warsi said: “The Conservative Party in Northern Ireland has the unequivocal support of the Party nationally. Politics in Northern Ireland continues to evolve and we are determined to be at the heart of that evolution. Our approach will be one of active engagement – starting with the fielding of candidates in the Local Council elections in May.”

With that issue having been settled, the regional chairman of the Conservatives, Irwin Armstrong has now withdrawn his offer to resign. So is this the end of the uncertainty for Northern Ireland conservatives?

Jeffrey Peel’s headline suggests that the Conservative Party has “dumped” the UUP. In his statement on the question of fielding candidates at Assembly elections, Irwin Armstrong has said as follows:

“Members of our Executive have agreed that we would not now be able to properly contest the Assembly elections as we will not have the necessary infrastructure in place due to the events of recent months.”

The right to field Assembly (and presumably Parliamentary) candidates in the future is very important but there will be no further elections on the horizon (except the Euros) for four years.  Furthermore, you do not need an “infrastructure” to field a candidate. Ask an Independent. You just need to be able to register and pay the deposit.

There is a very strong case for the Conservatives putting up candidates, even in the limited time and space available. Nobody would suggest that a Conservative candidate would stand much chance of winning an Assembly seat but the act of fielding candidates would make the clearest possible statement to the electorate that the party no longer has any ties with the UUP.

Last November, Conservative leaders promised the UUP that they would not be fielding candidates.  The effect of this latest declaration is that the Conservatives will not be breaking that promise.  The UUP may now be in the equivalent of a bin liner but it could be taken out of it later.  It is much too early to say that it has been dumped.

Conservatives entitled to be proud of the Anglo-Irish Agreement

A little over two months ago marked the passing of the 25^th Anniversary of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The anniversary resulted in posts by Brian Walker of Slugger O’Toole and by and other articles by Newspaper journalists across Ireland.

One of the curiosities of the Agreement is that the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, James Molineaux was not consulted as the negotiations progressed. This is most odd. That the negotiations were taking place was not a state secret. From time to time, the fact of these discussions was made public. The SDLP was certainly consulted. In about September 1984, the Conservative Party, in edition No. 31 of their contact programme (“CPC 31”), published a detailed brief on the state of the negotiations at that time. It was available for sale in the Conservative Party bookshop for anybody who wanted to buy a copy. A link to this document can be located on the Conservative Party Archive website.

It is not as though the Ulster Unionists were sitting there doing nothing about the political problems either. In May 1984, they published their own document “the Way forward” (also for sale in the CPC bookshop). 

Perhaps when the Government archives are published in 3-4 years time, we will have a more precise picture on unionist consultation.

CPC 31 mentions the three proposals put forward by the Irish Government which were rejected by Mrs. Thatcher.  These were: a unitary state; a federal or confederal state; or joint authority. Dr. Fitzgerald, writing in the Irish times, recalled Mrs. Thatcher’s public reaction to those proposals in November 1984, some time after they were rejected.

On Open Unionism, in a post entitled “Reflections on the Anglo-Irish Agreement,” Turgon articulates the mainstream unionist view of the agreement. He recalls the sense of betrayal felt by unionists following the agreement. The Government would have known how Unionists would have reacted to the proposals, regardless of whether or not they had been consulted.  Why, then, did they risk alienating the great mass of the unionist population?

Better security was often cited as the main reason for it. Certainly, Mrs. Thatcher put a strong emphasis on the importance of better security but if that all there was to it, the agreement would not have taken place.

The 1981 hunger strikes proved to be a watershed in Northern Ireland’s political history. It launched the political career of Gerry Adams and later Sinn Fein representatives. This development worried the ROI Government, particularly.

The Catholic population in Northern Ireland was a large minority but barely represented in Parliament. In the 1983 General Election, the number of seats in Northern Ireland had been increased from 12 to 17. Still, the representation of the Catholic Population at Parliament was very small. Of those 17 seats, Gerry Adams of Sinn Fein had been elected as MP for West Belfast in place of Gerry Fitt. The only other non-unionist MP to be elected was John Hume in the constituency of Foyle.

The Government, rightly, perceived that there was a link between support for terrorism in the Catholic community and the lack of political representation. Looking for a solution to this problem remained a Government policy, despite the collapse of Sunningdale.

James Prior, Northern Ireland Secretary of State (1981-1984) summarised five principles which had to be observed, if there was political advance. These are set out in set out in contact programme document No. 31 at page 5: They were:

(i) The Constitutional position of Northern Ireland of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom can only be changed freely given consent of its people. This is not a matter of law. Any other approach would be immoral, undemocratic and unworkable.

(ii) Not all of the political aspirations of the two communities can be completely or equally satisfied. There are two identities to be accommodated, in an environment where alienation exists on both sides.

(iii) The government and administration of the Province must ultimately remain a matter for Parliament. This means that there cannot be any Unionist or nationalist veto over the framework which Parliament prescribes.

(iv) The distinctive needs of Northern Ireland are best met through a devolved administration commanding support from both sides of the community. In the absence of agreement the Government will continue to administer the Province in the way it judges to be in the best interests of all the people and of the United Kingdom as a whole. The determination of the majority to maintain the Union must be upheld but this must be balanced by showing due regard for the minority’s interests in any internal arrangements.

(v) Geography, history and economic interest together with the identification many in Northern Ireland feel with Dublin call for a closer relationship between the United Kingdom and the Republic.

There was nothing wrong with the Government’s principles or motives for signing the Agreement.  As it turned out, the Agreement yielded very little in terms of security gains. However, the political gains are still underrated. The agreement, fully supported by the SDLP helped many Northern Irish nationalists to see the UK Government in a new light. The agreement also secured formal recognition, by a Republic of Ireland Government, that Northern Ireland was a part of the United Kingdom.

Today, the scars of the Anglo Irish Agreement are still felt by unionists. At the Ulster Unionist Party conference in December 2008, David Cameron felt compelled (albeit in an oblique manner) to make an apology for the signing of the Agreement.  Looking back on that speech, David Cameron’s apology had more to do with appeasing Ulster Unionists than taking responsibility for a political wrongdoing.  He should not have made that apology, unreservedly. 

The unfortunate thing is that many Northern Irish Unionists still do not seem to recognise their community’s failure to be fair to Catholics in the past was a major cause of the Anglo-Irish agreement coming into effect. In CPC 31, the Conservatives said this about a UUC proposal to turn the regional Assembly into a super council:

“The local Government was the sphere where most of the discrimination has tended to take place; matters such as housing and education are thus extremely sensitive.”

Back in 1985, power sharing seemed a long way off and Northern Ireland unionists were angry. They can not deny that the Agreement was a stepping stone to the Belfast Agreement.

In years to come, they will not be able to deny that the Belfast Agreement (and therefore the Anglo Irish Agreement) paved the way for peace, prosperity, a stronger union and a shared future for Northern Irish people.

Conservatives, meanwhile, should not be ashamed of the Anglo-Irish agreement. They have every reason to be proud of their government’s achievement at the time.

NI Centre Right Campaign strengthened by events of the last week

Child abuse comes in many forms. Nearly all child abuse falls into one of three categories: neglect, physical harm and emotional abuse. All forms of abuse by a parent or carer involve some form of emotional abuse.

Not all child abuse by Parents is driven by wickedness or selfishness. Sometimes, the root cause of child abuse is illness by the parents or parents simply not being able to cope.

If the abuse is severe enough, it falls into the category of ‘significant harm.’ If a child is suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm, the child protection authorities are obliged to intervene. In the worst of these cases, if the parents show no sign of wanting or being capable of providing a suitable upbringing for the child, the child will go into care. In exceptional cases, more likely with infants, the authorities will place the child for adoption. Metaphorically speaking, “child abuse” has occurred in the Conservative and Unionist family.

The Conservative Party is more than 300 years old. The Orange Order is more than 200 years old. In the earlier years of Orangism, these two organisations did not like each other. Relations were at their lowest ebb when, in 1829, legislation for Catholic Emancipation was passed under a Tory Government. However, they had one thing in common. They were unionists. The rise of the Parnellites brought them into a relationship.

In 1905, the Ulster Unionist Party (the UUP) was born. The UUP was a bastard child of the Conservative Party. The Other parent was the Orange Order. From the time of that birth, the Conservative Party were content to leave the care and upbringing of the UUP to the Orange Order whilst continuing to acknowledge it as its child.

The Orange Order was a bad parent. It engendered an attitude of antipathy and mistrust towards Catholics. The UUP became papaphobic, just like its Orange mother. Its Conservative father neglected it by not being involved in its upbringing. The UUP became a bully but its Conservative father, proud to acknowledge it when they met in the UK Parliament, could not see that it was doing anything wrong.

The UUP then got into trouble. When the civil rights riots broke out, the Conservatives were obliged to take some responsibility. When the Conservative father asked the UUP to accept some Sunningdale treatment, its mother objected. For a short period, the UUP was torn between the wishes of its mother and its father. Papaphobia was still a dominating influence. Inevitably, the UUP rejected Sunningdale. Like a sulking teenager, the UUP stopped talking to its father. The father attempted to talk sense with its son but to no avail. The combined effect of the political power vacuum and the deteriorating security situation led the father to signing the Anglo Irish Agreement. This caused so much anger that the UUP cut off all remaining ties with its father.

Shortly afterwards, the Conservative Party fathered another child. This child was a legitimate non-sectarian daughter. The Northern Ireland Conservatives had been born. For a short time in its early life, this child was encouraged to survive and thrive but soon suffered from neglect. It was hungry and undernourished. Because it achieved nothing, it was ignored by its father. Nonetheless, the daughter was dutiful and did what it was told by its father.

The UUP’s mother started to become frail and weak, suffering from a debilitating long-term illness which will eventually lead to its death – secularism. With the mother’s influence declining, the UUP drifted slowly towards moderation and signed the Belfast Agreement. When the Northern Ireland Conservatives saw that its father approved this development, it became jealous. In a desperate attempt to get its father’s attention, it opposed it. Still the Conservative Party ignored its daughter.

The UUP, having been badly beaten by an ever strengthening DUP, sought to get back on terms with its father. Reconciliation then occurred. However, the father wanted the UUP to be locked permanently into the family. The UUP was asked to enter into a marriage with the Northern Ireland Conservatives. The marriage proposal was rejected. Instead, an agreement was made that they live together. The result of this relationship was the birth of UCUNF.

The relationship between the UUP and the Northern Ireland Conservatives did not work out and the UCUNF child was abused by the UUP when it decided to equivocate over possible candidate deals with the DUP and internal wrangles over candidate selection resulting in crucial delay. Going into the 2010 General election, a sole unionist candidate was selected for Fermanagh and South Tyrone. Northern Ireland Conservatives were traumatised. The UCUNF child, already unhealthy going into the 2010 General Election, had been severely abused by its father and grandfather.

The UCUNF infant later died. The UUP walked away from its relationship with the NI Conservatives and told its father that it wanted the NI Conservatives out of the house.   The Northern Ireland Conservatives did not want the relationship to continue either.   The UUP’s rejection of a continuation of the link, or any future election pact, gave rise to confidence of Northern Ireland Conservatives that it would, at last, receive the support it deserved from its father.  The father had to choose between one of its children to decide who would represent National policy in Northern Ireland. In the end, a parent’s selfishness played a crucial part in the decision.

This brings me to the end of this sorry mythical tale. I apologise for the very few historical distortions which have appeared. It is sometimes appropriate to use a little bit of artistic licence to illustrate an important point.

The Northern Ireland Conservatives have been rejected, in my opinion, to a point where it is not possible for them to continue as a regional branch of the main Conservative Party. The position of trust and confidence is not something that is capable of being restored.

Alex Kane likens this position to something akin to inevitable political infanticide. I completely agree. That being the case, there is only one way for the Northern Ireland Conservatives to go. It should become an independent party. An independent party needs a political niche. That niche is a centre-right party which would take no position if there was a referendum on the future of Northern Ireland. Admittedly, there may still be a battle of persuasion ahead in relation to that last point.

As a lifelong Conservative supporter, I deeply regret what has happened. However, every cloud has a silver lining. The civilised campaign that I was conducting was always likely to be difficult, so long as there was such a strong attachment between local conservatives and the main party. With the severe weakening of that attachment, there is no doubt that the Northern Ireland Centre-Right campaign has been strengthened.

In time, as Northern Ireland Conservatives lick their wounds, they may well conclude that the events of the last few days were all for the best.

Government likely to face very difficult dilemmas over Europe very soon

Last Sunday, European finance ministers met.  In reporting that meeting, The UK and Irish media focused on the terms of Ireland’s bailout. However, something far more important and fundamental to the future of Europe was also discussed at that meeting .

The Finance Ministers agreed the outline of a new plan for a permanent mechanism for to resolve the debts of Sovereign nations within the Eurozone. As reported by Yahoo Finance

“They also approved the outlines of a long-term European Stability Mechanism (ESM), based on a Franco-German proposal, that will create a permanent bailout facility and make the private sector gradually share the burden of any future default”

The prime purpose of creating this mechanism now is to calm the money markets and keep the Euro safe.  At fist sight, the plan looks to have been well thought out. Earlier statements by Angela Merkel, alluding to the “punishment” of investors were destabilising. The new plan now looks to be much more measured. There will be a risk to bondholders in the sharing of losses but only in the future – after 2013 and on a case by case basis. The finer details of this plan have yet to be worked out and finalised.

The French and the Germans say that “the Euro is saved”

Is it really? In the last couple of days, the markets have reacted negatively. The Euro has fallen in value against the dollar. Interest on bond yields for Italy, Portugal and Spain continue to rise.

The UK has a huge interest in seeing the Euro survive and stabilised from two perspectives. Firstly, there is the vulnerability of our banks. The amount owed to UK banks by Irish Banks totals around 140 billion. A similar sum is owed to the UK banks by the Spanish Banks. Secondly, a collapse of the Euro would cause huge damage to our exports and probably plunge us into another recession. A collapse of the Euro would be an unmitigated disaster for the UK. It is hard to know exactly how international markets will see Britain after such a collapse.

Britain’s very high level of indebtedness could become a feature of a future panic on the markets. The full spectrum of British debt owed between Banks, Government, Corporations and individuals is frightening. The UK is the most heavily indebted nation per capita in the world behind Japan. Japan has been earmarked as potentially the world’s biggest ever national bankruptcy. I don’t believe that the UK is likely to become bankrupt. Unlike the UK, most of the debt owed by the Japanese is owed by its government. However, should our own banks require further re-capitalization, the Government will not wish to risk going down the road taken by the Irish Government in 2008.  It is only likely to allow the strongest Banks to survive.

In conclusion, we are in this crisis as deeply as the rest of the Eurozone nations are, whether we like it or not.  Our vulnerability is likely to result in huge pressure from the Europeans to join them in measures to save the Euro.  The problem is, we do not yet know if the euro can be saved or is indeed worth saving.  The most puritanical view is that the Euro can only survive if there is political union. John Redwood MP recently advocated that view.

Very soon, I suspect that our Government will require the wisdom of Solomon.

Cutting public spending early now vindicated by OBR report

Yesterday, in the House of Commons, George Osborne provided an upbeat statement of Britain’s economic prospects following the publication of the latest OBR report.   The main findings of the report are

(1) GDP growth for this year revised up from 1.2% to 1.8%

(2) Sustainable growth averaging more than 2% over the next 5 years

(3) public sector job cuts over the next 4 years are revised downwards from 490,000 to 330,000.

(4) Borrowing this year expected to be £1bn less than predicted in June

(5) There will not be a “double dip” recession.

Amongst Mr. Osborne’s most interesting announcements was the proposal to reduce Corporation Tax to 10% UK wide on profits from newly commercialised patents to encourage hi-tech business.  I fully expect this Government to introduce further reductions in Corporation tax across the UK in the future

Already, the Government is hoping that a 10% Corporation tax can be introduced in relation to the income of all Companies based in Northern Ireland.  The synergy between these two proposals should not be ignored by the Executive.  Northern Ireland will not see any benefit if it waits for the rest of the UK to bring down the tax.  They must take advantage of this proposal and press for its implementation immediately.

There is an interesting aside to this story.  In reply to questions, following his statement, George Osborne indicated that he supports other countries who set their own taxes in the way they see fit.  That was a reference to possible pressure being put on Ireland to “harmonise” with the rest of Europe.  That sets the UK on a collision course with the Germans and the French.

Margaret Thatcher was absolutely right

It is 20 years since Margaret Thatcher was removed from power in a leadership challenge instigated by Michael Heseltine and others.  It was a time when the Conservatives lost their nerve, having seen opinion poll ratings fall.  The issue which divided Conservatives, at the time, was the proposed single European currency.  Her successor, John Major was unable to unite the two wings of the Conservative Party despite winning the 1992 election.  The combined effect of the EMS crisis of 1992 and the splits in the Conservative Party over Europe led to a crushing defeat by New Labour in the 1997 election. 

Writing in the Daily Telegraph
Peter Oborne revisits the warnings that Margaret gave during her term of office and which were recorded in her autobiography, first published in 1993. 

“Today, Margaret Thatcher’s autobiography, first published in 1993, reads like a prophecy. It shows how deeply and with what extraordinary wisdom she had examined Delors’ proposals for the single currency. Her overriding objection was not ill-considered or xenophobic, as subsequent critics have repeatedly claimed.”

“They were economic. Right back in 1990, Mrs Thatcher foresaw with painful clarity the devastation it was bound to cause. Her autobiography records how she warned John Major, her euro-friendly chancellor of the exchequer, that the single currency could not accommodate both industrial powerhouses such as Germany and smaller countries such as Greece. Germany, forecast Thatcher, would be phobic about inflation, while the euro would prove fatal to the poorer countries because it would “devastate their inefficient economies

“It is as if, all those years ago, the British prime minister possessed a crystal ball that enabled her to foresee the catastrophic events of the past year or so in Ireland, Greece and Portugal. Indeed, it is one of the tragedies of European history that the world chose not to believe her. President Mitterrand of France and Chancellor Kohl of Germany dismissed her words of caution. And when Mrs Thatcher was driven from

office in 1990, a crucial voice was lost, and a new consensus started to form in Britain in favour of the euro.”

Oborne also pays tribute to William Hague and Ian Duncan Smith, who maintained support for Mrs. Thatcher’s policy during a period of intense unpopularity for the Conservatives.

Margaret Thatcher was hardly a popular figure in the Republic of Ireland.  In the 1980s, she was seen as an obstacle to Ireland’s interests.  I wonder how many now wished that their politicians had paid more heed to her warnings.

Conference: Conservative speakers on top form

I have thoroughly enjoyed listening to the speeches from various conservative spokespersons and Ministers.  William Hague gave a fabulous introduction on Sunday night.   There has, of course, been no shortage of arrows fired at the Labour Party.

What is particularly impressive is (a) their sense of mission (b) their solidarity with the Lib Dems as coalition partners (c) there has been an apparent shift in Conservative values.  There is greater compassion towards the poor and disadvantaged than I have ever known as a conservative follower. 

Michael Gove gave a superb and passionate speech about educational underachievement by children from poor families and his proposals to tackle it.  Ian Duncan Smith demonstrated an unusual depth of authority on the subject of poverty.   Now he is about to spearhead one of the most radical shake-ups of the Welfare system.  

Overall, the Conservatives have demonstrated that they did not waste their time during all of those years of opposition.   Two days to go.  More of the same please!

Does the Conservative Party have an ideology

I have not made up my mind about whether the election of Ed Milliband as Labour leader was a good or a bad development for the Conservative Party.  Most of the Newspaper journalists seem to think it was a good thing.  I have to admit that I was unprepared for Ed Milliband’s victory.  I am playing “catch up” in my quest to become informed about him.  The only observation that I can make is that his victory was a great achievement by any standard.

Ed Milliband’s victory has triggered off an interesting debate in The Times about whether or not the Conservative Party has an ideology.

In his recent book “The Third Man,” Peter Mandelson suggested that David Cameron did not have an ideology.

“He has values but he doesn’t have a set of fixed, political beliefs that flow from a particular political outlook or philosophy,” said Mandelson.

There are some conservatives who would probably agree with that.  Back in April Bob Tyrell of the BBC wrote a piece “Is British Politics Ideology Free?”  He observed that this impression might easily be conveyed since so much politics is fought on the centre ground.  Citing an interesting observation by David Willetts, then shadow Educations spokesman, he wrote:

David Willetts is the Conservative’s shadow education secretary and one of the party’s leading thinkers.

He describes the political debate today as rather like a contest between different blends of coffee or whisky – “who’s got the better blend of a competitive economy and social justice and community.”

Far from regretting the absence of big ideological clashes he also welcomes the fact that politics is no longer a case of “one party that solely believes in a modern market economy and doesn’t understand society and the other party that is solely committed to some sense of social obligation to others and doesn’t understand a market economy.”

However, the parties have to come from somewhere.  Their rhetoric gives them away and even if pragmatism is the final force guiding policymaking, it is ideology which drives the debate.  As Tyrell concludes:

“In that sense all major parties will agree what matters. What works is where the disagreements will be, and there is a chance these could be bitter and, dare we say it, ideological.”

Peter Mandelson does not appear to have taken the same view about the Conservative Party as he did about David Cameron.  Nor, it seems, does Tony Blair who recently ‘advised’ David Cameron to abandon ideological focus.

However, there are some, including Conservatives who would not accept that the party has an ideology at all.  In his article for The Times published 1^st October 2010, Phillip Collins wrote: 

“As the conservative philosopher Michael Oakeshott said, allegiance is more about disposition than it is about ideology. The prejudice drives the politics, not vice versa.”

Collins then set out his view as to how the Labour Party viewed Conservative ideals.

“For them, politics is a morality play in which good ideas clash with bad. That is why Labour is a party of heresy-hunters, chasing out the traitors.”

Collins examined Ed Milliband’s first major party conference speech since becoming leader.  He uses the theme of spending cuts to demonstrate that Labour see themselves in some sort of permanent ideological struggle with the Conservatives.  Central to this apparent Labour view is the Conservatives’ apparent lust to reduce the size of the state.

“His [Ed Milliband’s] understanding of political method is that you declare your convictions and wait for the public to rally round. Labour MPs lined up in Manchester to say, in effect, the same thing: that, deep down, underneath that involuntary act of voting Tory, the public share Labour values. There is no act of persuasion needed. The reason that Labour lost is that it wasn’t really Labour enough.

This has another consequence. It means that Labour people get Conservatives wrong. Labour people take the ideological relish of the Tories for granted. They think the Conservative Party will gather in Birmingham next week to concoct a deliberate plan to ruin the public sector.”

He uses history to suggest that the Conservative Party was never a party driven by any ideology.

“Look, in other words, at what they do, not what they say. In 1867 Disraeli cynically brought down Gladstone’s Parliamentary Reform Bill. A year later Disraeli himself introduced a more radical version of the Bill he had opposed, ostensibly in principle. The humane social legislation that came after was an explicit thank you to his new class of supporters. Some good got done, but it didn’t start with a blueprint.”

If you had read my recent post on political tectonic plates, you could be forgiven for thinking that the Conservative Party was just a party of power retained to defend the interests of the better off.  Nobody would argue that the party has evolved into a completely different political being from what it was 300 years ago and has acquired many standing values in that time.  However, not everybody, least of all Peter Mandelson, would accept that simply having a set of values amounts to having an ideology.  Once again, I quote from “The Third Way as set out in Conservative Home

He [David Cameron] has values but he doesn’t have a set of fixed, political beliefs that flow from a particular political outlook or philosophy.

“I mean, what is his view of the role of government or the State or markets? Does he really believe, as the ‘Big Society’ implied, that government should just get out of the way and let people organise their schools and hospitals as they wish?

Mandelson may well have misunderstood David Cameron.  He also seems to have been unawared of the fact that the ‘Big Society’ theme is not a particularly new strand of Conservative (or indeed Liberal) thinking.  Edmund Burke (18^th century lawyer and politician) said:

“Whatever each man can do separately do, without trespassing on others, he has a right to do for himself; and he has a right to a far portion of all which society, with all its combinations of skill and force, can do in his favour”

If there is a system of ideas which links the 19^th century to present day conservativism, it is the belief that government is at its best if it governs in a way in which the population, having regard to human nature, is most likely to further its best interests and that of the nation.  Perhaps that sounds vague and populist.  It translates into a recognition that Government should regulate society in such a way that it builds upon what is good, interferes as little as possible, and allows people to thrive.  It is a thread which runs through the expressions of all of the great definers of Conservative thought, including Edmund Burke, Sir Robert Peel and Benjamin D’Israeli.  

The rise of Socialism drove the Conservative Party to become the guardians of capitalism.  Once again, it was the recognition of how human nature works which gave expression to the economic aspects of Conservative philosophical thinking.  The state of human nature was such that greater wealth creation and thus national prosperity could only thrive under capitalism.  This is now at the core of Conservative Ideology.  Yes, there have been other strains of Conservativism, including one-nation conservativism, thatcherism and progressive conservativism but the core of Conservativism is about getting the best out of people, including their willingness to help others, through capitalism.

Matthew Paris, writing for The Times on October 2^nd 2010 does not agree with Phillip Collins.  In his article, he sets out two strands of Conservative Ideology.  One is ‘the pessimistic’ which accepts the darker, selfish side of human nature.  The other is ‘the optimistic’ which promotes the human virtues of kindness and responsibility.  He sets out why he believes that conservatives have been in denial about their ideology.  He concludes by suggesting, that there is growing feeling amongst the population, that there is something wrong with “gross” inequality and proposes that the Conservatives will need to refine their ideology in the direction of greater equality to make it fit for the 21^st Century:

“Conservatism’s a teaching taught so early that most Tories, having imbibed the doctrine with their mother’s milk, don’t even realise they have a doctrine; they think it’s just common sense, as Hindus think reincarnation is common sense. Tories are as unconscious of their ideology as are most Englishmen of their sense of nationhood.

But Conservatives have a philosophy as muscular as it is submarine: an anchor Tories may need to hold them in bad times, if not in good.

For, odd as it may sound, these are good times for Conservative politics. Labour’s near-bankrupting of Britain seems to have made their case for them. The sun shines on the Tory prescription for government. Conservatives can lean on the easy argument for rolling back the State: that the money has run out. They needn’t try our patience with Aristotle, Locke, Smith, Hume, Mill, Burke, Ayn Rand and the philosophical case for self-help.

Your instinctive Conservative is anyway uncomfortable with abstractions (Phil’s right about that) and becomes nervous when pointy-heads speak of ethical egoism, benevolent capitalism … or anything ending in -ism. But, just as Molière’s Bourgeois Gentleman had been speaking prose all his life without knowing it, your average Tory has had an -ism all his life without knowing it. He might be surprised to know he believes in the galvanising power of inequality, in the charitable instinct, in fear, in hunger and (within limits) in greed. He might not acknowledge that he thinks it human nature to do as little as we can get away with. Hardened into words, these ideas unsettle him. “Sorry, the cupboard’s bare” is so much easier. Which of us cannot remember the parental “can’t afford it” as the knockdown answer to the child’s “why not?” Other, better reasons were left unvoiced.

Unvoiced by most natural Conservatives is a slew of arguments about governance, most of them anchored in a recognisable if sloppily expressed idea of human nature.

In calling this idea pessimistic, our critics (I speak as a Conservative) correctly describe half the truth. We do see self-interest (and those extensions of self: family and community) as a more reliable motivator than any urge to improve humanity generally. We do see sharp limits to the possibilities of altruism, except in palpable, time-limited emergencies. We do believe that too much economic security dulls the individual’s edge. We don’t believe that anything like equality of outcome between all citizens is either achievable or desirable.

We don’t think the possibility of success can have useful meaning without the possibility of failure; that “ourselves” can signify much except as distinguished from “others”. We cannot conceive of virtue in the absence of vice; of honour without stigma; or of hope without fear. We are suspicious of political theologies that censor the dark side from their lexicon, or deny that if success needs beacons then so does failure. We doubt you can eat your cake and have it afterwards.

So, yes, there’s a strong strand of pessimism in Conservative ideology. A tremendous compensating optimism, though, has been the unspoken strand. Conservatives think human beings, all human beings, can be very strong. We think people underestimate their potential. We think individuals have great and often untapped reserves of kindness and duty to those people they adopt as their personal responsibility: the more direct the link, the stronger the devotion.

This is the other half of the truth about Tory thinking. It has been David Cameron’s enormous contribution to our party’s idea of itself, not just to say this, but to exemplify it personally. It was with this optimism that he made his distinctive start. But the optimistic side of Conservative doctrine is now vulnerable to the “cupboard’s bare” sentiment gripping Britain.

The party should take care. Open-handed may be bad, but big-hearted is still good, and it can be no coincidence that the only part of Ed Miliband’s Manchester address to Labour last week that really took wing was his closing passage, about optimism. He spoke to a sense of what’s missing.

Of course the Tory Big Society idea is aimed at precisely this lack. The concept’s making headway and must be pushed all the harder at Birmingham this week. But it suffers from being easily (if not always fairly) linked to spending cuts.

Big heart cannot in today’s climate mean deep pocket, so policy proposals must be without cost to the Exchequer. Here are two. Conservative doctrine leaves unanswered some aching questions, and they are linked. Nobody really thinks it fair or necessary that wages at the bottom in Britain are so incredibly far from those at the top. Who at a conference hotel can compare what the anxious, worn-looking woman who comes in to clean the room is earning per hour with what the guest or hotel boss earns and still insist that free-market economics depends on the scale (as opposed to the fact) of difference?

And though Conservatives believe fiercely in inequality of outcome, most of us feel uncomfortable about gross inequalities in the situations from which young people start.

It follows (I submit) that the inquiry Mr Cameron has asked Will Hutton to conduct into wage differentials is the more important because it touches a spot where Conservatives should be very sensitive. And Michael Gove’s free-schools plan, which incorporates a premium to follow disadvantaged children, will touch, unless generous, just as raw a nerve.

Why not tax employers who let wage differentials sprawl? Why not skew pupil premiums dramatically towards the poor? Why not make fee-paying schools’ VAT-exemption depend on what proportion of scholarship students they take from non-fee-paying families? Would one in four be so shocking?

For the coalition Cabinet, big heart and tight wallet will not be easy to square; but for the integrity and reputation of the Conservative Party’s 21st-century ideology, the attempt is critical. Ideology matters. “The cupboard’s bare” is not enough.

Matthew Paris’s conclusion is certainly thought-provoking.  A new centre-right party for Northern Ireland would, of course, develop its brand of ideology which links it to the specialist requirements of the Northern Ireland population.  As a starting point, though, I commend Paris’s thinking

Conservatives on the verge of long term coalition with Lib Dems

Yesterday, following Gordon Brown’s resignation as Labour leader, the Conservatives took a calculated risk with their future by offering the Liberal Democrats a referendum on Alternative Voting (“AV”).  It was a move which was designed to prevent giving Labour anything concrete to offer the Liberal Democrats.  In a post written by me before the General Election, I indicated that the Conservatives should be prepared to make that offer.

Mathematically, it is possible for Labour to obtain a working majority with the Liberal Democrats by adding the Scottish and Welsh Nationalists.    That would take them to 324 MPs.  Bearing in mind that Sinn Fein do not take up their seats, that would be enough.  Certainly, there has been talk of Labour offering the Liberal Democrats a referendum on full proportional representation.  However, that would be a very different offer.  AV was in Labour’s manifesto.  PR was not.  The two voting systems are entirely different and there are many Labour MPs who will never accept PR.   The Conservative offer has effectively killed any chance that Labour had of remaining in power. 

The Liberal Democrats will know there are risks with entering into a coalition with the Conservatives.  Then again, there are political risks for them whatever they do.   A coalition with Labour would be without the legitimacy of an elected Prime Minister.   It would also be highly unstable and very unlikely to survive long.  That is why I am now confident that the Liberal Democrats will decide that their best position is in Government with the Conservatives.

There are those in the Conservative Party who believe that David Cameron has offered the Liberal Democrats too much.  I don’t think he has, not just for the reasons outlined above.  The Conservative objective remains to provide stable government for a minimum fixed term.  I now fully expect that term to be four years.  I also expect to see the Liberals in coalition.  That is what the majority of the Nation wants.  That is also what the Nation needs.

The future for Northern Ireland Conservatives

Jeffrey Peel has said that UCUNF is dead.  He may well be right.  In his last post before the General Election, Chekov suggested that it could not survive a bad result.

The General Election has left the United Kingdom with a hung parliament.  This could mean that instead of waiting for four years before the next general election, we may only be waiting for less than a year.  In addition, we have Assembly elections to think about next year.  If we are going to offer something attractive to the Northern Ireland electorate before these elections, important decisions need to be made now.

The UCUNF project offered something new to the Northern Ireland electorate.  It offered a chance for voters to participate in National Politics and select the next Government of the United Kingdom.  It was a worthy and noble project.  It was not the fault of the Northern Irish electorate that they did not take up that opportunity.  The handling of the project was a shambles.  Furthermore, once a deal was made for a single unionist candidate in Fermanagh and South Tyrone, the project became compromised. 

The Alliance Party and the Liberal Democrats achieved something that should have been an achievement of UCUNF.  Just before polling day, Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democrats publicly took ownership of the Alliance Party’s election campaign.  The appeal by Nick Clegg to support Naomi Long, amplified by the report in the Belfast Telegraph, will go down in Northern Ireland’s political history as the first successful piece of campaigning in living memory by a National political party for a candidate contesting a Northern Ireland Parliamentary seat.   

The Ulster Unionist Party looks set to tear itself apart.  In one camp, there are those that want to draw the party towards a shared Unionist home with the DUP.  They will seek to influence uncertain members by telling them that the DUP has moved away from its “no compromise” days.  In another camp, there are those who would like to lead the party in the direction of a more progressive type of unionism.  There are people in first camp who will blame the UCUNF project for the party’s present position.  The reality is that those same people – some of them very senior UUP members – sabotaged the UCUNF project. 

I would like to think that the progressive camp would gain enough influence on the rank and file membership to seize control of the party.  Sadly, that is unlikely to happen.   However, even if, hypothetically, the progressive camp did seize control, there are so many senior figures in the other camp that the result would be extreme instability. A highly unstable UUP is not fit for a project like UCUNF.  This election has borne that out very clearly.  In conclusion, I can see no future for the UCUNF project on the basis of an alliance between the two parties.

Had there been some measure of success for UCUNF, I believe that eventually, it would have merged with the Northern Ireland Conservatives as part of a federal structure where the new party enjoyed autonomy over its local policies and candidate selection but still remained affiliated to the main Conservative Party.    

Northern Ireland Conservatives will appreciate that since David Cameron became our leader, our branch of the party has ceased to be neglected, as we previously were, like a forgotten outpost at the edge of the frontier.  At grass roots level, the party has benefited and membership has grown considerably in the last four years.  That is appreciated and it is hoped and expected that this support will continue.  Last year, I was very encouraged to hear that David Cameron’s commitment to bringing conservativism in Northern Ireland was a long-term one and would not be coming to an end if there were significant disappointments along the way.  I am confident that commitment will continue.

The deal over Fermanagh and South Tyrone has altered our position as a cross-community party.  The road to achieving normal politics in Northern Ireland now looks longer and harder.  If the decision to field a compromise candidate in that constituency had been left to Northern Ireland Conservatives, it would not have happened.  The fact that it did is in no small part due to the pressure on the main Conservative Party to win as many seats as possible when a hung parliament became likely.  It was a classic conflict of interest situation and it underpins a powerful argument for changing the constitution of the Northern Ireland Conservative Party.

Today, we find ourselves damaged by the UCUNF project to the extent that Conservatives are now tainted, by association, with sectarianism.   We need something radical to change very quickly, if we are to get back on course towards our long term political aims in Northern Ireland.

The conflict of interest point, which I have outlined above and the need to build up our credibility with Catholics, in particular, both form part of a case for more power and control to be given to Northern Ireland Conservatives over matters which include regional policy, candidate selection and the development of a new brand.  Effectively, I am advocating independence for Northern Ireland Conservatives on all crucial decisions except in relation to National policymaking and funding. 

Underpinning that proposal, a more autonomously independent Northern Ireland Conservative Party would have a much greater chance of recognition as a cross-community party by entrenching certain rules within its constitution.  One such rule should be that there are no sectarian deals on seats or candidates with other unionist parties. 

I believe this is the right model for Northern Ireland Conservatives going forward.  I also believe it is right for the main Conservative Party too.