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.

David Cameron has played a blinder to get to this position

At the General Election, the Conservatives registered a count of 307 seats.   Throughout 2009, it looked as though we would win an overall majority.   Having noted the performance of UKIP, I am now convinced that what cost the Conservatives that overall majority was in large part connected with the withdrawal of the proposal to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.  UKIP had always said that they would have supported the Conservatives at the General Election if they had maintained the policy.

There are some Conservatives (Lord Tebbit was one of them) who wanted the Conservatives to continue with the policy on holding a referendum.  They may have won an election outright but they would have been taking a much bigger risk with the National Interest and the party’s interest further down the line.  A referendum on the Lisbon treaty post ratification would have been a referendum on membership of the Euro.  The ultimate scenario could have spelt disaster.   Britain might have voted itself out of Europe and the Conservative Party might have fatally torn itself apart.

Looking at Conservative Policy and politics over the last four years, it is quite obvious that in appreciating the scale of the task for getting back to power, the Conservatives were planning the scenario of a hung parliament, just as they were looking at every alternative to avoid it.  Competing aggressively for the centre ground of politics was one part of the strategy.  Their green policy was not just an ethical consideration of the Environment.  Their libertarian approach to politics was not merely shaped by philosophy.  Much of the drive behind these policies was a determination to fight the ground of the Liberal Democrats.  In large part, this strategy succeeded.  There was little opportunity for the Lib Dems to advance until the TV debate during the election campaign. 

Consider also the Conservative strategy for Scotland.  The Conservatives did not win any new seats in Scotland.  However, they did buy political kudos from the Scottish Nationalists by agreeing to allow them to govern at the Scottish Assembly.  The Scottish Nationalists have six MPs.  They could, passively or actively, play a crucial part in the negotiations for a new Government in the next few days. 

Consider also the Conservative approach to Northern Ireland.  The Conservatives had hoped that the link up with the UUP would have delivered them extra seats.  Alas, by the beginning of the year, once it became obvious that the link up with the UUP was not going to deliver, the Conservatives got their hands dirty with the DUP, hence the Hatfield House talks and the Fermanagh South Tyrone deal.  The latter gamble did not pay off.  Whilst I did not agree with the deal, it was understandable.  We can at least say that it was out of Character for our leadership to agree that.  The hung parliament spectre was the driving force behind it.  In a future post, I will be setting out my proposal as to how the Conservatives in Northern Ireland should respond to the problem left behind by that deal.

Recently, it was reported that the Conservatives were promising an extra £200 million following further talks with the DUP.  That is entirely consistent with a stratagem to deal with the hung Parliament problem.  Unlike deals on representation and candidates, I do not consider that kind of deal to be pernicious.  The Government has to do what is best for the Country as a whole.  However, there are others who will criticise such a deal as pandering to sectarianism.  Indeed, Lord Ashdown yesterday was asking the question as to whether David Cameron was going to do a deal with “the Orangemen.”  

Lord Ashdown’s comments betray a fear within the Liberal Democrat camp that their hand might not quite be strong enough to push for for an unconditional committment to their holy grail of proportional representation in Parliamentary Elections. 

With the option of governing on the basis of a minority government, the Conservatives, just as they threw away the referendum policy on Europe, have to consider the National interest in their approach to forming a Government.  The Country has a debt mountain to deal with.  We have a war in Afghanistan.  The Country needs the strongest possible Government.  It is absolutely right that the Conservatives should give priority to trying to make a deal with the Liberal Democrats.  

Yesterday, David Cameron set out the Conservative position.  He made a momentous speech setting out bullet point terms for the Lib Dems joining in partnership.  He outlined the issues on which there would not be negotiation, such as the policy on immigration.  In proposing an all party committee on electoral reform, with a promise to implement legislation on the basis of its recommendations, David Cameron has effectively made it almost impossible for the Lib Dems to become involved in a grand coalition with Gordon Brown.  Indeed, I proposed in one of my recent posts that David Cameron should make some sort of offer on elections for precisely that reason.  David Cameron has now shot Gordon Brown’s Fox. 

Taking together everything that has happened, David Cameron has played a blinder for the Conservatives since the moment he became our leader.  Yes, he makes mistakes but he always manages to adjust very quickly.  It is hard not to look at his performance with a certain amount of awe.  He may yet turn out to be one of Britain’s greatest ever politicians.

The future will be brighter in Northern Ireland under a Conservative Government

As we reach the final stages of the election campaign, the polls suggest that the Conservatives are going to gain the largest number of seats but will be just short of an overall majority.  The situation is still, of course, highly volatile but with the likelihood of a hung parliament, the importance of how Northern Irish voters make their decision in a General Election has never been greater. 

The backdrop for Northern Ireland voters is that with the UK in so much debt and the Republic of Ireland economy in so much trouble, there are very tough times ahead, whatever the outcome of the election.  However, I maintain that the outcome of the election, whatever your tradition, will be as important to you as it will be to any citizen in Britain.  What I say here is directed to anybody who is a voter in a Northern Ireland constituency, with the exception of Fermanagh and South Tyrone.  I have expressed my view on the circumstances of that constituency here and here.

All of the political parties that are represented in Northern Ireland have now produced their manifestoes. 

Sinn Fein was the last party to produce their manifesto.  Their policies are as vacuous as ever.  They do not take up their seats in Parliament.  Taken together, they have absolutely nothing to offer the electorate.  All that a Sinn Fein MP achieves by election is the title “MP” and a salary with expenses.  When the Conservatives are elected, they will pass legislation so that neither Sinn Fein MPs, nor any other MPs that do not take up their seats, will be able to draw upon expenses.

The SDLP, by identity, is an Irish Nationalist party but for the purpose of the General Election, I am not interested in their Nationalism. Historically, they line up with the Labour Party in the Westminster Parliament on matters which don’t specifically concern Northern Ireland.  What is most important, for the purposes of this election, is that SDLP MPs support the Labour Government.  If you watched the Northern Ireland leader’s debate last week, you would have heard Margaret Ritchie explaining that. 

If you habitually vote for the SDLP or you are thinking of voting for them, I ask you to think of them as the Labour Party.  If your constituency is North Down, it is also reasonable to treat Lady Sylvia Hermon, who is now supported by the SDLP, as a representative of Labour. 

NI voters need not concern themselves with Labour’s policies for Education or the Health service.  Those are matters for the Assembly.  However, I would urge NI voters to think in terms of which party is best suited to run the Economy and deal with other non-devolved matters such as Immigration.  If you have decided on the answer to that question, then I respect your voting choice if the Labour Party is still your preferred party of Government.

If you feel that Britain and Northern Ireland need a change of Government and you are broadly in agreement with Conservative economic policy, I urge you to put aside any notion of what has gone on before and vote for one of the 17 Parliamentary Conservative and Unionist candidates who are campaigning on behalf of the Conservative Party.

The Democratic Unionist Party currently has 9 MPs.  Their core policy for the UK Parliament is simple and clear.  They are telling unionists that they will use a hung Parliament in order to extract or defend funding for Northern Ireland.  If you are a Unionist and you are taking that prospect seriously, then I urge you further to take into account the following points.

It has been suggested that during the Labour administration, the DUP extracted concessions from the Government.  Peter Robinson has alluded to concessions given when they supported them over the 42 bill.  Do not be fooled by that or by anything else the DUP tell you.  There was, in reality, no funding for Northern Ireland as a result of that vote. 

The DUP may also point to Policing and Justice, where extra funding was obtained to support devolution.  There are two things to say about that.  Firstly, it was the last piece of the Devolution jigsaw puzzle.  The supportive funding was a one-off.  Secondly, the Government made those funding concessions to support devolution, not the DUP specifically. 

The reality is that Gordon Brown has not bribed Peter Robinson at all.  If Brown was into that game, the outcome of the Presbyterian Mutual Society problem might have been different.  Incidentally, savers with the PMS have every reason to hope for a different result when the Conservatives take office.  When in office, they will look at the affair afresh and consider taking a different approach.

If DUP MPs start looking for special favours from the Conservatives to keep them in power, the Conservatives will, firstly, appeal to Northern Ireland MPs to put the nation’s interests first, particularly in these difficult times.  However, they will not be making any concessions to the DUP.  Memories still linger of the “bribe” negotiations between Labour and Ulster Unionist MPs in 1978 and 1979.  Promises made by the Callaghan Government on the eve of no confidence motions erupted into national scandal.  The Conservatives would be taking a very bad gamble if they went down that route.

Voting for the DUP on the basis of potential leverage will not benefit Northern Ireland because it will not benefit the UK as a whole.  A strong Government with a working majority represents the best prospect for the UK during these difficult times.  

The broad way to differentiate between the Conservatives and Labour is in terms of their attitude towards state and economy.  The conservative approach is economy-centred.  Labour’s is state-centred.  Labour has never been able to break free from its “Robin Hood” approach to the economy.  Another description which sums up Labour’s approach is the “Nanny State.”  Whenever Labour has finished a spell in power, it has left the State sector larger, as a proportion of the overall economy, making it much harder for it to thrive in the future.

For people in Northern Ireland, the benefit of the Conservatives being interested in this region is that the Conservatives are committed to enabling Northern Ireland to break away from its dependance on the State.   The Conservative leadership has made its overtures on this subject.   This election represents an opportunity for voters in Northern Ireland to take ownership of that commitment by showing solidarity with the Conservatives and giving them the power that we all need them to have.

Unfortunately, because of the present state of the UK economy, Northern Ireland, like everywhere in Britain, is going to suffer from spending cuts during the first part of a Conservative administration.  That cannot be avoided.   In the medium and longer term, the Conservative Party is committed to reducing the dependency of the state sector and regenerating Northern Ireland’s private sector economy.  One measure for Northern Ireland, already promised to be implemented, is the is the reduction in the rate of Corporation tax so that it is consistent with the low levels of equivalent tax in the Republic of Ireland.  Further fiscal measures will be unveiled after the Conservatives have taken office while others, such as a review of Business rates, will be discussed with Northern Ireland politicians.  In conclusion, there is some short term economic pain ahead for Northern Ireland.  Further along, the future will be much brighter under the Conservatives.

A higher morality than taught by the Bible

Here we go again.  Philip Lardner, the Conservative Parliamentary candidate for North Ayrshire and Arran has been suspended for homophobic remarks, as just reported on Sky News.

Just to put Mr. Lardner’s remarks into context, he has tried to appear reasonable by holding out that he respects equality for gay people but refuses to acknowledge that their behaviour is normal or encourage children to indulge in it. 

Unfortunately, Mr. Larder is not alone in his views.  If you asked for the view of a Priest, Minister or Rabbi on this subject, you would not find much of a difference between the opinions of the clerics and Mr. Lardner.

If you scratch the surface further, you will find more politicians who privately agree with Mr. Lardner but will not say so in Public. 

Unfortunately for the Gay Community, there is one huge obstacle in the way of a post-homophobic society.  It is the Bible.  The most well-known reference against it is Leviticus 18:22   At various times, when a politician is accused of being an anti-gay bigot, he or she uses the Bible to defend his/her view.  Peter Robinson did just that a couple of years ago, following remarks made by his wife.  Philip Lardner has just made his own reference to his Christian beliefs.

For the Conservative Party, this is an ongoing problem but it should not be beyond their control.  We have a Parliamentary Assessment Board.  As an immediate measure, we must ensure that all of our candidates are properly screened so that their private religious views are exposed in that process.  When those views are exposed, they should then demonstrate a willingness not to air any view which could be regarded as being homophobic and understand that it is a breach of the party code of conduct if they do that.   I am not a party insider.  Perhaps that code exists and Mr. Lardner is clearly in breach of it.

Meanwhile, we as a society need to acknowledge, much more than we do at present, that as far as the law is concerned, it is not simply there to protect gay rights and promote equality.  It is much more than that.  The critical mass of our society has now moved on to embrace a higher form of morality, which is based upon humanist tolerance and decency.   To put it bluntly, as far as homosexuality is concerned, we are a post biblical society.

Have the Conservatives sold their soul for one constituency in one election?

The part played by the Conservative Party in the agreement of Rodney Connor as a compromise unionist candidate in Fermanagh and South Tyrone is by far the most controversial step that the Conservatives have taken since the announcement of the pact with the UUP. 

The central question, which I attempt to answer here, is whether it is a step forward or a step backwards in terms of the longer-term Conservative political objectives in Northern ireland.  Firstly, what does the deal amount to in practice? 

Fermanagh and South Tyrone is a constituency where the Unionist and Nationalist vote is near parity but where Nationalists are in a majority.  In the 2005 General Election, the ratio of Nationalists to Unionists was about 53:47 on a turnout of 72.6%.  At that election, Sinn Fein polled 18,638 votes with the SDLP polling 7,230 votes.  On the Unionist side, the DUP polled 14,056 with the UUP polling 8,869.  Projecting current demographic trends, the Unionists are now down to about 45%.  A single Unionist candidate could expect to poll in the region of 22,000.  For Sinn Fein to win the seat, they would need a swing against the SDLP of approximately 5.5%.  The trend of the SDLP losing votes to Sinn Fein appears to have been arrested in the 2009 Euro election.  They have also been given a further boost with a fresh candidate in Fergal McKinney.  It is therefore highly unlikely that Sinn Fein would win the seat.  I would expect a majority for a single Unionist candidate in the region of 2,700.

Rodney Connor is almost certain to win the seat.  However, Fermanagh and South Tyrone is just one constituency out of 650.  On its own, it would be very unlikely to make any significant difference, even in a hung parliament.  This is particularly so when you consider that Sinn Fein, who hold the seat at present, do not take up their seats in Parliament.  Is it symbolically important to the Conservatives?

After the European Election, the Conservatives boasted that they had an MEP in every part of the United Kingdom.  They would certainly like to be able to claim that on May 7^th.  Rodney Connor, if elected, will take the Conservative whip.  It is, however, only “half a loaf”  because Connor will not be campaigning under the Conservative and Unionist banner. 

There is little in it, then, from the National perspective.  What about the credibility of the Conservatives in terms of their longer term aims Northern Ireland?

Bringing normal politics to Northern Ireland involves setting examples.  One thing that the Conservatives always wanted to avoid was a sectarian “carve – up”   By avoiding a sectarian carve – up, a message would be sent to the Catholic community that they really were interested in the pursuit of Catholic votes on the basis of shared values, rather than on future constitutional aspiration. 

In defence of the arrangement, Conservative and Unionist spin doctors are describing the arrangement as “not ideal” and pointing out that Rodney Connor has genuine cross-community credentials.   Unfortunately, that kind of propaganda looks like a fig-leaf to try and cover what is a sectarian carve-up.   The almost pathological hatred of Sinn Fein by a very large proportion of the unionist electorate practically guarantees Mr. Connor a free ride.  It really is hard to see the deal in any other way. 

Mr. Connor is not a UCUNF candidate.  He may say that he will take the Conservative whip but he is Independent and can change his mind.  He is not strictly bound by party obligation.  It would therefore be quite wrong for the Conservatives to be able to claim that the people in Fermanagh and South Tyrone genuinely have the opportunity to vote for the next Government.

For many in the Northern Ireland Conservative party, particularly Jeffrey Peel, the Conservatives have sold their soul and the integrity of the UCUNF project for the price of one constituency in one election.  Whatever future efforts are made to bring about normal politics in Northern Ireland, it is not hard to imagine well-intentioned Conservative activists having this deal thrown back in their faces whenever they canvass on a Catholic doorstep.  This one is going to be milked for years to come.  Disaffected conservatives, like Jeffrey Peel, will lose the will to work for the party in Northern Ireland and it will now be much harder to recruit Catholic members to the party.

I believe that the deal was a huge mistake on the part of the Conservative leadership and one which they will eventually regret.  Rodney Connor will get my vote but I will not be casting it with the same excitement and anticipation that I might have done if we had a genuine UCUNF candidate. 

My own disappointment with the deal will linger for a while.  Eventually, it will pass.  I will pick myself up again but I will never attempt to justify what has happened.

Conservatives – We must put any immediate prospect of dumping the UUP out of our minds

The Conservative Party has held a presence in Northern Ireland politics since the mid 1980s.  It has had very little electoral success.  One of the reasons for that was a failure by Conservative Leadership to direct resources to enable its Northern Ireland branch to build a political power base.  Perhaps it was correct to avoid doing that before the Good Friday Agreement. 

In December 2005, David Cameron became the leader of the Conservative Party.  Soon after that, he made public his vision for politics in Northern Ireland.  Speaking to the Institute of Directors in October 2006, he said this:

“I want politics in Northern Ireland to be about the real things – schools, hospitals, tax…not about timetables, deadlines and institutional arrangements.  And I want the Conservative Party to be a part of that new politics. We’re moving in a new direction.  Leading the debate.  Pulling ahead of a tired Government.  Developing policies for the future. In doing so, one thing is certain. My Party’s commitment to Northern Ireland, and to all its people, will be whole hearted and unshakeable.”

David Cameron’s speech epitomised what Northern Ireland Conservatives have always wanted – normal politics in Northern Ireland.  One of the steps necessary to achieving that objective is to move Northern Ireland away from its semi-detached status by giving its people a say in who will form the next National Government. 

Very soon, we will have a General Election and the first part of David Cameron’s objective will have been achieved.  I say “first part” not just because the Labour Party are not yet here but because Mr. Cameron was not just talking about tax.  In a clear reference to devolved powers and the Northern Ireland Assembly, he also mentioned schools and hospitals.  Furthermore, his reference to “real things” and “not about timetables, deadlines and institutional arrangements” was a clear indication of his desire for an end to sectarian politics.

Not all Northern Conservatives agree that being in partnership with the UUP was the right way to pursue David Cameron’s vision. 

Some in our party have argued, not without considerable force, that the UUP is not a party which is capable of moving away from sectarian politics.  It has also been argued, again not without considerable force, that the Conservatives are not capable of winning Parliamentary seats or building up a significant power base in Northern Ireland without a partnership with one of the leading Unionist parties.  If you agree with both of those viewpoints, then you will have reached a conclusion that there was never anything the Conservatives could have done to bring about normal politics in Northern Ireland.  I am one of those that dont agree with either argument. 

To borrow an old cliché, there is no such thing as a free lunch in the jungle.  Whichever path the Conservative party chose to work for normal politics in Northern Ireland, there was always going to be a lot of hard work with many hazards and very little electoral reward in the short term.    

The path chosen by the Conservatives was the link-up with the UUP.  After much thought and agonising on this subject, I eventually concluded that it was the right route to take even though there is no certainty that the pact will survive after the General Election.

The UUP have considerable obstacles to overcome in moving away from sectarian politics.  Within the last couple of months, the UUP has been lampooned for its equivocation in relation to making deals with the DUP to promote unionist “unity” candidates.  From an electoral tactical point of view, this equivocation has been rightly described as a missed opportunity to gain the ascendancy over the DUP during its weakest moment during the Christmas period.  The positive aspect to this struggle is that, in the end, the UUP came down firmly and unequivocally in favour of the pact with the Conservatives.  For those of us who have charted the progress of the UUP, this is the sort of struggle which goes with the territory, whenever a party is evolving.  There will be further struggles ahead.

Yesterday, the UUP voted against the transfer of powers for Police and Justice.  In my opinion, this was an error of judgment which will have much more of an impact on their political fortunes than their decision to hold talks with the DUP over unionist unity.  Within the Unionist community, there is a majority who would have supported the transfer of P & J from at least a pragmatic point of view.  Peter Robinson and his party will not have taken lightly their decision to support the transfer of powers.  Unfortunately for the UUP, the DUP have “read the tealeaves” correctly and the UUP have not. 

Even more damaging to the UUP is the prospect that Unionist voters will no longer consider them to be the moderate voice of Unionism as compared with that of the DUP.  That makes it much more difficult for the UUP to distinguish itself from the DUP as the party of civic unionism.

It will also make it much more difficult for the Conservatives to justify a future partnership with the UUP after the General Election.  Pressure will undoubtedly grow within the Conservative Party not to enter into any further pact. 

I am one of those who would not wish to rule out further pacts or even a merger between the Conservatives and the UUP.  For one thing, the latter has many moderate civic unionists within it who could yet rise to the top.  If failure in the next Assembly Elections is the price that brings that about, it could very well be a price worth paying.  

Meanwhile, we in the Conservative Party should be patient.  We must allow time and space for the UUP to continue their evolution.  We should commit ourselves to working in partnership with the UUP at least until beyond the next Assembly Elections.  Above all, we need to remind ourselves that one of our aims is to influence the Unionist community towards our way of thinking.  We are much more likely to do that in a partnership with the UUP than outside it.  We must put any immediate prospect of dumping the UUP out of our minds.

“Head banging” needed but UCUNF can still survive and thrive

Yesterday, at long last, details of the Hatfield House talks emerged, albeit in the Guardian and the Times also discussed on Jeffrey Peel’s blog.  As a result, we now have substantial have clarity over the matters which we feared would give us much cause for concern.   

Putting the two reports together, we now have confirmation that Owen Paterson did discuss with the UUP and the DUP the possibility of a new unionist party or force which would have three core commitments.  These were   

• Non-sectarianism.

• Making the Northern Ireland assembly and the executive work.

• Upholding power-sharing with nationalists.

I would not blame any reasonable unionist for nodding his head in agreement on reading those bullet points.  Unfortunately, the first core principle in this proposal (non-sectarianism) is now impossible to achieve on the basis of forming a united unionist party or force.  Moreover, Unionism has to be relegated from being a dominant political ideology if we are ever to achieve normal politics in Northern Ireland.   

Earlier this week, following the news that Alex Kane had resigned from his post as UUP communications director, Lord Trimble published on his blog copies of the emails that were exchanged of emails between himself and Mr. Kane in November 2009.  That exchange has illuminated a wide difference in the thinking behind the UCUNF project.  Consider particularly the following points made by David Trimble.  

“On the project your test is whether Cameron will back the unionist cause. How is that cause to be defined? Is it the Union or “facing down” nationalists? The project has the potential to widen and deepen the union. I know that large numbers of Catholics are effectively little “u” unionists. I was talking to several at last night’s Queens University Association London event, where I was speaking on this matter. But big U ethnic unionism will exclude them and force them back into ethnic nationalism. 

The project was never about lining up the Conservative party alongside ethnic Unionism, but about replacing political structures based on constitutional and national issues, with politics based on social and economic issues using the same party structures that operate elsewhere in the UK. Incidentally for this we need the participation of Labour as well as the Conservatives. Between them Catholics can be offered something better than SF to vote for”  

Note particularly the words highlighted in bold.  In the paragraph that follows, he contrasts the scenario whereby the Conservatives line up alongside ethnic Unionism with “normal” politics which he describes as “politics based on social and economic issues using the same party structures that operate elsewhere in the UK”.  In other words “left – right” politics, whereby Conservativism and Democratic Socialism replace Unionism and Nationalism as the dominant political ideologies.   

When I wrote my essay on Conservativism, it was my understanding that the leaders of both the UUP and the Conservatives held a similar vision and viewpoint.   

I am sure that Owen Paterson regrets holding talks with both the UUP and the DUP at Hatfield.  He is still an exceptionally able politician who has done so much good work to help facilitate normal politics in Northern Ireland.  I have no doubt that he will be quick to grasp and accept the principles behind David Trimble’s comments. 

I am not yet quite so sure about the leaders of the UUP.   The exchange of e-mails between Trimble and Kane highlighted another significant difference in the expectations of the UCUNF project.  It seems that the Ulster Unionists believe that it is acceptable to change the current power sharing structures under legislation brought by a Conservative government, regardless of Nationalist sensibilities.   

Few would disagree that the current arrangements are politically dysfunctional and inefficient.  However, any change to the system without cross-community consensus is simply not going to happen under a Conservative Government.  As David Trimble makes clear, the Power Sharing structures were negotiated as part of a global constitutional settlement for Northern Ireland.  If they are altered without Nationalist consent, it will hurl Northern Ireland backwards into the darkness.   

Incremental evolution is what is needed to change the power sharing structures, not revolution.  Over a period of time, such evolution can and should happen in an orderly negotiated way.  Also, I do not believe that the SDLP is so far away from talking “turkey” about constitutional changes.  Consider the following remarks made by Mark Durkan on the subject of changing power sharing structures.  Here I repeat part of a post from Liam Clarke of the Sunday Times, September 14, 2008. 

“Durkan’s words were measured.  He described how the present system of all-party coalition at Stormont had developed with the SDLP’s support, and suggested that it may be nearing the end of its shelf life. In particular, he questioned the tribal system of “community designation” at Stormont which parcels out jobs to politicians on the basis of whether they choose to be nationalists or unionists.

“The system of designation was necessary because of where we were coming from but should not be necessary where we are going,” Durkan said. “I argued that such measures with their arguably sectarian or sectional undertones should be bio-degradable, dissolving in the future as the environment changed.”

He said it was necessary to have communal protection for nationalists and unionists, or Protestants and Catholics, while the new institutions bedded in, but that this essentially tribal arrangement should not become permanent. “As we move towards a fully sealed and settled process we should be preparing to think about how and when to remove some of the ugly scaffolding needed during the construction of the new edifice,” Durkan argued, making the case for a bill of rights to protect against abuses before any changes are made.

Durkan’s suggestion is for cross-community government with entrenched human rights safeguards, but not necessarily every party in government every time. He pointed to the cumbersome system of checks and balances which have paralysed decision making since devolution. “Protections of rights, interests and identities will still be needed but not only for, or only as, either unionists or nationalists,” he ventured. “

Surely this is the clearest indication that the SDLP is the party to do business with on the question of changing the Power Sharing structures.

There now needs to be some serious “head banging” and understanding between leaders of the Conservatives and the UUP with a view to being at one on political vision, long-term political objectives and the means by which they are to be achieved.  That should have happened before the pact was formed but there is still time to discuss it and arrive at a meeting of minds. 

The two recent meetings (Hatfield House and Schomburg House) have damaged UCUNF because they lend credence to the perception that they will too readily abandon their aspiration to bring non-sectarian politics to Northern Ireland in favour of short-term political advantage.  In reality, the willingness to hold those talks was driven by well-meaning but misconceived political vision.  The bottom line is that nothing has been agreed as a result of those talks.

Right now, leaders from both the UUP and the Conservative Party should be having meetings to review what has gone wrong and hopefully reach a conclusion that the Trimble way is the right way.  If they can surmount those difficulties and bring their membership behind them, I believe UCUNF can survive and eventually thrive.  There is still everything to play for.

Have the Conservatives made any political concessions to the DUP?

In my post yesterday, I published a transcript of the of part of the interview of David Cameron on the Politics Show on which Northern Ireland was discussed.  I resisted the temptation to write any analysis about it.  I needed a “head-scratching” sessioin.    

This morning, I still can not ignore the fact that David Cameron did not use the interview to deny that any political deal had been done with the DUP, particularly after Jon Sopel’s first question.  The Belfast Telegraph has also noticed this. Commenting on Lord Mandelson’s attack, they write:  

“His attack follows the disclosure that shadow Northern Ireland secretary Owen Paterson convened secret talks between the two main unionist parties at the country estate of the Marquis of Salisbury.  

The move has prompted speculation that the Tories are attempting to establish a pan-unionist front to restrict the number of seats the nationalist Sinn Fein and SDLP can win in the general election.”  

The particulars of that speculation are that the DUP will not contest seats in South Belfast and Fermanagh and South Tyrone.  This presumption has been further fuelled by the news that the DUP have suspended selection procedure for its parliamentary candidates.  It is possible (but unlikely) that the DUP have decided to unilaterally withdraw their candidates without any political concession from the Conservatives.   

In the interview with Jon Sopel, David Cameron insisted that the Conservatives would be even-handed (as between the Nationalist parties and the Unionist parties) in dealing with the peace process.   

If the DUP have been granted a concession of any sort, it will certainly affect the dynamic of the current negotiations on Policing and Justice and the DUP’s future political calculations.  David Cameron’s claim of even-handedness can only stand up if the Conservatives have not given any kind of political concession to the DUP.  

Last week, I invited Owen Paterson to clear the air for us and confirm categorically that no deal of any kind has been reached with the DUP.  It is in the interests of the Conservative Party and Northern Ireland that we receive that clarification.

Update:  Polling Analysis highlights how strong a motive the Conservatives would have had for making a deal with the DUP

Yesterday, Electoral Calculus updated its analysis and prediction on the state of the parties following the next general election.  It now predicts that there will be a hung parliament with the Conservatives just two short of an overall majority.  Northern Ireland is not included in its analysis.   On the basis of it, two seats from Northern Ireland would provide the Conservatives with an overall majority of one.

Lord Mandelson accuses Cameron of Playing politics with Northern Ireland

In the Politics Show today, Northern Ireland became part of the battleground between the Conservative and Labour Party.  I have transcribed below what was said in both interviews.  Firstly, Jon Sopel (“JS”) asked questions of David Cameron.

 JS       I want to talk about Northern Ireland as well which is an issue that has come up.  Why do you think it would be a good idea for your Northern Ireland spokesman to have…to have …been involved in a secret meeting. involved in …seem to be involved in setting up some pan-unionist front for the election?

DC      Well because what we want to do is to promote, particularly amongst the unionist parties the idea that the devolution of policing and justice is vitally important for completing devolution and for putting this on a stable footing and I think that’s actually a positive role that the Conservative Party can help to play and I think it is…you can see

JS       How can you be even-handed in dealing with all the parties in Northern Ireland, Sinn Fein, the SDLP when you’ve been sitting out trying to form a deal with the Unionist Parties?

DC      I don’t think that it’s a problem at all.  The Conservative Party has a relationship with the Official Ulster Unionist Party.  We’re going to put up joint candidates in Northern Ireland.  That’s been announced and is well known.  The Labour Party has a very close relationship with the SDLP members of Parliament.  They take the Labour Whip.  They sit with them in the House of Commons.  They vote and work together.  SO if your making accusations that I can’t be even-handed you8 have to make the same accusations against the Prime Minister that he can’t be even-handed.  Frankly, both accusations are wrong because the Prime Minister and I both support full scale devolution, including Policing and Justice.  We want that to happen.   There’s no difference between us on that.  When it comes to actually negotiating the Policing and Justice devolution where there is a very substantial potential bill for the British taxpayers the Conservative Party could not have been more helpful or more accommodating.  We’re one of the most supportive oppositions when it comes to Northern Ireland than we’ve had in our history.  I’m very proud of that because I want to see devolution happen.

JS       So what do you say to the charge that at best you’ve been naïve and at worst you’ve acted dangerously and jeopardised things.

DC      I think its just wrong.  I think everyone can see from the difficulty that’s taking place in these negotiations – that the difficulty is frankly between Sinn Fein on the one hand and the Democratic Unionist Party on the other – and they are having problems agreeing what is absolutely vital.  Now the question I ask myself is, “Is the Conservative Party playing a constructive role in encouraging – particularly the Unionist Parties, the ones we have frankly a closer relationship with in the House of Commons.  Are we playing a constructive role in encouraging devolution to take place?  Yes we are.  That’s a good thing

 Later in the programme, Jon Sopel interviewed Lord Mandelson who said this.

“They’re playing politics in Northern Ireland.  They’re seeking electoral advantage for the Conservative Party in Northern Ireland at the expense of the peace process and the devolved Government.  It’s very irresponsible and I suggest the all desist.

“They’re playing politics between the Unionist Parties and in doing that, they’re going to undermine the cohesion amongst unionists and thus undermine their confidence in making pretty tough decisions about where the peace process goes from here.  So I think they need to stand back – not seek party advantage and support the peace process.

UCUNF can expect more pounding in the media after Orange talks

Yesterday probably marked the lowest point for the Conservative / UUP pact since its inception 14 months ago but it could yet go lower to the point where the pact collapses.  

The Flare-up began on Thursday evening when it was revealed on Hearts and Minds that during December at Schomburg House, there had been a “confidential” meeting between the DUP and the UUP to discuss unionist unity, organised by the Orange Order. The meeting was attended by Sir Reg Empey and David McNarry of the DUP and by Peter Robinson and Nigel Dodds of the DUP.   

In the course of the programme, it was revealed that the discussions included candidacy at the Westminster Elections and the likelihood that Sinn Fein would hold the office of First Minister after the next Assembly elections.   

On Thursday night, Nigel Davenport continued to stir the pot on behalf of the BBC.  After taking soundings from Conservatives on their reaction to the Broadcast, he used rugby union analogy to describe how they had been let down by the UUP   

“More spooked I would say are the Conservatives who were blind sided by their partners the Ulster Unionists. Owen Paterson need not have gone to all that trouble booking Hatfield House if he had been aware that Bobby Saulters was already doing the job of bringing unionists together. The Conservative sources I spoke to tonight expressed some concern and dismay and said they would be looking for an explanation from Sir Reg Empey who attended the talks alongside Peter Robinson.”   

By Friday morning, all eyes were on Owen Paterson.  Writing for the BBC again, Michael Crick reported that Owen Paterson was seeking urgent clarification from Sir Reg Empey. He said  

“The Conservative Northern Ireland spokesman Owen Paterson is seeking an urgent meeting with the Ulster Unionist leader Sir Reg Empey today over the future of the Conservatives’ pact with the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP).”   

Owen Paterson’s objective in having that meeting was clearly damage limitation.  By 3.45 pm on Friday, Owen Paterson released the following statement:   

“In his capacity as Ulster Unionist leader, Sir Reg Empey regularly meets all strands of opinion throughout Northern Ireland. He referred ‘in passing’ to a meeting, requested in October and held in December, but I was not aware of the content or the participants.   

“As there was nothing of consequence arising from the meeting he did not mention it to me again. Sir Reg Empey has made clear to me that it has no bearing on our joint determination to stand together as ‘Conservatives and Unionists at the forthcoming Westminster elections to bring national, mainstream and non-sectarian politics to Northern Ireland.”   

By 5.00 pm, Sir Reg issued his response to the crisis (source Conservative Home)

 “The Ulster Unionist Party was invited in October 2009 by the Orange Order to a meeting with their Grand Master. On behalf of the UUP I accepted the invitation. Mr Saulters wanted a private and confidential meeting to discuss ‘ways and means of finding co-operation on the way forward.’ I have respected his request for confidentiality. Sadly this was not respected by others. Despite a conversation and discussion on the issues that Mr Saulters wished to raise, no agreements were reached.

 ”We are often asked to talk about Unionist cooperation where possible and about how best to provide stability for the future of Northern Ireland.  However the UUP is very much aware, given past history, that cooperation is not always achievable. Indeed it makes it much more difficult when a significant aim of one of the organisations you are dealing with is to destroy you. The Ulster Unionist Party will continue to have discussions with organisations on issues that are of benefit to the Union, but we will not be used as an escape route for others who have significant political difficulties.

“Let me also reaffirm my commitment to developing our relationship with the Conservative Party.  Along with our Conservative colleagues we will do all we can to promote, protect and preserve the Union and bring national politics unto the Northern Ireland agenda. The spectacle of recent days in our political journey at Hillsborough illustrates the need to get back as soon as possible to dealing with the issues that matter to people such as jobs, health and education.”

The question now is whether these press releases represent an an attempt to repair a hole in a sinking ship.  Before Crick’s update was posted, Jeffrey Peel and most of the commenters who contributed to his blog yesterday were of the view that the pact could not survive.  Meanwhile, on the Ulster Unionist side, Chekov published a scathing criticism of the conduct of the UUP leadership while Boballs insists that the UUP must clear up the mess.   In his last post, he has expressed his belief the pact can not survive.

This morning, the Belfast Telegraph reports that Sir Reg Empey is blaming the DUP for trying to destroy his party.  Is that news?  After all, why else would the DUP have negotiated at St. Andrews for the largest party to hold the first minister’s position?   Few are likely to be impressed with Sir Reg’s response to this crisis.  It  is unlikely to suppress rising anger within his party or more press speculation that the pact will unravel.  

This morning, David Gordon began the tomato throwing on behalf of the Belfast Telegraph.  Expect a pounding from other sections of the media over the next few days.