Campaign for a New Northern Ireland Centre-Right Party begins

I was not the first blogger to advocate the creation of a new non-designated centre-right political party for Northern Ireland and I am now not the last.

I have launched my own campaign for the Northern Ireland regional branch of the Conservative Party to be converted into this new centre-right party with a new name.  The focus of this campaign is set out at my new blog.

All debate on this subject (whether supportive or hostile) is welcome and I invite anybody who has an opinion on the subject to comment on the new blog.

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.

David Cameron’s TV debate victory gives his troops the boost they needed

Last night, Conservative supporters were willing and wishing David Cameron to come out on top of the party leader’s TV debate.  David Cameron did not disappoint. 

Gordon Brown, having yesterday badly handled his “bigot” gaffe looked like a man whose confidence had been shot to pieces.  Indeed, he referred to it again. 

“There is a lot to this job and, as you saw yesterday, I don’t get all of it right.”

David Cameron managed to put clear blue water between the Conservatives and Labour on policy by highlighting the socialist tendancy to rely on the State to solve the nation’s problems. 

Cameron made two notable low blows against Gordon Brown.  He told the audience that Gordon Brown was unable to distinguish between the State and the Economy.  The nastiest punch of all came near the end when he accused Labour of regarding anybody earning more than £20,000 a year as being rich.

David Cameron needed to do more than just beat Gordon Brown.  He needed to come out on top of Nick Clegg.  He did not disappoint here either.  He shot two massive torpedoes into Nick Clegg’s cruiser on the Euro and Immigration. 

Commenting on the Lib Dem’s unstinting support for joining the Euro, David Cameron said this: 

“If we were in the euro now, your taxes and your National Insurance wouldn’t be going to schools and hospitals and police officers, they would be going to bail out Greece”, said David Cameron

Mr. Cameron also landed another blow on Nick Clegg over an amnesty proposal for some existing illegal immigrants.  The offending part of the Lib Dem manifesto says this

“We will allow people in Britain who have been in Britain without the correct papers for 10 years, but speak English, have a clean record and want to live long term to earn their citizenship”         [Lib-Dem Manifesto p.76]

Nick Clegg was caught in denial.  “I’m not advocating an amnesty,” he said.

It appears that Conservative prospects have gone up a couple of notches after last night but I would still not bet on a winning lead emerging in the opinion polls.  One thing is for sure. The outcome of the debate will sap Labour morale just as it will energise Conservative activists will go into the final week of the campaign.

One giant leap for Conservativism in North Antrim?

It may be one small step for the man from Ballymena but it could yet turn out to be a giant leap for Conservatism in North Antrim, the seat held for almost 40 years by Revd. Ian Paisley.

Irwin Armstrong

As Chekov reports, the campaign of Irwin Armstrong in North Antrim has got off to a flying start with the prospect of knocking Jim Allister into third place and giving Ian Paisley jnr. a serious run for his money.  Having met Irwin, I am not totally surprised that he is proving to be a very strong candidate. 

 TorystoryNI wishes Irwin the best of success for next week.

Nobody will know until it is over

Yesterday, I listened to a BBC TV debate involving Ken Livingstone and Michael Portillo.  I have to say that these two seasoned politicians were enjoyable to listen to as they dished out their analysis.  I was particularly struck by one (almost certainly set-piece) comment from Michael Portillo just at the end of the debate.  He has linked the MP’s expenses scandal with the rise in popularity of Nick Clegg, their policy of electoral reform and the prospect of a hung parliament. 

 “At the beginning of the campaign they [Labour and the Conservatives] thought they could frighten people with the prospect of a hung parliament. 

“At the end of the expenses scandal, OK, the MPs cleaned up the expenses system.  But I think people are kind of looking for some bigger sign that politics is going to be different.  I think people are seeing during this election that by supporting the Lib Dems, not only do they kind of mess up the electoral arithmetic but actually they put this question of electoral reform at centre stage.  So if you link all those things together, I think there’s quite a yearning for that something catastrophic should come out of this election to put right what happened in the last parliament.”

I have a lot of respect for Michael Portillo as a political analyst.  There is a lot of logic in what he says.  Certainly the expenses scandal is something that nearly all of the electorate are affected by.  How that has impacted on each of the party’s fortunes is surely a much more difficult and complex question to gauge.  I hope Michael is wrong.  If he is not, then perhaps the Lib Dem surge might have occurred without a TV debate, as it has done in previous elections.

Political macro mind-reading is a most inexact science.  Journalists try to master it but end up identifying more questions than answers.  The fact is, too many different elements of the campaign influence too many people in too many different ways.  People’s thinking is also likely to change as the campaign continues.    

Perhaps after tonight’s TV debate, we might see one of the parties gain some momentum.  My hunch is that we will be just as clueless about the outcome tonight as we are this morning.  Whatever happens tonight, the Conservatives will retain good prospects of total victory right until the polling booths close next week.

Why I will be voting SDLP in this election

David Cameron is under a lot of pressure at the moment.  Understandably, he needs and wants all the seats he can get.  He has his own problem on how to burst the Lib Dem bubble.  I hope that he does well in the 649 seats that the Conservatives are contesting.

Meanwhile, back in the unrepresented constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, yours truly is still smarting from the decision to support a sectarian deal. 

I have considered casting my vote for Mr. Rodney Connor.  I do not doubt that he will take the Conservative whip, if elected.  I also do not doubt what is said about him that he is a “genuine cross-community man”.  However, it was a matter for him that he accepted the nomination as a compromise candidate in the circumstances that he did.

He is an independent.  The fact is that there is no Conservative candidate in this constituency.  In this election, I am at liberty to state publicly who I intend to vote for.

It has not been easy for me to decide on how to prioritise my vote.  Voting for Mr. Connor does help the Conservative Party.  On the other hand, a vote for him is a vote of support for the sustenance of political sectarianism.

As long as I remain a conservative, I will not tolerate the endorsement of a sectarian carve up.  The Conservatives must never get involved in a similar deal again, in this constituency, or any other. 

I believe it is right that I give expression to my disapproval of what has happened in the ballot box.   Accordingly, I will not be voting for Mr. Connor.  Instead, my vote, in this election, will go to Fearghal McKinney of the SDLP.

Why Connor must try hard to get Catholic votes

Chekov, commenting on my previous blog has said that he seriously disputes that Rodney Connor is almost certain to with the Fermanagh and South Tyrone seat.   On revision, I defer to Chekov’s point.  Connor has a very strong chance of winning but victory is by no means certain and there is a possibility that  SDLP supporters will vote tactically for Sinn Fein in order to prevent Connor from succeeding.

The net effect of Connor’s candidacy is that instead of the decision to elect an MP resting with Sinn Fein supporters, the decision to elect an MP now rests with supporters of the SDLP. 

In order to win, Michelle Gildernew needs approximately 90% of the Nationalist/Republican vote.  In practice, this means taking approximately 3,500 votes (about 48%) of current SDLP support. 

One lifelong SDLP supporter that I know particularly well is my wife.  Yes, I can imagine the surprises when people read this.  At the very least, I have some insight into the thinking of one type of SDLP supporter that I believe represents a very sizeable proportion of their support base. 

Sinn Fein, as I have already observed, has probably taken away all the votes it is likely to have taken from the SDLP in previous elections.  Those left supporting the SDLP are still very much culturally Nationalist Irish but they also tend to be disaffected middle-class Catholics.  They are unimpressed by the link between Sinn Fein and the IRA and regard that as a complete bar to supporting Sinn Fein.  Many of them support academic selection and do not agree with their leadership.  Some SDLP activists, recognising the problem are quietly telling their supporters that their policy on academic selection and the abolition of the 11+ was a mistake.  Most SDLP supporters are extremely uncomfortable with socialism.  Most of all, as far as your average SDLP supporter is concerned, there is no love lost between them and Sinn Fein.

SDLP supporters do not like the Unionists either.  They certainly do not like overtly sectarian unionism.  They see little chance of progress towards a shared future in Northern Ireland so long as Orangemen dominate unionist politics. 

How they will view Rodney Connor’s candidacy, I don’t know.  What I do know is that Fearghal Mckinney has already struck up a positive note amongst SDLP supporters.  By the day of the election, most SDLP supporters in Fermanagh and South Tyrone will know that they hold the key to who gets the seat. 

Rodney Connor is unlikely to attract very many Catholic votes but he can ill afford to be complacent that the SDLP will hold.  Should he at least make a strong effort to canvass the Catholic vote, he will turn a few heads.  It could just be sufficient to nullify a potential anti-unionist tactical vote.

Greek crisis: Europhiles will hold on to their project as long as they can

The Eurozone Countries agreed last week to a € multi-billion bailout of Greece.  More money will be needed if Greece is not to slide into bankruptcy.  Meanwhile Italy, Ireland, Portugal and Spain struggle on with what is looking increasingly like a losing battle to sustain solvency. 

The money earmarked for Greece is a short – term fix.  If there is a commitment to sustain the Greek economy, more money will be needed over a much longer period of time.

Although the Eurozone Countries can afford to prop up Greece, they certainly would not also be able to support Spain, Italy and Portugal as well. 

The logical response to Greece’s economic crisis would be to expel it from the Eurozone.  That this has not happened is because such an event would represent a first trend away from European Union. 

All of those countries now suffering near bankruptcy sustained a “bricks and mortar” borrowing boom in the 2000s following the surrender of monetary control over their economies.  For those who advocated Britain joining the Eurozone more than 10 years ago, the current crisis is surely the final proof that staying out of the Euro was the right decision. 

However, in UK politics, we still have Eurofailure deniers.  One of them (bless his heart) is Lord Mandelson.  On Thursday, 11^th February, Peter Mandelson went on record as describing the Euro as a “great success”  

We can laugh at Lord Mandelson and hope that he will sound ridiculous enough to throw away some support for Labour at the General Election.

The more serious point though is that the Eurozone crisis is a UK problem even though we do not yet directly contribute to bailing out Greece.  What all nations in Europe, including the UK, really need is for the Euro to be disbanded.   This is unlikely to happen by voluntary agreement between the Eurozone countries. 

Does the economic damn have to burst or will political reality get there first?   Whichever scenario you prefer, the Europhiles will hold on to their project for as long as they can.  In the short and medium term, the likelihood is that there will be low and stagnant economic growth within Europe and likely deflation and mass unemployment in countries like the Republic of Ireland.  That is bad for all of us.

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.