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

“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.

SDLP leadership election very important for Northern Ireland’s future

The SDLP leadership election is an exceptionally important one from the point of view of the future direction of Northern Ireland Politics

Liam Clarke’s article in today’s Sunday Times sets out the background and the backdrop.  Few would disagree that since John Hume handed over the leadership of the party to Mark Durkan, the latter has been able to prevent the Sinn Fein “cuckoo” from starving the SDLP of voters who would normally be expected to vote for them.   

As well as being ‘cuckooed’ the SDLP, has have been out-spent, out-organised, out-marketed and out-rhetoricised by Sinn Fein in all of the elections from 2001 to 2007.  Supporters of the SDLP had hoped that following a term in office, where Sinn Fein’s political shortcomings were laid bare for all to see, that they would see a revival in their fortunes.  That did not happen in the 2009 euro elections.  The only ‘crumb’ you could give to the SDLP is that the decline in their vote share may have been arrested.   

I say ‘may’ because I am not sure about that at all.  During the Euro elections, Sinn Fein were not ‘firing on all cylinders’ knowing that Barbara de Brun’s election as a Euro MP was a banker and concentrating their resources on trying to get an MEP elected in a ROI constituency.  The SDLP put up an able and respected candidate in Alban McGuinness.  Alas, all they were able to achieve was an increase of 0.3% of their share of the vote.   

I have said previously on this blog site that Catholic voters who by their nature share core Conservative values are the target of future Conservative election campaigns in Northern Ireland.  Almost certainly, most of those voters habitually support the SDLP.  Earlier this year, Mark Durkan alienated some of those supporters over his remarks on academic selection. 

However much commentators will today ridicule any notion that the Conservatives in Alliance with the UUP can win the support of Catholic voters, make no mistake about one thing.  Those voters are on the Conservative menu.  The trouble is, with the exception of those few with a lot of political foresight, it is probably too early to expect members of the SDLP to see the Conservatives as a threat.  That is unfortunate because it does mean that the SDLP are more likely to continue looking at Sinn Fein to see if there is a way they can win back previous support.

I do not believe the SDLP can ever ‘out-nationalist’ Sinn Fein.  There are signs that the SDLP have been thrashing around looking for ways to achieve this.  For example, they produced their own draft Irish Language Act.  It was an extremely Nationalist document which went way beyond what was likely to have been negotiated at St. Andrews.  Another ploy the SDLP have tried over many years is to ‘out-moralise’ Sinn Fein by reminding the electorate that they do not carry the baggage of violence that is so closely associated with Sinn Fein’s past.  It may be that the supporters they have left will never vote for Sinn Fein for that very reason.  However, as a populist trick to win back previous voters, it will never work.

Most commentators, including Liam Clarke, have pointed out that of the two candidates on offer, neither of them have the charisma to “light bonfires” in the minds of the voters.  So where does the SDLP go from here?

In his interview with the BBC, former leader Seamus Mallon talks about the need for ideology.  I believe that he is talking about non-nationalist ideology, particularly since he expressed the need for all Northern Ireland parties to do something similar.

In my opinion, there is only one direction in which the SDLP can go to avoid medium term political extinction.  I have already summarised this in a comment on Slugger at this thread comment No. 35.  I repeat what I have said here:

“Firstly, the SDLP should make social democracy its dominant working ideology and “park” its Nationalist ideology.  In other words, it would only need to draw on its Nationalist ideology if there was a referendum on a united Ireland.  In a sense, that is a mirror image of what the Conservatives want to do with the UUP – to make Conservativism the dominant ideology and “park” unionism.

Keeping Unionism and Nationalism out of election politics can be done with the overwhelming majority of day-to-day political issues.  There are some political issues that are not.  That brings me to the second strand of the proposed solution.  …..  It is that those parties who want to take sectarianism from politics come together and set up a joint committee. The task of that committee would be to negotiate a way forward on the basis of consensus.  Each party involved in these talks would have to agree to certain ethics.  Those might be (a) to vigorously look for solutions which are in the best interest of NI as a whole and not just one section of it (b) that no any elected member of any political party involved makes a public statement of their personal point of view (c) That no public statements are made about the work of that committee except jointly agreed statements. An agreement of this kind would require parties to discipline their members when making public statements on certain topics such as parades.

Most of the kind of issues that I am talking about here are likely to be cultural issues.  For example, I think it is entirely possible for such a joint committee to agree a way forward for the Irish Language.

The task of breaking the sectarian mould for either UCUNF or the SDLP does not end there. The parties still have to develop trust with those voters that they are asking to cross the sectarian divide. That leads me to the third strand.

An open Alliance with the UK Labour Party running along similar lines to the UCU-NF pact would not just give all NI voters the opportunity to vote Labour on Westminster issues.  That would swing the door wide open to would be protestant labour voters.

What would hold the SDLP back from such a course?  I think it is something to do with the view they take of Sinn Fein as their competition.  If they did pursue the path I have suggested, who is to say that they will not do Sinn Fein a lot of damage”

As readers will observe from this comment, there is a recognition from this proposal that a joint or multilateral party effort to take sectarianism out of Northern Ireland politics is more likely to succeed than if only one party is trying to achieve it.  Furthermore, I believe that a similar initiative will happen.  It is a question of  ‘when’, rather than ‘if’. 

I understand that this election is not likely to happen until their party conference in February.  In all sincerity, I hope that that SDLP membership ‘graspes the nettle’ and uses the time to develop this theme for its sake and for the sake of Northern Ireland.

Allister benefits as he lets the papers make a meal out of the Robinsons

Cast your eye over some of the comments attached to the Belfast Telegraph report on Peter and Irish Robinson and you might notice something that I did.  

It was not just public disgust.  It was anger everywhere.  I believe that we are in for something of a watershed in the European Elections.  Labour will be hit by it.  So will the Conservatives.  There may even be an additional dimension to this in Northern Ireland.

Until last year, the leader of the DUP (previously named the “Protestant Unionist Party) was Revd. Ian Paisley.  This is the man for half a century managed to mix religion and politics.  He was despised by many from the Catholic community.  There was no shortage of bigotry in his speeches.  There was plenty of distortion of facts in a lot of the things he said.  Was he ever found to be dishonest?   

I am not aware of any allegations of dishonesty against Revd. Paisley. It looks very much as though he remains the non-smoking, non-drinking, bible-adherent fundamentalist Protestant.   

One of Paisley’s legacies is that orthodox Protestantism seems to form part of the DUP’s ideology.  That is apparent from some of the things that their politicians say on matters such as creationism.  I am therefore wondering if the impact of the Robinson’s expenses claims will be far greater than just a couple of weeks of embarrassment.  Will a lot of people not feel too let down to forgive or will they more easily forgive?  

One politician who may be wondering if divine intervention is going his way is Jim Allister. Allister is a chip off the old DUP bible-thumping block.  The timing of the scandal could not have been much better for Allister.  In fact, he seems to be so confident about the impact of the story on the Robinsons that he has not even named them directly in his latest post.  He also uses his post to highlight his good transparency in that his expenses are posted on his website.  

There’s only one good piece of news that would top what has already happened – An expense claims scandal against Nigel Dodds. Casting my eye over the table that I published on 31^st March, lo and behold, he is the Northern Ireland MP with the second-highest aggregate expense claim.  Hmmm.

The other anniversary

Today, there are two anniversaries.  The big one, which I have already alluded to in an earlier post two days ago is the 30th Anniversary of Mrs. Thatcher becoming Prime Minister.  

A rather lesser known anniversary is that the current Stormont Executive in which the DUP and Sinn Fein respectively hold the First and Deputy first Ministries, is now two years old.  

Plenty has happened in those two years.  It began with Revd.Ian Paisley becoming the First Minister at the twilight of his career.  Going into partnership with Sinn Fein prompted much anger amongst many of the DUP’s own supporters.  This has caused a schism within the DUP.  Their MEP, Jim Allister, resigned from the DUP, formed his own party and took with him a very substantial chunk of their support.  We do not yet know how much of the DUP is left.  There have been no opinion polls and the only yardstick we have had is the Dromore Council by-election.  

Ian Paisley retired to make way for Peter Robinson.  Straight away, there was difficulty as Sinn Fein boycotted executive meetings in response to apparent failure to devolve policing and justice.  This was a battle of nerves which the DUP eventually won.  Having accepted that they all faced electoral fallout if they did not get back to Government, they reached a deal on devolution of Police and Justice last November.  The DUP now control the timing of devolution of Police and Justice.   

The months of Executive inactivity meant that the Executive had to act quickly on certain matters.  They almost tripped over themselves as they brought in the Financial Assistance Bill described by some politicians as “emergency powers” legislation to enable certain welfare payments including winter fuel poverty allowances to be paid.  In the middle of the debate on the Bill, Mark Durkan fell foul of Parliamentary standards.   

At about the same time, it was near “crunch time” on academic selection.  With no yielding from the Unionists, no legislation could be brought forth to end it.  The Education Minister, Catriona Ruane faced with two assembly motions to put temporary tests in place chose to leave matters at an impasse.  This has forced Grammar Schools to “do their own thing.”  In effect, the system remains without a centrally organized transfer test exam and no orderly system for the administration of admissions.   

With the impact of the recession increasing, it was inevitable that the pre-agreed financing of the Programme for Government might need to be revised.  Pressure has come to bear on Nigel Dodds, the Minister for Finance to reach agreement through the executive for changes to the finance package. UUP politicians have made reference to a 1 billion “black hole” which so far, Dodds has denied. On the other hand, there has been recent acknowledgement by the DUP that there will have to be cuts in public spending.  This issue is set to develop further.    

The most colourful of Northern Ireland’s politicians is the DUP’s Sammy Wilson.  Who ever would have thought that the Minister for the Environment would turn out to be a denier that climate change was man made?  Who would have thought that he would have interfered with Government advertising campaigns to help people save energy? Rumour is growing around Stormont that Sammy Wilson will be removed after the June 4^th election.  If that is true, it will take away some of the fun for journalists and bloggers like me.  To be honest though, it would be the right decision.    

Other ministries have had a relatively quiet time, or have they?  Margaret Ritchie, the   Minister has been in the spotlight recently for having her decision to withdraw funding for Farset, which was quashed by the Courts.  Michele Gildernew, the Agriculture Minister, gave a demonstration of how ideology affected decision-making in her department.  She also  became embroiled in controversy over the handing out of grants under the Rural Development Programme for Northern Ireland (2007-13)   

Dissident Republican terrorism brought about the murder of a police officer and two soldiers.  The First Minister and Deputy First Minister had the opportunity to display solidarity.  Martin McGuiness, in particular, sailed as far as anybody from his party could go on criticizing the dissidents with his now famous quote: “they are traitors to the Island of Ireland.”   

Overall, it has been an interesting two years.  We have seen the parties bash each other like never before.  The opposition have scored some hits, most notably over double jobbing and expenses whilst the DUP and Sinn Fein have scored a massive own-goal over bullying and their war with the media.   

Of course, the defects in power sharing are there for all to see.  There is no such thing as collective cabinet responsibility and there is resultantly much more negativity in decision making.  The impasse on educational issues is a classic example of that. 

The next two years of the Executive are likely to be just as interesting as the first two.   In the Belfast Telegraph today, the Challenges facing the Executive have been identified in the areas of Devolution of Policing and Justice,  Education,  Irish Language,  National Stadium Funding,  the Review of Public Administration and Parades.  These are all contentious issues, yet somehow I feel that cuts in public spending will be at the centre of contention.   

As the recession continues to bite, one is left wondering how vulnerable to negative voter opinion the UUP and the SDLP are as occupiers of the 3 most high-spending ministries.  Will they be politically vulnerable to high-profile spending cuts?  Will the DUP be tempted to try and abuse its position as the controller of Finance Ministry?  We shall see.

The debate on the proposed Irish Language Act – Part I

Some weeks ago, I pledged that I would write a post about whether we should have an Irish Language Act.  It is, actually, a much more interesting topic than appears at first sight.

As a Conservative who wants to pull down the sectarian wall which exists in our society, I regard this subject as one of utmost importance. However, the case has not been made either for or against an Irish Language Act by any of the politicians in Northern Ireland.  This is because the Irish Language itself has become a political football. The more that the Nationalists and Republicans try to push for an Irish Language Act, the more likely they are to entrench the position of Unionists, who are against it. 

The Nationalists and Republicans are guilty of alienating many people in Northern Ireland from the idea of learning Irish, or wanting Irish to be taught in non-Catholic schools.  In part, this is because they portray it as a nationalist (rather than an Irish) Identity symbol. 

On both sides of the argument, there is considerable bigotry.  There are Unionists who think that the Irish Language is something that “does not belong in Northern Ireland.”  Eighteen months or so ago, David McNarry, MLA of the UUP put forward a motion that Irish should be banned from being spoken in the Assembly.  His invection did not go unnoticed.

“What was striking about David McNarry’s demeanour when proposing his motion asking that Irish should be banned from within the assembly was the visceral hatred that the UUP member felt toward the language,” said Robert McNillen of the Irish News.

Part of Sinn Fein’s strategy for preserving the sectarian wall is to demonise the Orange Order. The reason for this is perfectly simple.  At the moment, it is mostly Orangemen that control the positions of power within the unionist parties. Maintain antipathy towards Orangemen and they maintain antipathy towards unionism.  The prejudices against Orangemen exist within the Catholic community as a result of past history.  All that Sinn Fein has to do in order to maintain that prejudice is to voice a little story here and there.  In the days of Drumcree, that was an easy task for them.  Now, they have to watch and listen to the Orangemen from behind the bushes, as they did at the 12^th July celebrations last year.  The example that I have selected is a piece from last year in An phoblach.  How triumphant that piece is.  They caught the Orangemen attacking the Irish Language.  Because the nature of Orange criticism of Irish is so vituperative, it enables Sinn Fein to sound ever so reasonable and even handed when they make their counter-attack.

“Exercising the right to learn and speak Irish has nothing to do with “the intended application of cultural apartheid” or “an Irish-language onslaught to strangle” Orangemen’s “sense of Britishness,” said Laura Friel of Sinn Fein. 

Sinn Fein carries on as though it owns the Irish Language.  That is part of the problem.  They are the wrong political party to champion the promotion of Irish and all other aspects of Irish culture.  Their continued existence in politics is a constant reminder of the violence of the past.  I would go as far as to say that Sinn Fein’s continued existence on the political scene in Northern Ireland contributes to a sustained reluctance of many Protestants in Northern Ireland to admit that they are Irish. 

Debate about the Irish Language requires cool tolerant heads. Perhaps it will take a cross-community political party like the Conservatives to provide a detached analysis and opinion on this issue, which will gain the trust and respect of both communities.  

The next post in this series sets out the history of the Irish language up to the 20th century.

When it comes to human rights, the DUP is not a party to be trusted

Iris Robinson will not be prosecuted over remarks that she make last year about Homosexuals. 

Reports about what she said are well documented elsewhere and I will not repeat them here.  I am not surprised that there will not be a prosecution.  I thought that when I heard there would be an investigation, thinking with my Lawyer’s hat.  That will be of little consolation to people from the Gay community who see this as an injustice.  

I wish I could say that in some way, Iris Robinson will pay a significant political price for her remarks. Most of those who support her do not disagree with what she said.  Her husband, the First Minister, Peter Robinson has since defended her remarks using references to the Bible, particularly in the Old Testament where the practice of Homosexuality is referred to as an abomination (e.g. Leviticus 18:22).  

By contrast, discrimination laws, whether about employment or Human Rights, have developed and by-passed the Bible as a moral starting point for making law.  It is as if we need a new equivalent of Charles Darwin to take religion out of the dark ages on this subject. 

For anybody who would like an authorititave scientific understanding of homosexuality, I recommend a book entitled “Why men don’t listen and why women cant read maps” by Alan and Barbara Pease, two famous psychologists.  The book is easy for a lay person to follow.  It provides a wonderful insight into the differences between male and female brain-wiring.  People I have talked to who have read the book have acknowledged the positive impact of the book on their own prejudices, not only towards the opposite sex, but towards homosexuals too.  

There are many who do not agree with the laws against discrimination, particularly DUP politicians.  Indeed, the DUP do not like Human Rights, full stop.  Last summer, they supported the Labour Party over the 42-day bill despite Labour’s failure to put a case to Parliament that a longer detention period was needed to deal with terrorism.  Last November, Sammy Wilson MLA, once again demonstrating his tendency not to appreciate the bigger picture, called for a debate in Parliament on Human Rights.  This was because he could not accept reporting restrictions in relation to alleged drug trafficking.   

More than 2 years ago, Peter Hain, then Northern Ireland Secretary, pushed through regulations on sexual orientation in order to prevent them being blocked by the DUP.  When it comes to Human Rights, the DUP is not a party to be trusted. 

Sinn Fein’s Conor Murphy in legal row over changes to Executive document

A dispute could now be decided in the Courts after Sinn Fein’s Minister for Regional Development, Mr. Conor Murphy, made alterations to an official executive document.  

It was reported in the Belfast Telegraph yesterday that Mr. Conor Murphy has made changes to the wording of Department for Regional development strategy blueprint for growth.  The motives for the changes are clearly based upon Republican Ideology.  References to “Northern Ireland” have been changed to “the North” whilst references to “Londonderry” have been changed to “Derry”  

The Londonderry/Derry name dispute is an old chestnut.  It is not necessary to go into detail here because the history of the dispute and the legal position are set out on Wikepedia. 

As the law stands, the City is called “Londonderry” even though the local council bears the shorter name “Derry”.  Personally, I don’t have any real preference for either name.  I would be happy to have the city re-named “New Derry” or any other name, if that helped both communities to move on.  

The change of the wording from “Northern Ireland” to “the North” is much more serious.  This particular alteration is likely to lead anybody reading the document to confuse “the North” with somewhere like Londonderry/Derry or some other place in the North of Northern Ireland.   Mr. Murphy may wish to reflect upon the likelihood that people from anywhere in the world could be reading the blueprint on the Department for Regional Development website.  

Mr. Murphy and Sinn Fein must accept the original text.  If they do not, then Mr. Robinson would be right to take the matter to Court.  Mr. Murphy could also find himself on the receiving end of sanctions for breaching the Ministerial code.  Once again, we are reminded of Sinn Fein’s propensity for ideology to become a barrier in the way of sensible decision-making.

Sinn Fein plays tribal politics in the North and normal politics in the South

Sinn Fein held its Ard Fheis (party conference) on Saturday. In a candid display of weakness, its leader, Gerry Adams, appealed for partnership with the Irish Labour Party.

Sinn Fein seeks power on both sides of the border. Hitherto, it has been partially successful in Northern Ireland winning 26% of the overall vote at the 2007 assembly elections. In the Republic of Ireland, its poll rating has failed to move above its election position of 9% while other opposition parties have increased substantially in popularity. In making its appeal for co-operation with the Irish Labour Party, it flew the left-wing flag.

This follows unsuccessful electoral attempts by Sinn Fein to attract support away from the Irish Labour Party. It would seem that its call from pan left-wing unity will fall upon deaf ears.  Does this apparent arrest in Sinn Fein’s advance and their play on left wing politics in the South have any implications for Northern Ireland Politics?

I believe that there are for two reasons.  Firstly, it means they have failed to become a cross-border power.  That has implications for the survival of the SDLP.  At the last Republic of Ireland general election, it expected to win up to 12 seats in the Dáil Éireann (Irish House of Commons). Instead, it lost one and was reduced to four. Had they succeeded in their aims, they would have been knocking on the door for a place in a coalition government.  Being in Government on both sides of the border would have represented a milestone in its quest to achieve a United Ireland State.  If they had achieved a share of power of Government in the Republic as well as in the North, they would have “gianted” the SDLP with fatal consequences for the latter.  At the moment, it looks as though their chances of further advancement in the Republic are remote. 

Sinn Fein has never covered up the fact that it is a party of the left.  However, it has obfuscated when campaigning in Northern Ireland.  Whenever it campaigns in Northern Ireland, it is as a Republican party seeking a united Ireland and it consistently plays “equality” with a double meaning.   In the Republic, meanwhile, Sinn Fein has been raising its profile as a left-wing party in order to attract votes in the Republic.  Its appeal to the Irish Labour Party was yet another milestone on that continuum.

It makes no difference to voters in the Republic that Sinn Fein are republicans.  So are all the other parties.  The net result of this is that Sinn Fein is now playing “normal politics” in the South and “tribal politics” in the North.  This brings me to the second reason.  Can Sinn Fein really get away with a “horses for course” approach?

I don’t think so.   Sinn Fein’s opponents in Northern Ireland, particularly the Conservatives and UUP, will wish to increase the exposure on what they see as “two faced” politics.  Conservatives will not find it difficult to compare Sinn Fein to the UK Labour Party of the early eighties.  Perhaps opportunities really are opening up for normal politics.

Right hook on Sinn Fein from Allister but who does it hurt?

An attack on Sinn Fein as a communist party from the TUV?  Hey what’s going on here?  Is this normal politics breaking out from a unio-centric unionist party?

On his website, the leader of the Traditional Unionist Voice, Jim Allister made the following attack on Sinn Fein

 “In Europe, too, I see the craven folly of Sinn Fein. Sitting as an integral part of the Communist block, they peddle and support every anti-business proposition that comes along, whereas, deregulating and freeing up business is the essential route we must travel.

The Marxist agenda of Sinn Fein would cripple any chance of recovery and plunge us deeper into economic depression. I often wonder if those who vote Sinn Fein realise that in the European Parliament they are fellow-travellers with the Communists and avid proponents of the Marxist creed.” 

Firstly, Jim Allister’s observation is welcome because it highlights Sinn Fein’s left wing activities in the European arena.  I have already highlighted the left-wing credentials of Sinn Fein and again will continue to do so.  Further, I was delilghted to see on Television Basil Mcrea of the UUP attacking Caitriona Ruane in the Assembly on the basis of her (left wing) ideology.   So is normal politics breaking out across the board?

I wish I could say that was true.  The Conservatives and the UUP have genuine ambitions for normal politics.  It is entirely plausible that we will soon attract substantial numbers of support from people who previously voted Sinn Fein and the SDLP.  Can you say the same thing about Allister?  I dont think so.

Jim Allister has persisted with his attacks on the DUP for going into government with Sinn Fein as morally abhorant because of their links with the IRA.  Jim Allister’s ”right hook” at  Sinn Fein for being communist and marxist is now telling DUP supporters that their partners in Government are ideologically dangerous.   This is an interesting new tactic.  Is this a sign of a new electoral strategy from Allister?  

This would make sense.  Jeffrey Peel, Conservative Party Vice Chairman has already highlighted signs that the DUP lurching to the left.  Expect Allister to expand on this theme. 

For obvious reasons, I dont think Jim Allister will mind my last post either!