Conservatives entitled to be proud of the Anglo-Irish Agreement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scottish Conservatives will not be separated from the main party in the near future.

As reported in the Scotsman today, the review by the committee, headed by Lord Sanderson, on the failure by the Conservative Party, to achieve electoral success in Scotland at the general election, has now been published.  The report will be regarded with keen interest by Northern Ireland Conservatives, as they look to make comparisons with the failure of UCUNF campaign in Northern Ireland.

According to the BBC, the review has recommended a “major overhaul.”

"significant weaknesses" in the party’s decision-making structure need to be tackled and more full-time staff taken on, including a chief policy adviser”

"The consistent themes in the many submissions we received were of a need for clarity of leadership, a distinctive Scottish identity, a welcoming and broader party, increased decentralisation of the party structure and the empowerment of the members.”

The report recommends the creation of a new Scottish Party leader, who need not necessarily be same person as the leader of the Conservative MSP group in Holyrood.

The report also recommends the creation of a post of Scottish Conservative Party leader.   The present position is that Annabelle Goldie is merely the leader of the Scottish Conservative group in Holyrood. 

The report provides some acknowledgement that the Conservative brand North of the Border is toxic in the sense that it is anti-Scottish.  The Scotsman says:

“The review lays out the Scottish party’s problems with brutal honesty, noting how polling shows Scots remain unclear about "what the Scottish Conservatives stand for", except that they still consider the party to be "anti-Scottish"

According to the BBC, this ‘anti-Scottish perceptions originates from the days of Margaret Thatcher (when the poll tax was introduced). 

However, the report does not make any recommendation to change the party’s branding.  According to a report by STV:

“The Commission also said there was no need for the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party to change its name, stating: "The problem is not the party’s name or logo, but its failure to convey clearly and consistently what it believes in and stands for."

Clearly then, the review implies that the perception that the Conservatives are ‘anti-Scottish’ can be changed by conventional campaigning.   With respect to the Sanderson committee, the Party has been trying to change that perception, without success, for the last 20 years.  Having a Scottish Conservative leader is only tinkering with this problem.   Scots will rightly conclude that such a leader is still a puppet of the London Party.  

It is regrettable that the committee has not fully ‘grasped the nettle’ of toxicity.  For Northern Irish Conservatives who want to see a new Independent party, this effectively indicates that there will be no change of the position here for the next few years, at least. 

Margaret Thatcher was absolutely right

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David Davis is Cameron’s Ted Heath

David Davis has announced himself as climate change (is caused by man) denier. Do the Conservatives have their own version of Sammy Wilson?

I wish that were true. At the very least, we could poke a bit of fun. What you can say in favour of Sammy Wilson is that he is not inherently disloyal to his party leader. The person I am likening David Davis to is Edward Heath.

From the moment that Margaret Thatcher became leader of the Conservative Party in 1975, she had an enemy within her party – her predecessor, Edward Heath.  Until his dying day, he never forgave her and persisted with criticisms of her under the guise of misguided ideology.  One of his most famous backstabbing moments was at the Conservative Party conference in 1981, two years into Mrs. Thatcher’s first term and just as unemployment was really beginning to bite.

Although I am still trying not to believe it, I think history may be repeating itself.  Until the dramatics over the 42 day bill, I was actually quite a fan of David Davis.  I would still like to be if I could be convinced that his recent actions were not motivated by a disturbing pathological streak in his personality which drove him to vengeance. 

After the Government won the vote on the 42 – day detention bill last year, Davis he resigned his seat.  This was despite the fact that the Conservatives were largely on the side of Davis.   It looked totally irrational.  It was.  However, if this was an act of vengeance the timing certainly was not.    This was the time when David Cameron’s lead in the opinion polls had started to harden and take root.   It will almost certainly have crossed Cameron’s mind that this was an act of vengeance.   The Daily Telegraph wrote this

“The Telegraph revealed this morning that the Conservative’s failure to defeat the Government hit Mr Davis hard and had led to friction between the him and the leadership.”

Most of the Newspapers described Davis’s actions in terms of egocentricity.   One Newspaper (the Sun) went further, using the word ‘Treachery’ to describe David Davis’s actions.  Under a headline “Crazy Davis,” the Sun wrote:

“This was no noble cause. It was a shabby act of treachery. Mr Davis, a second-rate but ferociously ambitious politician, has not forgiven his political rival of thrashing him in the Tory leadership race two years ago.”

If David Cameron had got his response wrong, internal fighting within the Conservative Party could have broke out.  After consulting with his colleagues, Cameron responded by not rising to any bait and quietly treating David Davis with “respect.”   David Davis faded from the national picture, until a few days ago when he struck again.  This time, the theme was climate change.

The extent of how damaging this can be will not be known for some time but a Conservative split on climate change has now been reported and already, Labour is taking advantage.  And the timing?  Yes, just before the Copenhagen Summit and at a time when Cameron’s lead in the opinion polls had recently taken a knock.  

Davis can justify his comments as much as he likes.   He certainly was raising a valid issue but it is much too difficult not to impute an ulterior motive.  Davis is a seasoned politician.  He would understand very well the impact of his action.  When your party is only months away from fighting a General Election, you do not require one of your senior politicians undermining one of big features of your next election manifesto. 

The Sun did get it right.  Davis is Ted Heath Mark II.  He will have to be watched for as long as David Cameron is leader.

There is nothing British about this lot

I was not able to watch Question time on the BBC live last week.  However, I did listen to it on the radio in my car. 

Nick Griffin

There have been a number of issues raised about the BNP.  Should they be allowed air time?  One of the parallels I can think of is the during the late 1980s when the Conservative Government under Margaret Thatcher made it illegal for the television and radio media to broadcast the voices of members of Sinn Fein.  Mrs. Thatcher is famously remembered for this quote

“starve the terrorist and the hijacker of the oxygen of publicity on which they depend.”

Unfortunately, the attempt to block out Sinn Fein was ineffective.  Broadcasters were still allowed to show members of Sinn Fein being interviewed.  What they could not do was broadcast their voices.  Broadcasters got around this, firstly, by introducing subtitles.  Later, broadcasters switched to dubbing.  Sinn Fein members’ voices were replaced with those of actors.  The whole clampdown ended in farce.

Of course, the Government could have taken further measures to prevent imitation broadcasting of terrorists.  They did not. 

Fast forward to 2009.  Peter Hain and others have criticised the BBC for allowing Nick Griffin a platform on Question time.  Let us forget the 1980s and suppose that refusal of access to air time on radio and TV was actually effective in limiting the BNP’s political interests.  Would it have been right?

The BNP has 2  class=”hiddenSpellError” pre=”2 “>MEPs and 56 councillors.  Whether we like it or not, the BNP represent a certain section of the electorate.  However, it can also be argued that by the time they were proscribed, Sinn Fein also had elected representatives. 

The BNP may be a group of thugs and fascists but they are not the political wing of a terrorist organisation.  There is no provable link between what they say over broadcast media and terrorism.  Peter Hain is perhaps still emotionally driven by the anti-fascist and anti racist passion of his youth.  During the late 1960s, he (then as leader of the Young Liberals) led protests against sports links with South Africa.  However, he is an experienced politician and a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.  He should, at this stage of his career, have a more mature and rounded view about the balance of the Public Interest. 

On the programme itself, Griffin was made to look ridiculous.  Two incidents stand out.  One was his attempt to justify his change of opinion about the Holocaust.  The other was his attempt to be an apologist for the Ku Klux Clan.  I don’t believe the broadcast will have advanced the interests of the BNP at all.  If anything, I think it will diminish them.  The BBC is to be congratulated for taking its difficult and controversial decision.

The overwhelming majority of decent people abhor everything the BNP stand for.  Perhaps one of the worst aspects of their existence is their name.  Lets be absolutely clear.  There is nothing British about this lot.

Margaret Thatcher: A celebration of the 30th Anniversary

On May 4th 1979, Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister.   

So much has already been written about the events leading up to her accession as Prime Minister that I have decided to provide links rather than write about it in detail myself.  

For the story of the events leading up to the 1979 victory, I can recommend no better than Alistair Cooke’s following posts on the blue blog .

1.  Ted Heath calls a snap election.   The events which led to the demise of Ted Heath and the background to Margaret Thatcher’s leadership bid. 

2. Margaret Thatcher’s early years.   The period when she was leader of the opposition from 1975-1979

3. On 28th March 1979, Margaret Thatcher won a crucial vote in the Commons.  The event which sparked the 1979 General Election.  Alastair Cooke recalls the highs and lows of 3 days from the vote of no confidence to the murder of shadow secretary of state for Northern Ireland, Airey Neave.  The drama leading to that vote involved horse trading with Northern Ireland Unionist MPs and the expectation of support from independent MP for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, Frank Maguire, who abstained.  The Government lost by 1 vote.

4. The launch of the 1979 campaign manifesto.  The 1979 Manifesto was a radical one in its day.  It won praise from the Guardian Newspaper.  Later in the campaign, former prime minister, Harold Wilson, embarassed the Labour Party when he described Mrs. Thatcher’s policies as “having a cutting edge” and revealed that his wife was thinking of voting for her.

5.  The first week in the campaign ends.   After the vote of no confidence, Labour Ministers went straight on the attack against the Conservatives.  For two weeks, little was seen of Mrs. Thatcher.  Her shadow cabinet colleagues defended the attacks on her behalf.  With three weeks until the election, Mrs. Thatcher’s campaign sprung into life.  The campaign was electrified.

6.  The campaign enters its third week.  With the opinion polls showing a clear lead for the Conservatives, Labour campaign tactics became desperate.  The latest inflation figures showed that inflation was only 9.8%.  There was relief amongst Labour politicians that it had not passed the 10% mark but they still tried to argue that prices would shoot up under the Conservatives. 

7.  The Last few days of the Campaign.  There was a lot of nervousness amongst conservatives as Labour closed the gap in the opinion polls.  On May 3rd, the people went to the polls.

8.  Mrs. Thatcher becomes Prime Minister. 

Further recommended links on Margaret Thatcher

1.  Wikepedia

2. The Margaret Thatcher Foundation.   A treasure trove which includes some of Mrs. Thathcer’s speeches and interviews.

3.  BBC Margaret Thatcher Panorama profile.  A fabulous collection of videos including profiles and interviews about the great lady

Mrs. Thatcher’s first Cabinet

From left to right (standing row first) 1. Michael Jopling; 2. Norman Fowler; 3. John Biffen R.I.P; 4. David Howell; 5. Norman St. John Stevas; 6. Humphrey Atkins R.I.P; 7. George Younger R.I.P; 8. Michael Heseltine; 9. Nicholas Edwards; 10. Patrick Jenkin; 11. John Nott; 12. Mark Carlisle R.I.P; 13.  Angus Maude R.I.P; 14. Sir John Hunt R.I.P;

Sitting Row 15. Sir Ian Gilmour R.I.P; 16. Christopher Soames (Lord Soames) R.I.P; 17. Sir Keith Joseph R.I.P; 18. Peter Carrington (Lord Carrington);19.  William Whitelaw R.I.P; 20. Margaret Thatcher; 21. Quintin Hogg (Lord Hailsham) R.I.P; 22. Sir Geoffrey Howe; 23. Francis Pym R.I.P; 24. James Prior; 25. Peter Walker.