The powerful thoughts of a Scottish Tory may shed some light on the Northern Ireland problem

No Conservative needs to be reminded that the Conservative Party has a problem with Scotland.

Since before the General Election, I have followed what bloggers and politicians have been saying about the causes of the problem and what to do about it but always bearing in mind that the problems of Scotland and Northern Ireland are not the same. Picking out the features of the Scottish problem and applying those parts of it, which are relevant to the Northern Ireland problem is not a straightforward exercise. The exercise is an important one, nevertheless. Back in June, I wrote my first post on this subject.

A few weeks ago, the Sanderson report was completed. Since I published a post in reaction to media commentary, I have had an opportunity to read the full report. Despite the report’s very hard-hitting observations on party organisation and structure, I could not help feeling that the report fell short of proper analysis on the prospects for an Independent Scottish Party.

I am now glad to say that another Conservative with far more knowledge of this subject than me has written a post, which cuts very deep and makes a case to answer for an independent party. He is Blair Murray and his post has been published on Conservative Home.

Murray makes some important observations about where ‘would be’ tories have parked their vote:

“The fact is that there are many centre-Right voters in Scotland who do not vote Tory. In rural areas, particularly in the Highlands, they vote Lib Dem. In the North-East and in urban areas many vote SNP. Indeed, canvassing in previous elections it became clear to me that many SNP supporters would prefer lower taxes, incentives for business and less government regulation. Some of these voters were even ambivalent towards the SNP’s central goal of independence. It is these voters, to the right of Scottish Labour on economic arguments, that we must win in the future.”

Murray also makes very important points relating to the history of the Scottish Unionist Party leading up to the merger with the Conservatives in 1965. An important Scottish political identity had effectively been killed. Murray makes this very important observation about the branding and identity of political parties in Scotland before the merger:

“What all of these have in common is the deliberate avoidance of the term ‘Conservative’, which had always been associated with the English party. The effect of the 1965 merger should be clear for all to see.”

Murray also defends the proposal to give Holyrood greater fiscal autonomy and argues against those who say that it is more likely to lead to Scottish independence.

I totally agree. A look at history might help to understand the Scottish psyche a little better. The Scots were not conquered by England. The first Unionist was a Scot. Somewhere buried deeply in the Scottish psyche is a desire to be seen as having parity with the English.

Murray concludes:

“All the evidence shows that Scots feel more Scottish than British. Incidentally, the evidence also shows that the English feel increasingly English rather than British. This does not for a moment mean that those who feel more Scottish or more English want the UK to split. Most of us are comfortable with overlapping identities. I, like most Conservatives, am a passionate supporter of the Union. And many of those voters in Scotland who feel more Scottish than British would vote for a party of the centre-Right. They would vote for a party supportive of enterprise and social stability, emphasising tradition and responsibilities as well as rights. At the moment they don’t. Only by becoming like those voters – proudly Scottish but supportive of the UK – will the Scottish Conservatives become a success.”

Identity is a key problem in Northern Ireland too. I make no bones about the fact that it is not easy to persuade a voter who is a unionist to make a journey which leaves behind the comfort zone of a party with a unionist identity. Just reading the exchanges that I have had on this blog with Conservative officials bears that out.  It will also be just as difficult to persuade Nationalists to leave the comfort zone of a party with a nationalist identity.

There are three powerful arguments in response to that which lend weight to the theory that the Northern Ireland Centre Right campaign is the right one to break down this paradox. Firstly, a party which is neutral on the constitutional position shortens that journey by half. Secondly, the overwhelming majority of Northern Irish people want an end to sectarianism. Thirdly, a Conservative Regional party which makes that journey from its present position would send a very inspiring powerful signal of leadership to the Northern Irish people.

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.

Alliance advance could be the start of a trend away from sectarian politics

As I write, there is a recount going on in my constituency, Fermanagh and South Tyrone. On the second count, Gildernew won by two votes after Connor won the first count.

I voted SDLP, as planned. So also did my wife and daughter. My eldest son, who is at University, was not able to come home to vote. Still, it is incredible to think that my household could have changed the result in this constituency, if indeed it turns out that Gildernew wins by one or two votes.

Would I have voted differently if I had expected this result? Certainly not. In fact, the idea of ensuring that a sectarian unionist candidate fails is very satisfying.  If Connor fails to win the seat, then Unionists will know that they will never win the seat again as sectarian unionists because the demographic trends are towards Catholics increasing as a proportion of the overall population. I would hope that unionists would then start using their heads and get behind a proper campaign to defeat the likes of Sinn Fein on the basis of their policy, not their identity or their past association with the IRA.

As for the Conservatives, they need to seriously consider their position vis a vis the Ulster Unionists. It is quite clear that the pact failed and failed badly. Some will point to strategic errors which contributed to this. In a sense, may be a good thing that happened. The Ulster Unionists have demonstrated that they are not capable of moving away from sectarian thinking, let alone sectarian political acts.

There will undoubtedly be a change of leadership in the UUP. Jeffrey Peel believes UCUNF is dead. At the very least, it needs a life-saving act. Whilst I will not, at this stage, turn my thumb to the ground, I would need to be convinced that there had been seismic shift in the core power and control of the UUP. Only after that happened, would I entertain any thought that there should be a new pact.

For all of that, a powerful ray of light shone on the anti-sectarians last night.  Naomi Long achieved an incredible result in unseating Peter Robinson. The Alliance Deputy leader’s triumph did not just occur in East Belfast. That party’s share of the vote increased all around Northern Ireland.

It has been a good year so far for the Alliance Party. David Ford’s elevation to Minister for Policing and Justice will raise the profile of the Alliance Party. Who now knows what Long’s success will lead to next? This Alliance advance could be the start of a trend away from sectarian politics.

If it were not for the fact that the Alliance Party is opposed to retaining the grammar school system, I would now be seriously thinking of joining that party. Despite this policy difference, should they ultimately turn out to be the only party capable of breaking the mould of sectarian politics, then I will be right behind them.

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.

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

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

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

• Non-sectarianism.

• Making the Northern Ireland assembly and the executive work.

• Upholding power-sharing with nationalists.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have the Conservatives made any political concessions to the DUP?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How the known unknowns could affect the General Election results in Northern Ireland

With 2010 around the corner, the General Election becomes ever more omnipresent. 

Voting outcomes in Northern Ireland at the General Election will be harder to predict than in any other region.  Since the Assembly Elections in 2007, so many new features have emerged (we will call them “known unknowns”) onto the political scene that the results of past elections can be viewed as nothing more than a starting point.  We may be in a new era of voting trends but until new patterns emerge, the old ones should not yet be ignored.

The tables below are the percentages achieved by the four main Northern Ireland political parties since 1992, excluding the Euro elections apart from 2004 and 2009 (because the votes for Ian Paisley and John Hume were personal votes). 

A = Assembly Elections.   C = District Council Elections   P = UK Parliamentary Elections  E = European Elections

	P 1992	C 1993	F 1996	P 1997	C 1997	A 1998	C 2001
DUP	13.10	17.00	18.80	13.60	16.00	18.14	21.40
UUP	34.50	29.00	24.17	32.70	28.00	21.25	22.90
SDLP	23.50	22.00	21.36	24.10	21.00	21.97	19.40
SF	10.00	12.00	15.47	16.10	17.00	17.63	20.70
Others	18.90	20.00	20.21	13.20	19.97	21.02	15.60

 

	P 2001	A 2003	C 2005	E 2004	P 2005	A  2007	E 2009
DUP	22.50	25.60	29.60	32.00	33.70	30.10	18.10
UUP	26.80	22.70	18.00	16.60	17.70	14.90	17.00
SDLP	21.00	17.00	17.40	15.90	17.50	15.20	16.10
SF	21.70	23.50	23.20	26.30	24.30	26.20	25.80
Others	8.70	11.20	11.80	9.10	6.70	13.20	22.00

The following graph below is a representation of these tables  (please click the graph to see it enlarged).

The graph shows that the voting strength declined for both the SDLP and the UUP before the Good Friday agreement.  The relationship between Sinn Fein’s level of support and that of the SDLP follows a much smoother trend than that of the Unionist parties.  This is due, in part, to the fact that the leading Unionist Party tended to attract a higher level of support at a General Election, where the first-past-the-post system of voting still exists, than at the Council and Assembly Elections.  However, averaging out these trends shows that between 1992 and 2007 the UUP has fallen from 35% to 17% (down 18%) In the same period, the DUP has advanced from 13% to 30% (up 17%).  In these 15 years, that would make a swing of 17.5%

The Sinn Fein advance would have began since it first entered elections in 1981.  After a brief relapse following the Enniskillen bomb in 1987, they reverted to their long term upward trend at the expense of the SDLP.  Between 1992 and 2007, Sinn Fein moved from 10% to 26% (up 16).  In the same period, the SDLP moved from 24% to 16% (down 8).  That represents a swing from SDLP to Sinn Fein of 12%.

The graph and the tables also indicate that the decline of the moderate parties seems to have been arrested at the latest European Election.  Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that Sinn Fein and the UUP are now at the head of Stormont.

The Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey has been an enigma in terms of the results of the Elections, for a number of years.   They show great inconsistency between the support of a party in terms of sympathy and allegiance and what happens at the polling booth.  In the 2007 survey, in response to the question “Which Northern Ireland political party do you feel closest to, even if you do not always vote for them?” respondents answered as follows:

	%
Democratic Unionist Party (DUP)	20
Sinn Féin	14
Ulster Unionist Party (UUP)	18
Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP)	20
Alliance	8
Other party (please specify)	2
None of these	15
Other answer	1
Don’t know	1

The results for 2008 show very little difference.

Democratic Unionist Party (DUP)	21
Sinn Féin	13
Ulster Unionist Party (UUP)	18
Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP)	19
Alliance Party	7
Other party	1
None of these	21
Other answer	0
Don’t know	1

At elections, a substantial number of voters opt for an extreme party.  The deviation from moderation seems to be greater on the Nationalist side.  Why is this? 

It is probably an instinct, in a sectarian voting system, that you vote for the party that you think will be strongest against the other (extreme) side.  Liam Clarke, writing in the Newsletter a couple of weeks ago, gave us this very insightful view.

Even the peace process was marked by an increase in support for the most extreme parties available, Sinn Fein and the DUP, who are now coming under pressure from yet harder line forces.

Part of the problem is that we human beings tend not to think of ourselves as extreme.

Our own views seem no more than common sense, the only response possible in the circumstances.

It is easier to spot extremism, blinkered views, perverse opinions and hypocrisy in those with whom we disagree.

And, having spotted these negative qualities, the next step is not to listen to the “self-serving nonsense” our opponents keep spouting.
We don’t have to hear them out to know they are wrong; it is easier to just stick to what we know to be right.

That leads me on to one reason why we often imagine that, as a society, we are really more moderate than the politicians we vote for in overwhelming numbers.

When Ian Paisley was still considered a hard liner, a party worker told me that many people voted for him but wouldn’t admit it to a journalist; they regarded it as a private matter like an insurance policy.

They counted on Paisley to raise the alarm if things were going wrong.
The same thing happened with Sinn Fein which for many years scored far lower in the polls than they did in elections – people didn’t like declaring themselves as Shinners, or even thinking of themselves as such, but they didn’t mind voting for them as a strong nationalist voice.

Clarke is probably right, subject to one modification. It probably does not matter if the strongest Unionist voice or the strongest Nationalist voice is extremist or moderate, so long as they are the strongest.   

This would suggest that the key to predicting the outcome of future elections lies in assessing who is the strongest party on a particular side of the sectarian divide.   However, that kind of voter mindset is liable to develop with a new set of circumstances.   It is still less than 3 years since all of the political parties accepted power sharing in Northern Ireland.   Could it be that voters will begin to assess the strength of a political party in more sophisticated ways than in the past?   Could it be that the ability of a party to negotiate, co-operate and govern in harmony with parties from the opposite designation will become a basis on which to judge a party’s strength? 

There are early signs that this may be starting to happen.  The Belfast Telegraph has began to take its own opinion polls.  In a follow up report, it published some but not all of its findings.  Its editor, Mike Gibson, made this comment:

This poll is a snapshot of course, but it is a very interesting snapshot.

“It suggests that we maybe moving into a different phase of political life here in which politicians are judged as much on their performance in the here and now as on their history.

“If so, that has to be seen as a positive step. If the message is that some people are recognising that politicians can begin the journey from conflict towards statesmanship it is to be welcomed.

“If the message is that our politicians must do more to leave their historical baggage at the door of the debating chamber that too is positive.”

This is a signal whifh neither Sinn Fein nor the DUP can afford to ignore, particularly in terms of how they handle the devlolution of policing and justice.  

The 2009 European Elections have already heralded a change in voting patterns on the Unionist side but none on the Nationalist side.  This suggests that up to June 2009, at least, the Northern Ireland electorate had not passed any judgment on the exercise of power sharing.  Rather, it was a neutral factor.

13.7% of the Northern Ireland electorate voted for Jim Allister of the TUV as a first preference vote at the Euro Elections.   Could it be that some former TUV voters are so disaffected by the fact that the DUP share power with Sinn Fein that they have decided never to vote for the DUP unless there is no unionist left? 

The fact that Nicholson was the first Unionist MEP to be elected on the 3^rd count, overtaking Diane Dodds of the DUP after the elimination of Jim Allister gives credence to that proposition.  Some of the TUV vote could also have been a personal vote for Allister or perhaps an ominous sign that amongst some of the Unionist voters, Jim Allister is now considered to be the strongest voice in Unionism.  In North Antrim, where Allister intends to stand at the General Election, he has a strong chance of establishing a new power base.

So far as the UUP are concerned, it is far too early to say whether the link-up with the Conservatives has benefited them electorally.  The Euro Elections came too quickly for the parties to put forward much more than a dull, but safe, campaign to secure the election of Jim Nicholson. 

One of the objects of the joint Conservative UUP pact is to bring an end to sectarian politics.  From the trend shown by the European Elections, I do not expect many more than token numbers of Catholics to switch their allegiance from one of the Nationalist parties at the next General Election. 

However, there are other factors which could benefit UCUNF.  The first assumes that amongst the Unionists, the TUV supporters will either vote for a TUV candidate or (if none) switch to a UCUNF candidate in an anti-DUP vote. 

What the Conservatives really want, as a first major step towards dominating politics in Northern Ireland, is to be seen, together with the UUP as the strongest voice in Unionism.  David Cameron is by far and away the most charismatic figure in the Unionist camp.  As to his likely impact and that of the Conservative campaign as a whole, we are in uncharted water.  It probably all boils down to the degree of interest taken by Northern Ireland voters in national politics.  If interest in National politics starts to take off properly in Northern Ireland, the Conservative campaign will make an impact. 

One other factor which would benefit UCUNF is if the Executive is brought down.  Such an event would almost certainly cause considerable damage to the DUP.  In that scenario, UCUNF would probably emerge as the largest unionist force.  This possibility is discussed further on.

On the Nationalist side, there will be a new SDLP leader by the time of the General Election.  It had previously been thought that Margaret Ritchie would win the leadership contest.  More recent insight suggests that the race is much closer with McDonald being seen as the “tougher” looking politician.  Toughness is something which the SDLP needs in its leadership.  Perhaps the long leadership election campaign will help both of these candidates to develop as tougher leaders.

Within the media, the question rages as to the extent of the damage to Gerry Adams’ reputation over his handling of his brother’s position as a Sinn Fein worker.  Within Northern Ireland at least, Sinn Fein has Martin McGuinness as a second political talisman.  A recent opinion poll has suggested that Martin McGuinness is the most popular of all ministers.  The Adams family scandal has a long way to run but so long as McGuinness is not implicated over the decision to ignore Liam Adams’ abuse of his daughter, I would expect little damage to Sinn Fein at the General Election.  Over a longer period, the scandal is much more likely to cause it much more damage as the drip feed of constant media exposure wears down the resistance of its supporters.

There is one more “But.”  Would Sinn Fein be damaged at the General Election if it brought down the Executive over Police and Justice? 

This is probably the one issue at Stormont which could influence the General Election.  If the Executive is brought down, the combined effect of this event and the Adams family scandal could be a lethal cocktail for Sinn Fein leading to a violent swing away from their core vote.  In that scenario, 3 seats could be lost (Fermanagh / S. Tyrone to UCUNF, West Tyrone to the SDLP and Newry Armagh to the SDLP).

That is a very big “if”.  It is hard to believe that Sinn Fein will have any stomach for bringing down the Executive but they will now need the DUP (who also have an interest in keeping the present administration alive) to find them a way out of the P & J crisis without losing face. 

As we move into the New Year, we wait in eager anticipation as these known unknowns to developing and possibly alter the political map of Northern Ireland. 

My prediction for the 18 Northern Ireland seats at the General Election (which assumes that the DUP and SF reach an understanding over P & J).

DUP  6   (down 3)

SF     5    (no change)

SDLP 3   (no change)

UCUNF  3  (up 2)

TUV  1 (up 1)

Finally, a very Happy New Year to all readers of this Blog.

What if Gladstone’s bill on Home Rule had passed into law?

Simon Heffer of the Daily Telegraph has written an article to celebrate the forthcoming 200^th anniversary of the birth of William Gladstone, four times elected the prime minister of the United Kingdom and perhaps rightly credited as the greatest prime minister of the Victorian era.

A small part of his article focuses on his vision relating to Ireland.   Heffer says this about Gladstone’s attempt to introduce Home Rule to Ireland. 

“Had home rule been granted at either attempt by him, in 1886 or 1893, there would have been unrest: but would an independent Ireland under the Crown have caused Britain such trouble over the following 120 years as was otherwise the case? Of course it would not.”

This, of course, is one of the biggest “what ifs” in Irish History and since we are near to Christmas, it is time to have a bit of fun.  At the end of this post, historians (amateur and professional alike) are asked two questions about what would have become of Ireland if one of those bills had passed into law.

We have the following clues

(1)  The Orange Order.  It had already been established since 1795 and was vehemently opposed to Home Rule. 

(2)  There was a small Irish Unionist Party, founded in 1891, originally led by Colonel Edward James Saunderson.  The forerunner to the Ulster Unionist Party (the Ulster Unionist Council) did not exist until 1905.  Further strengthening of Unionism later took place in 1912 with the formation of the Ulster Volunteer Force and the signing of the Ulster Covenant. 

(3)  Sinn Fein was formed under Arthur Griffith in 1905

(4)  The Irish Republican Brotherhood (IRB) was in existence at the time of the passing of the two bills.

At the time of the passing of the second Home Rule Bill in 1893, there was much anticipation in Ireland.  Writing for the BBC, Dr James McConnel of the Ulster University said.

“As one English journalist visiting Ireland in 1893 (the year of the second Home Rule Bill) recorded: ‘self-government was the only topic of conversation in hotels, railway carriages, tramcars, and on the steps of the temples, at the corners of the streets, in the music halls.’

Simon Heffer might be regarded as being slightly inaccurate when he says “an Independent Ireland under the Crown.”  Home rule would have been a form of devolution.  Reserved matters would have included Defence and Foreign policy.  The Royal Irish Constabulary was to be devolved at a later stage (echos of today’s position in Northern Ireland)

The following questions are posed:

(a)   Is Simon Heffer’s conclusion correct? 

(b)  Would Ireland or any part of it have drifted towards being a Republic if one of the two Home Rule bills passed into law?

(c)   Would partition have taken place through another route?

Welcome Fianna Fail

Monday was an extraordinary day for Northern Ireland politics.  Firstly, there was the opinion poll, reported in the Belfast Telegraph showing the Martin McGuinness was Northern Ireland’s most popular politician.

Later, we had the announcement, confirmed today, that Fianna Fail had its first elected representative in Northern Ireland in Gerry McHugh, MLA.

Gerry McHugh was, until 2007, a member of Sinn Fein.  He left Sinn Fein in November 2007 citing “lack of democracy” in his own party as the reason for his departure.  According to a BBC report, he also said this

“I feel the direction Sinn Fein is taking is more about appeasement of the British government and administrating British rule in Ireland rather than working towards the end of British occupation.”

On Slugger December 7, 2007, he is also reported as having said this

“Assembly structures support this – at both committee and plenary level unionists have majority control.  What was agreed at St Andrews cannot be delivered without unionist approval.”

Further along, the post also said

‘Mr McHugh said Sinn Féin’s decision to endorse policing in the north was a “factor” in his decision.

“I have no difficulties with the idea of civil policing but I have a difficulty with the excessive amounts of MI5 and military spooks operating in the six counties,” he said.

So it appeared at the time that he was against the St. Andrews Agreement and in particular, Sinn Fein’s acceptance of the PSNI as Northern Ireland’s official police.  He appeared to be slightly more hard-line than Sinn Fein officially was.

The Fianna Fail Party and Bertie Ahern, in particular, gave unconditional support to St. Andrews.

So already, Fianna Fail have accepted a “hard liner” into their ranks and one who is averse to ‘control freakery’.  That is most interesting.  In a sense, it is Sinn Fein’s ability to keep discipline with its membership that has been one of the hallmarks of its success.  One wonders how Mr. McHugh will react when Fianna Fail start to put their own restrictions on his political conduct. 

McHugh also needs to ‘get real’ in relation to the ‘spooks.’  Were it not for those excellent brave people doing field intelligence work, we would by now have a tradgedy on our hands beginning with a dead police officer in Garrison.

It is going to be fascinating to see how Sinn Fein reacts.  Will this make it more or less likely that Martin McGuiness will break the Executive if the DUP do not deliver a date for P & J by Christmas?  Let the drama begin.

It is very hard, at this stage, to predict the impact of Fianna Fail onto the Northern Ireland Political scene.  Could their success depend upon how many big names defect from Sinn Fein and the SDLP?   Could this mark the death of the SDLP?  Could their entry into politics split the Nationalist vote and kill Martin McGuinnness’s dream of becoming first minister?

f they attract no more than a token number of big names, Fianna Fail might begin with similar difficulties to the ones facing the Conservatives in the late 1980s.  Fermanagh could become to Northern Ireland Fianna Fail what North Down eventually became to Northern Ireland Conservatives but their footholds might remain only that unless Fianna Fail’s central party invests substantial resources into their campaigning, as the Conservatives have recently began to do. 

They have one possible problem which the Conservatives do not have.  They are operating politics across a state boundary.  That causes difficulties as policy in one state may not be appropriate for the other.  On the other hand, Fianna Fail, as a populist party with no particular ideology may be the best Irish party suited to cross-border “horses for courses” politics.  On that particular aspect, they have a serious edge over Sinn Fein who are wedded rigidly to the left of the political spectrum.   

In time, Fianna Fail could become serious political opponents of our party but that is for the future. 

Those are my observations.  The truth is, I have absolutely no idea how what the future holds for Fianna Fail in Northern Ireland.  Today, meanwhile,  is a day for goodwill.   The Conservative Party will never allow this event to get in the way of the friendships which Britain has developed with the Republic of Ireland as a neighbouring state. 

We welcome the arrival of Fianna Fail into Northern Ireland politics.  We hope that their presence in the Northern Ireland political arena will create new opportunities to do political business with them.   We hope that there will be opportunities for both of our respective parties to implement great joint political initiatives which will enhance the lives of the people of Northern Ireland.

The GAA, Nationalist Identity and Sectarianism

In recent times, the GAA has been compared with the Orange Order as being its Republican equivalent.  At the end of the continuum of sectarian bigotry where criminality festers, a GAA clubhouse is just as likely to be damaged as an Orange Hall. 

Just over a year ago, Margaret Ritchie MLA and Minister for Social Development set the cat amongst the pigeons when she attended a GAA conference in Belfast.  At the conference, she addressed sectarian attacks on Orange halls and GAA venues.  Her remarks on that subject were reported in the press and went down badly with members of the Orange Order.  In response, they handed her a letter of protest. 

On December 3, 2008, the Belfast Telegraph reported as follows:

 “The minister condemned all such attacks, but reportedly said that the GAA and Orange Order could not be described as reflections of each other, insisting that the GAA had reached outside its nationalist heartland towards other communities.

She was quoted as saying: “While the loyal orders have some progressive people around who wish to move them forward to a better place, they remain unlike the GAA, sectional and sectarian and deeply divisive in our community.”

At first sight, Margaret Ritchie’s viewpoint is not an unreasonable one to arrive at when one compares the big differences between the two organisations. If one organisation is about religion and the other about sport, they cannot possibly be opposites.  Furthermore, there is no rule against a person from any particular religion from joining the GAA.  In the case of the Orange Order, Catholics are excluded from membership. 

I differ with Margaret Ritchie’s remarks in two respects.  It is wrong to say or imply that the GAA does not have any connection with sectarianism.  I also take issue with her comment that the GAA had reached outside its heartland towards other communities.  The reality is that their success in this area has not been more than minimal and whilst it is fair to say that some Protestants have been involved in Gaelic sports, the GAA certainly has certainly not integrated with the Unionist Community.  At this point, I would like to discuss another sport played widely in Ireland which does integrate Nationalists and Unionists – Rugby Union.

Lord Maginnis is a well known member of the UUP.  He is my former MP.  He identifies himself as British.  Many years ago, Maginnis also used to call himself Irish.  That he felt the need to suppress the Irish part of his identity was part of the tragedy of the troubles.  It was a reaction not simply to terrorism but to part of the Republican campaign which was to squeeze out and eliminate the British identity from Northern Ireland.  Yet Ken Maginnis is still an Irishman.  He is also a fan of rugby and devotedly follows the Irish team.

The Irish international rugby team represents the 32 Counties of Ireland internationally.  It is not the only sport which represents both parts of Ireland but certainly the only major one in Ireland.  Before the match, the National Anthem Amhrán na bhFiann is played.  Though it was tolerated by them, Irish Unionists did feel somewhat excluded by its inclusion.  In 1995, the IRFU commissioned Phil Coulter to write a politically neutral anthem for the Irish Rugby team.  The song, Ireland’s call has been proudly adopted by all Irishmen.  By that action, the IRFU effectively nailed any identity problem that it might have had with its National team.  Ireland’s Call has now been adopted by the Irish Hockey, Cricket, Rugby League and A1GP international teams.

Unlike the IRFU, the GAA’s identity is tied to Nationalism.  This is not surprising given its history.  At the time of its inception, it formed part of a wider movement of cultural Irish Nationalism which now forms part of the history of the birth of the 26 county Irish State.

Throughout its existence, the GAA has nurtured its Nationalist identity through pre-match rites, its rules and its literature.  Rule 15 requires that the flag of the Republic of Ireland is flown and that Amhrán na bhFiann is played at all matches.  It was also an isolationist institution until relatively recently.  At one time, a player of Gaelic sports was banned from playing other sports.  Some of its past rules such as the ban on British security forces playing GAA games were undoubtedly sectarian. 

Unofficially, the GAA has been linked to Republican terrorism.  In the past, there have been allegations that it funded the IRA.  It is also alleged that some clubs continue to glorify IRA men. 

I would certainly not wish to brand all GAA supporters as IRA supporters or sympathisers.  Many of the people I know who are also GAA members would have nothing to do with the IRA or its memory but it is a fact that every now and then, some members of the GAA organisation make overt gestures of sympathy for the IRA in the name of that organisation. 

Rule 7 of the GAA rules strictly forbids sectarianism. Unfortunately, the rule on its own is impotent.  The GAA has failed to prevent a culture of sectarianism from having developed in its own following, hence the appalling case of Darren Graham, a protestant who, in 2007, felt compelled to give up playing GAA sports.  He later returned to his club after receiving an apology from the Fermanagh GAA Board. 

For all of the above reasons, it is hardly surprising that the GAA is perceived by many as being a sectarian organisation and one which the Unionist Community is generally alienated from.  

The GAA carries with it the nurturing of the ancient Irish sports, such as hurling.  These sports are a part of Irish heritage.  Elsewhere on this website, I have argued that the Irish Language should not be allowed to be hijacked by Republicanism.  That argument extends to all other parts of Irish heritage.   No part of Irish heritage should be the preserve of a single community. 

So can the GAA move forward from here?

In a sense, only they can answer that.  It all depends upon what they want from their longer term future.  Do they wish to enhance the interest in their sport?  Do they wish to adopt a modern sporting ethos by removing politics from its aims and objects?  Do they wish to improve community relations in Northern Ireland and combat sectarianism?  I believe that they can achieve all of those things by doing one thing.  That is that they follow the Irish Rugby Football Union model and take measures to change their identity to a cross-community one.  For example, could they eliminate rule 15? 

I am not the first person to make this argument.  Ed Curran of the Belfast Telegraph has reached a similar view about the GAA.  Whether anybody inside the GAA will give these issues serious thought is another matter.  We can but hope that matters will change for the better.