Announcement

Followers of this blog will be aware that it had been mothballed it in June last year as I launched by new blog “Northern Ireland Centre Right.” The new blog was the focus of a campaign of persuasion, directed at the Conservative Party, that the Northern Ireland Regional Conservative Party should become an independent centre-right party which took no position on whether Northern Ireland should remain as part of the United Kingdom.

In the Autumn of this year, I became aware that the regional committee of the Northern Ireland Conservatives were campaigning hard with CCHQ for a new package which would enable them to field candidates at Assembly elections, including the election of 2011. I was persuaded that if they achieved their aim, I should suspend my Northern Ireland centre right campaign and campaign as a Conservative until after the Assembly elections. I made it clear, however, that the Conservatives had to be allowed to field candidates in the forthcoming 2011 election campaign. A promise to be allowed to field candidates in future elections was not acceptable, since it was clearly necessary, as a first step towards non-sectarian, non-communal politics, that the Conservative Party put some distance between itself and the UUP.

In November, it was looking very much as though the Committee would succeed in their aims. They had elicited favourable responses from very senior members of the party, including Owen Paterson. In preparation for that anticipated success, I decided to “dust down” the Tory Story NI blog. I still was not completely sure that they would succeed. Whilst the position was uncertain, I wrote posts simultaneously on Tory Story and NI Centre Right.

Two days ago, the Conservatives made their announcement that a new package had been agreed between the regional committee and CCHQ. The package included the right to campaign in Assembly Elections in the future but not the 2011 election. The Chairman indicated that it was operationally too late to field candidates in May. This looked to me like a “smoke screen” to conceal the fact that the committee had caved in to CCHQ pressure not to field candidates in the 2011 Assembly elections. In response to that, I asked one of the committee members to confirm or deny that the regional committee had made a commitment to CCHQ not to field Assembly candidates. The response I received was that they had not.

Since it appeared that it was now the regional committee that had made a decision not to field candidates, I held out a glimmer of hope that some local Associations could be persuaded by members to field their own candidates. I then learned that the Area committee had the power to block the fielding of candidates in its local area. As far as I was concerned, that marked the end of any hope that the Conservative Party would be fielding candidates in the 2011 Assembly elections.

Since there is no Assembly campaign to support, there is now no point in me continuing to write new posts on the Tory Story NI blog. As of today, I am announcing, once again, that there will be no further posts on that blog in the foreseeable future.

I will continue to write posts on Northern Ireland Centre Right until further notice. However, I will also be reflecting on what has happened and the political route most likely to be successful to achieve non-communal, normal left-right politics in Northern Ireland.  In particular, I will be considering, very carefully, whether there is any remote possibility that the critical mass of the Conservatives in Northern Ireland might come around to my way of thinking after 2015.

The future is bright but it certainly isn’t Orange

The Orange Order is back in the news again, following the announcement that it has a new Grand Master, Mr. Edward Stevenson. A typical Nationalist reaction to such news was “there goes the new head-honcho bigot”

We all need to be careful about our choice of words. All of us are imprinted with varying degrees of bigotry as we grow up. If your place of birth is Northern Ireland, the chances are that you have more religious bigotry to deal with than in most regions of Europe. Conquering one’s own bigotry, in relation to all forms of prejudice and intolerance, is just as much about developing an open mind as it is of being tolerant of the bigotry of others.

I do not have a problem with religious bigotry which is confined to doctrine or dogma. It follows that I don’t mind being told that I will “not be saved” or that I am following a “hellish path” if I abide by the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. It is all the sort of stuff which Protestants generally believe about Catholicism, whether or not they are members of the Orange Order. Where bigotry hurts is when it leads to inhumane behaviour such as avoidance, shunning, unkindness, intolerance, discrimination and, at the worst extreme, religious hatred.

On paper, at least, the Orange Order tells its people to show kindness and neighbourliness to Roman Catholics. Some Orangemen do just that and I am privileged to know some of them as my friends.

Unfortunately, these people do not represent the majority in that organisation. The majority of Orangemen are law-abiding citizens. They are also generally polite to Catholics and happy to do business with them. However, in their minds, Catholics are still “themuns." In their hearts they still can not go as far as completely trusting them.  They also find it very difficult to think non-communally. Real neighbourliness, which falls short of public duty, is hard to come by. This kind of thinking leads to discrimination and isolationism. It is not conducive to a shared future.

So far as Northern Irish politics is concerned, the Orange Order continues to dabble in politics, refuses to endorse political or religious pluralism and refuses to take responsibility for its role in past oppression of Catholics. At present, most UUP MLAs and most of its membership are still either members of the Orange order or very supportive of Orangism. The combined effects of these circumstances represent huge obstacles to progress for those Ulster Unionists who wish to move their party towards a more liberal position.

Tom Elliot has gone on record as saying that he wants the Orange Order to stay out of politics. Perhaps this is a recognition that an increasing number of Protestants are being turned off by the Orange Order and what it represents. Nonetheless, the appointment of a new Orange leader did not stop him from making a political gesture of ingratiation.

Meanwhile, the new leader of the Orange Order, Mr. Stevenson, did not disappoint his brethren when it came to stirring the pot. Outside Ballykelly hall, Mr. Stevenson announced that he would not be talking to Sinn Fein or the Parades Commission or attending GAA matches. There was nothing new in that. This was a leader of an intolerant organisation practising what it preaches.

The Conservative Party, if it has any ambition left in Northern Ireland politics, should avoid any association with Orangism. Unfortunately, the present link up with the UUP puts in jeopardy the Conservative Party’s non-sectarian credentials (more about that in a future post).

Meanwhile, the Orange Order’s declining membership roll can only be a good thing for Northern Ireland politics. The future is bright but it certainly is not Orange.

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.

NI Centre Right Campaign strengthened by events of the last week

Child abuse comes in many forms. Nearly all child abuse falls into one of three categories: neglect, physical harm and emotional abuse. All forms of abuse by a parent or carer involve some form of emotional abuse.

Not all child abuse by Parents is driven by wickedness or selfishness. Sometimes, the root cause of child abuse is illness by the parents or parents simply not being able to cope.

If the abuse is severe enough, it falls into the category of ‘significant harm.’ If a child is suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm, the child protection authorities are obliged to intervene. In the worst of these cases, if the parents show no sign of wanting or being capable of providing a suitable upbringing for the child, the child will go into care. In exceptional cases, more likely with infants, the authorities will place the child for adoption. Metaphorically speaking, “child abuse” has occurred in the Conservative and Unionist family.

The Conservative Party is more than 300 years old. The Orange Order is more than 200 years old. In the earlier years of Orangism, these two organisations did not like each other. Relations were at their lowest ebb when, in 1829, legislation for Catholic Emancipation was passed under a Tory Government. However, they had one thing in common. They were unionists. The rise of the Parnellites brought them into a relationship.

In 1905, the Ulster Unionist Party (the UUP) was born. The UUP was a bastard child of the Conservative Party. The Other parent was the Orange Order. From the time of that birth, the Conservative Party were content to leave the care and upbringing of the UUP to the Orange Order whilst continuing to acknowledge it as its child.

The Orange Order was a bad parent. It engendered an attitude of antipathy and mistrust towards Catholics. The UUP became papaphobic, just like its Orange mother. Its Conservative father neglected it by not being involved in its upbringing. The UUP became a bully but its Conservative father, proud to acknowledge it when they met in the UK Parliament, could not see that it was doing anything wrong.

The UUP then got into trouble. When the civil rights riots broke out, the Conservatives were obliged to take some responsibility. When the Conservative father asked the UUP to accept some Sunningdale treatment, its mother objected. For a short period, the UUP was torn between the wishes of its mother and its father. Papaphobia was still a dominating influence. Inevitably, the UUP rejected Sunningdale. Like a sulking teenager, the UUP stopped talking to its father. The father attempted to talk sense with its son but to no avail. The combined effect of the political power vacuum and the deteriorating security situation led the father to signing the Anglo Irish Agreement. This caused so much anger that the UUP cut off all remaining ties with its father.

Shortly afterwards, the Conservative Party fathered another child. This child was a legitimate non-sectarian daughter. The Northern Ireland Conservatives had been born. For a short time in its early life, this child was encouraged to survive and thrive but soon suffered from neglect. It was hungry and undernourished. Because it achieved nothing, it was ignored by its father. Nonetheless, the daughter was dutiful and did what it was told by its father.

The UUP’s mother started to become frail and weak, suffering from a debilitating long-term illness which will eventually lead to its death – secularism. With the mother’s influence declining, the UUP drifted slowly towards moderation and signed the Belfast Agreement. When the Northern Ireland Conservatives saw that its father approved this development, it became jealous. In a desperate attempt to get its father’s attention, it opposed it. Still the Conservative Party ignored its daughter.

The UUP, having been badly beaten by an ever strengthening DUP, sought to get back on terms with its father. Reconciliation then occurred. However, the father wanted the UUP to be locked permanently into the family. The UUP was asked to enter into a marriage with the Northern Ireland Conservatives. The marriage proposal was rejected. Instead, an agreement was made that they live together. The result of this relationship was the birth of UCUNF.

The relationship between the UUP and the Northern Ireland Conservatives did not work out and the UCUNF child was abused by the UUP when it decided to equivocate over possible candidate deals with the DUP and internal wrangles over candidate selection resulting in crucial delay. Going into the 2010 General election, a sole unionist candidate was selected for Fermanagh and South Tyrone. Northern Ireland Conservatives were traumatised. The UCUNF child, already unhealthy going into the 2010 General Election, had been severely abused by its father and grandfather.

The UCUNF infant later died. The UUP walked away from its relationship with the NI Conservatives and told its father that it wanted the NI Conservatives out of the house.   The Northern Ireland Conservatives did not want the relationship to continue either.   The UUP’s rejection of a continuation of the link, or any future election pact, gave rise to confidence of Northern Ireland Conservatives that it would, at last, receive the support it deserved from its father.  The father had to choose between one of its children to decide who would represent National policy in Northern Ireland. In the end, a parent’s selfishness played a crucial part in the decision.

This brings me to the end of this sorry mythical tale. I apologise for the very few historical distortions which have appeared. It is sometimes appropriate to use a little bit of artistic licence to illustrate an important point.

The Northern Ireland Conservatives have been rejected, in my opinion, to a point where it is not possible for them to continue as a regional branch of the main Conservative Party. The position of trust and confidence is not something that is capable of being restored.

Alex Kane likens this position to something akin to inevitable political infanticide. I completely agree. That being the case, there is only one way for the Northern Ireland Conservatives to go. It should become an independent party. An independent party needs a political niche. That niche is a centre-right party which would take no position if there was a referendum on the future of Northern Ireland. Admittedly, there may still be a battle of persuasion ahead in relation to that last point.

As a lifelong Conservative supporter, I deeply regret what has happened. However, every cloud has a silver lining. The civilised campaign that I was conducting was always likely to be difficult, so long as there was such a strong attachment between local conservatives and the main party. With the severe weakening of that attachment, there is no doubt that the Northern Ireland Centre-Right campaign has been strengthened.

In time, as Northern Ireland Conservatives lick their wounds, they may well conclude that the events of the last few days were all for the best.

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. 

Ireland “A society that disappeared up its own backside”

Whilst we witness the awful events unfold relating to Ireland’s economic difficulties, it is vitally important, for democracy in the future, that the mass of the voting population acquires a basic understanding of the mechanics of this disaster.

Following on from my previous post on the warnings by Mrs. Thatcher, I was about to write an article, using the Republic of Ireland as an example, depicting the link between National Sovereignty, democracy, currency and the ultimate prosperity of a Nation. Then yesterday, I read Newton Emerson’s excellent article in the Sunday Times. When I read it, it made me wonder if it was possible to solve regional inequality by setting up different regional currencies within a sovereign state. Then I thought the better of it. The best that a Nation can do about its regional inequalities is to have regional development plans to address it. 

In the United Kingdom, it was the Conservative Party which led the way with regeneration policies for inner urban areas in the 1980s. Today, it has a long-term regional development policy for Northern Ireland. At the heart of that policy is the proposal to bring down the rate of Corporation Tax. Will Northern Ireland’s politicians grasp this nettle? We shall see.

As there is no free link to the Times website, I have reproduced the full text of Emerson’s article below in coloured font:

“The prospect of Northern Ireland’s corporation tax going down, just as the republic’s may be forced up, has huge implications for the relative competitiveness.  There are problems and opportunities galore, and a large number of individuals will be personally affected, but the plain fact is that with three quarters of all economic activity directly due to public spending, and welfare not developed to Stormont, Northern Ireland looks to British budgets rather than Irish business for its economic fate.  And the dole cheque is still expected to arrive.

That leaves people free to discuss the constitutional ramifications – always the preferred northern pastime.  “Could the republic actually afford unity, now or ever?” mused one Belfast Telegraph headline.  ‘Partition hampers the economy,’ Sinn Fein is increasingly wont to claim.  Talk of a British bailout has raised the usual eyebrows.

It is all tired, predictable nonsense.  There is no correlation between the strength of republican sentiment and the strength of the southern economy.  The financial implications of Irish unity can be argued either way, and no financial argument persuades either side.  Nationality is above) or perhaps beneath) economics.

There is one grown-up discussion on economic sovereignty that can be shared across the border.  Northern Ireland is a text-book case of the problems of a currency union.  Indeed, it is such a glaring illustration that it is almost rude of the south to have ignored it before joining the euro.  Like most big countries, the UK suffers from having one currency across the disparate regions, without an exchange rate, varying productivity can be reflected only by prices and wages, which are rarely flexible enough to do the job.  So the less productive regions end up with higher unemployment, while the more productive regions end up with higher taxes.

This is the internal bargain all nations strike, but it is rare to find such a clear example as Northern Ireland.  Because of its huge public sector, whose wages are often agreed nationally, Northern Ireland has too many people expecting British pay in British pounds with no allowance for the geographical consequences of their Irish location.

Many public-sector workers get a London weighting, but there is no equivalent Belfast lightening.  Instead, throughout Northern Ireland, there is persistent long-term unemployment, the UK’s highest level of economic inactivity, and a subsidy of about £10 billion a year, more than the one-off bailout London is considering for the republic.

As well as contributing to these problems, currency union denies even a region as developed as Northern Ireland the tools to solve them.  Stormont is unable to print money or set interest rates, but it also has little scope to vary taxes because of the legal, political and practical problems of having different fiscal regimes under the same currency.  The possibility of lowering Northern Ireland’s corporation tax has been debated for years, but it will still require London’s permission.  Even then, there is no guarantee of getting it past the European commission.

When such policies are discussed, Stormont’s status as a glorified county council becomes apparent.  This is precisely the status Dail Eireann acquired when Ireland joined the euro.  It may have taken a crisis to make it apparent but the surrender of economic sovereignty was complete from day one.

Taxes and public sector wages have not yet been harmonised across the continent, but convergence is the inexorable logic of the euro, whether it is hastened by a bailout or not.  If Ireland is rescued, it will be rescued as a region, and compensated by subsidy for being a region.  It will be just like Northern Ireland.

However, in many fundamental respects, the republic’s position within the eurozone is worse than the north’s within the UK.  The republic is a smaller part of its currency area by GDP and population.  It is less connected to the eurozone’s centre than Northern Ireland is to the Southeast of England.  The eurozone is an expanse of 16 countries encompassing far more economic variation than is found within the UK, which makes a one-size-fits-all monetary policy that is much less likely to fit any one in particular.  Finally, Northern Ireland still has the relative flexibility of sterling, whatever its imperfections.

Since the recession began, every British employee has taken a 25% pay cut compared with the UK’s main trading partners.   Few even noticed it happening.  In the republic, with no exchange rate between most of its trading partners and the euro-sterling rate going the wrong way, public and private employers have had to cut salaries directly – a process that is slow, demoralising and politically toxic.

Perhaps it is a bit much to expect those in the south to look north for any kind of lesson, but it is surprising that they do not recall their own quite recent example.  Between 1979, when it uncoupled the Irish pound from Sterling, and 1999, when it joined the euro, the republic had a freely floating currency.

It was not meant to float quite as freely as it did – the ill-fated European Exchange Rate Mechanism was supposed to keep it within bounds.  It swung all over the place, going considerably below and above sterling and depreciating significantly against the deutschmark.

This helped Ireland’s competitiveness when foundations for its growth were laid down.  It also imposed enough financial discipline on Irish governments to stop them bankrupting the country.  Floating currencies start to sing, rather quickly and obviously, under the weight of excessive spending and borrowing.  It was enough to rein in even Charles Haughey.

It is one of the great ironies of the euro that it is promoted as a means of enforcing financial discipline.  Instead, it has become a means of running up enormous debt without the symptoms showing until it is too late.   The republic’s history proves it, and also disproves the common claim that without the euro it would have ended up like Iceland.  This puts the cart before the horse.  Without the euro, the republic would never have got into as much trouble as Iceland in the first place.

Still, there they are – or “we are where we are,“ as Brian Cowen, the Taoiseach, so eloquently put it – with no visible route back to a currency of their own.  Recessions and depressions come and go, but Ireland’s financial sovereignty is gone forever.

Robinson is moving the DUP towards becoming a moderate party

Following my last announcement that I would be resting from blogging for a while, a story by the BBC has just caught my eye.  Now it goes without saying that I can not resist reading the political rune sticks.

It is reported that Peter Robinson is now committing his party to the integration of Northern Ireland schools with a particular proposal to cut off the funding of schools which are run by Churches.  The idea that this will be extremely difficult to achieve in practice, particularly with EU Law as it stands and the fact that the Catholic Church will fight to oppose the proposal is not the main point.  The point is that the DUP is now championing anti-segregation.

Segregation by reason of religion, in schools, has been identified as one of the pillars which re-enforces social and political sectarianism.  Peter Robinson’s party depends upon the sectarian system for its existence.  That makes it all the more refreshing that Peter Robinson has made this statement.

Two months ago, Robinson unveiled his party’s own proposals to tackle sectarian violence.  At the time that the announcement was made, I suspected that the proposal was carried by the DUP as part of the price for the Alliance Party accepting the nomination for the Justice Ministry.

Two weeks ago, on the Politics Show, Peter Robinson indicated (for the first time I heard him say it) that the DUP was “unionist centre-right.”

I sense that all of these events are connected to a DUP medium term strategy to move its party away from Protestantism to a position where it conducts its politics solely on the left-right political spectrum.

I dare say that some of those reading this post will find the idea of the DUP becoming a moderate party rather difficult to swallow.  I don’t.  It is entirely logical and consistent with a will to survive long term.  By moving itself further into moderate terrain, the DUP is positioning itself to consume as much UUP support as possible.  At some point in the future, it will reach the same line that currently cuts between the liberal and traditional wing of the UUP.

With the destruction of the UUP now imminent, that line is becoming an increasingly wide river.  The DUP will find it very hard to cross with its current generation of politicians.  It now seems likely that this line will soon become a new front line for political dogfights with a Conservative Party, boosted in size by disaffected ex-UUP supporters.

If that scenario represents the near future of Unionist politics, it is not necessarily a good thing for the Conservative Party.  Just because they will be somewhat larger, it will not necessarily mean that they will be electorally successful.  They will need the support of Nationalist Conservatives just to be able to compete for the ultimate prize of becoming the pan-Northern Ireland centre-right party. 

This is a medium and long term war which the Conservative Party must aim to win.  If they do not build the party quickly enough, they will lose it.    Unfortunately, when it comes to political strategics in relation to Northern Ireland, the party has been found wanting because heart still gets the better of head.   At some point in the future, the Conservative Party in Northern Ireland will ‘cotton on’ to the fact that it too will have to change and become something that the DUP never can be, in order to survive.   I just hope that when that does happen, it wont be too late.

Labour Petition to fight elections in Northern Ireland

Over on the East Belfast Diary, Jenny Muir has posted a request for people to sign a petition requiring Labour Candidates to stand in Northern Ireland.  At present, the Labour Party does not allow members to stand.

I have signed their petition because I believe it would be another step in the direction of Normalising Northern Ireland politics.  I would encourage anybody who believes in better democracy to do the same.

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.

Election 2010: the Northern Ireland seats really do count

Writing in the Sunday Times today, Michael Portillo forecasts that David Cameron will be Prime Minister “whatever the Maths.”  In other words, even if there is a hung Parliament which gives Labour a larger number of seats, Labour will not be allowed to be the Party of Government.

If the Conservatives are the largest party in Parliament, then there is no doubt that David Cameron will form the next Government.  The scenario that I have trouble with is where Labour has the largest number of seats in a hung parliament but where that number is still significantly ahead of the Conservatives. 

Portillo says

“If Labour fails to secure a majority — even if it wins more seats than the Conservatives — it ought to be booted out and in all likelihood would be.”

Portillo’s argument centres on the attitude of the minority parties, particularly the Liberal Democrats.  He says

“It would be especially difficult for the Liberal Democrats to support Labour if it had lost to the Tories in terms of the popular vote — the number of actual votes cast — which seems all but certain.”

Thre is little doubt that Clegg would not support Labour if the Conservatives were the largest party in Parliament.  Clegg partly declared his position on this scenario more than 18 months ago.  Clegg would support the setting of a budget but reserve the right to oppose public non-financial measures taken by the Government.  In the first year of the new parliament (at least), Cameron would effectively have a free hand to govern.

What is Clegg’s position if Labour is the largest party?  

The Conservatives only need a (uniform) swing of 1.5% against Labour to become the largest party in terms of the number of votes cast.  However, because the Conservatives pile up their supporters in the safe seats, they would need a (uniform) swing of 4.4% to become the party in Parliament with the largest number of seats (source: UK polling report swing calculator).   

Speaking to the BBC on the Andrew Marr show, Nick Clegg recently said

“Whichever party has the strongest mandate from the British people, it seems to me obvious in a democracy they have the first right to seek to try and govern, either on their own or with others “ 

What does “strongest mandate” mean – the largest number of MPs or the largest number of votes cast?  Unfortunately, the point was not properly “nailed” in that interview. 

If it means the largest number of votes cast, then on a 1.5% uniform swing, the Conservatives could end up with just 234 seats compared with Labour’s 324.  Labour would only be 2 seats short of an overall majority in Parliament.  In practice, with Sinn Fein winning 5 seats and not sitting in parliament, they would effectively have an overall majority. 

Let us now suppose that there is a uniform swing against Labour of 4.39%.  In that scenario, the Conservatives are just short of being the largest party in Parliament.  Labour would be the largest party in Parliament with 282 seats but with only 31.8% of the votes cast.  The Conservatives would have 37.66% of the vote and 281 seats.  Labour would be 44 seats short of an overall majority.  There is no way that Labour could effectively govern without the support of the Lib Dems.  The Conservatives might be able to form a Government with the forbearance of the Lib Dems but it would be highly unstable.  It would not be possible for the Conservatives to legislate the most controversial aspects of their manifesto.  A further General Election (perhaps within 2 years) would seem likely.

In between the two extremes of Labour having the largest number of seats in a hung parliament, there is a grey area where the smaller minority parties could make the difference.   In such a scenario, MPs from the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the SDLP and the DUP could extract concessions from Labour to keep them in power.  For example, they could agree not to alter the Barnett formula.  Such a strategy would not be without considerable risk for Labour in the medium and longer term. 

In the end, the onus is on the Prime Minister to offer his resignation to the Queen.  If Labour is still the largest parliamentary party, they would be within their rights to review the possibility of continuing in Government.  There is already some historical precedent.

In February 1974, Labour won the largest number of seats (301 against 297 for the Conservatives) but fell short of an overall majority by 19 seats.  The outgoing Prime Minister, Ted Heath, did not resign immediately.  He only did so after attempting to form a coalition Government with the Liberals, led by Jeremy Thorpe.  In theory Ted Heath could have tried to form a coalition with the Ulster Unionists (then 11 MPs) but the price would have been the dismantling of Sunningdale.  Harold Wilson became prime minister for the second time but his Government did not have the stability that it needed.  After some of its bills were voted down in the Commons, Wilson called another general election later that year.  Labour won the October 1974 election with a slim overall majority.  They held power until May 1979.

In theory, even if Labour is the largest party in a hung Parliament, they could continue in Government so long as they are not too far short of an overall majority.  It is hard to say what the “tipping” point would be here. Labour could probably just about continue in power 20 short of an overall majority with the sort of deal that I have suggested. Labour would be in this position with a uniform swing against them of about 2.7%. The likelihood?

In their worst opinion poll this year (November 15), the Conservative lead was only 6%.  (Con 37%, Lab 31%, L.Dem 17%) Even on those figures, the Conservatives would still (just) be the largest party in Parliament. 

The bookies will not take your bet on David Cameron becoming Prime Minister.  However, the events of 1974 demonstrate how difficult it is for the party in power to govern efficiently and securely without a sufficient number of MPs.  It also is a reminder to all of us in the Conservative Party and the UUP that the votes cast for the Northern Ireland Parliamentary seats will play a crucial part in determining the strength of the next UK Government.