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.

Working together

What a speech! Well, I would say that wouldn’t I? There is no way that a neutral would not have been moved by it. It had a powerful theme running through it. It had vibrancy. It was passionate. It was patriotic. It was inspiring. It was Churchillian.

We were reminded, as we have been throughout the conference, that the Liberal Democrats are playing their part. It is an example to everybody that there are times when we have to put adversarial politics to one side to build alliances in the National Interest. That alliance is, in itself, a source of inspiration.

I could say a lot of more specific things about the speech. I will leave the newspapers with the detail. What I would like to get across is the power of the theme.  It was a call to everybody in the Country to take their share of strain and pain.  In a nutshell, we are all being told that we have a contribution to make to a better, more cohesive, more prosperous society.  We have to work hard but there is a reward to look forward to and we will have prevented an even bigger mess for the next generation.

We should be working together.   Contrast Martin McGuiness.  Observe his attitude towards spending cuts and his dismissive attitude towards Owen Paterson’s invitation to consider the costs of segregation.

There is no sense in McGuinness’s mind that the economic pain should be shared, even though the Nation which he covets we should join is suffering much greater pain. There is no willingness to contribute any alternative thinking. There does not seem to be any desire, whatsoever, to engender a cross-community spirit into the Northern Irish people. No, he wants to retain their selfish “ourselves alone” detachment.  His country doesn’t need him!

We know that Sinn Fein is an ultra socialist party. If they had been in control of raising taxes and borrowing money, we know that we would be Greece.  Still, they do bear much of the responsibility for our present economic ills in Northern Ireland.   A public sector which represents 77% of Northern Ireland’s GDP is their legacy.  You would think they would want to do something useful to expunge the memory of it.

They now have elected politicians. They are there to do a job. People expect that of them. If they are not prepared to rise to the plate and take some responsibility, there is only one justified way forward for Sinn Fein politicians.  Resign.

The future for Northern Ireland Conservatives

Jeffrey Peel has said that UCUNF is dead.  He may well be right.  In his last post before the General Election, Chekov suggested that it could not survive a bad result.

The General Election has left the United Kingdom with a hung parliament.  This could mean that instead of waiting for four years before the next general election, we may only be waiting for less than a year.  In addition, we have Assembly elections to think about next year.  If we are going to offer something attractive to the Northern Ireland electorate before these elections, important decisions need to be made now.

The UCUNF project offered something new to the Northern Ireland electorate.  It offered a chance for voters to participate in National Politics and select the next Government of the United Kingdom.  It was a worthy and noble project.  It was not the fault of the Northern Irish electorate that they did not take up that opportunity.  The handling of the project was a shambles.  Furthermore, once a deal was made for a single unionist candidate in Fermanagh and South Tyrone, the project became compromised. 

The Alliance Party and the Liberal Democrats achieved something that should have been an achievement of UCUNF.  Just before polling day, Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democrats publicly took ownership of the Alliance Party’s election campaign.  The appeal by Nick Clegg to support Naomi Long, amplified by the report in the Belfast Telegraph, will go down in Northern Ireland’s political history as the first successful piece of campaigning in living memory by a National political party for a candidate contesting a Northern Ireland Parliamentary seat.   

The Ulster Unionist Party looks set to tear itself apart.  In one camp, there are those that want to draw the party towards a shared Unionist home with the DUP.  They will seek to influence uncertain members by telling them that the DUP has moved away from its “no compromise” days.  In another camp, there are those who would like to lead the party in the direction of a more progressive type of unionism.  There are people in first camp who will blame the UCUNF project for the party’s present position.  The reality is that those same people – some of them very senior UUP members – sabotaged the UCUNF project. 

I would like to think that the progressive camp would gain enough influence on the rank and file membership to seize control of the party.  Sadly, that is unlikely to happen.   However, even if, hypothetically, the progressive camp did seize control, there are so many senior figures in the other camp that the result would be extreme instability. A highly unstable UUP is not fit for a project like UCUNF.  This election has borne that out very clearly.  In conclusion, I can see no future for the UCUNF project on the basis of an alliance between the two parties.

Had there been some measure of success for UCUNF, I believe that eventually, it would have merged with the Northern Ireland Conservatives as part of a federal structure where the new party enjoyed autonomy over its local policies and candidate selection but still remained affiliated to the main Conservative Party.    

Northern Ireland Conservatives will appreciate that since David Cameron became our leader, our branch of the party has ceased to be neglected, as we previously were, like a forgotten outpost at the edge of the frontier.  At grass roots level, the party has benefited and membership has grown considerably in the last four years.  That is appreciated and it is hoped and expected that this support will continue.  Last year, I was very encouraged to hear that David Cameron’s commitment to bringing conservativism in Northern Ireland was a long-term one and would not be coming to an end if there were significant disappointments along the way.  I am confident that commitment will continue.

The deal over Fermanagh and South Tyrone has altered our position as a cross-community party.  The road to achieving normal politics in Northern Ireland now looks longer and harder.  If the decision to field a compromise candidate in that constituency had been left to Northern Ireland Conservatives, it would not have happened.  The fact that it did is in no small part due to the pressure on the main Conservative Party to win as many seats as possible when a hung parliament became likely.  It was a classic conflict of interest situation and it underpins a powerful argument for changing the constitution of the Northern Ireland Conservative Party.

Today, we find ourselves damaged by the UCUNF project to the extent that Conservatives are now tainted, by association, with sectarianism.   We need something radical to change very quickly, if we are to get back on course towards our long term political aims in Northern Ireland.

The conflict of interest point, which I have outlined above and the need to build up our credibility with Catholics, in particular, both form part of a case for more power and control to be given to Northern Ireland Conservatives over matters which include regional policy, candidate selection and the development of a new brand.  Effectively, I am advocating independence for Northern Ireland Conservatives on all crucial decisions except in relation to National policymaking and funding. 

Underpinning that proposal, a more autonomously independent Northern Ireland Conservative Party would have a much greater chance of recognition as a cross-community party by entrenching certain rules within its constitution.  One such rule should be that there are no sectarian deals on seats or candidates with other unionist parties. 

I believe this is the right model for Northern Ireland Conservatives going forward.  I also believe it is right for the main Conservative Party too.

“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.

Lord Mandelson accuses Cameron of Playing politics with Northern Ireland

In the Politics Show today, Northern Ireland became part of the battleground between the Conservative and Labour Party.  I have transcribed below what was said in both interviews.  Firstly, Jon Sopel (“JS”) asked questions of David Cameron.

 JS       I want to talk about Northern Ireland as well which is an issue that has come up.  Why do you think it would be a good idea for your Northern Ireland spokesman to have…to have …been involved in a secret meeting. involved in …seem to be involved in setting up some pan-unionist front for the election?

DC      Well because what we want to do is to promote, particularly amongst the unionist parties the idea that the devolution of policing and justice is vitally important for completing devolution and for putting this on a stable footing and I think that’s actually a positive role that the Conservative Party can help to play and I think it is…you can see

JS       How can you be even-handed in dealing with all the parties in Northern Ireland, Sinn Fein, the SDLP when you’ve been sitting out trying to form a deal with the Unionist Parties?

DC      I don’t think that it’s a problem at all.  The Conservative Party has a relationship with the Official Ulster Unionist Party.  We’re going to put up joint candidates in Northern Ireland.  That’s been announced and is well known.  The Labour Party has a very close relationship with the SDLP members of Parliament.  They take the Labour Whip.  They sit with them in the House of Commons.  They vote and work together.  SO if your making accusations that I can’t be even-handed you8 have to make the same accusations against the Prime Minister that he can’t be even-handed.  Frankly, both accusations are wrong because the Prime Minister and I both support full scale devolution, including Policing and Justice.  We want that to happen.   There’s no difference between us on that.  When it comes to actually negotiating the Policing and Justice devolution where there is a very substantial potential bill for the British taxpayers the Conservative Party could not have been more helpful or more accommodating.  We’re one of the most supportive oppositions when it comes to Northern Ireland than we’ve had in our history.  I’m very proud of that because I want to see devolution happen.

JS       So what do you say to the charge that at best you’ve been naïve and at worst you’ve acted dangerously and jeopardised things.

DC      I think its just wrong.  I think everyone can see from the difficulty that’s taking place in these negotiations – that the difficulty is frankly between Sinn Fein on the one hand and the Democratic Unionist Party on the other – and they are having problems agreeing what is absolutely vital.  Now the question I ask myself is, “Is the Conservative Party playing a constructive role in encouraging – particularly the Unionist Parties, the ones we have frankly a closer relationship with in the House of Commons.  Are we playing a constructive role in encouraging devolution to take place?  Yes we are.  That’s a good thing

 Later in the programme, Jon Sopel interviewed Lord Mandelson who said this.

“They’re playing politics in Northern Ireland.  They’re seeking electoral advantage for the Conservative Party in Northern Ireland at the expense of the peace process and the devolved Government.  It’s very irresponsible and I suggest the all desist.

“They’re playing politics between the Unionist Parties and in doing that, they’re going to undermine the cohesion amongst unionists and thus undermine their confidence in making pretty tough decisions about where the peace process goes from here.  So I think they need to stand back – not seek party advantage and support the peace process.

UCUNF can expect more pounding in the media after Orange talks

Yesterday probably marked the lowest point for the Conservative / UUP pact since its inception 14 months ago but it could yet go lower to the point where the pact collapses.  

The Flare-up began on Thursday evening when it was revealed on Hearts and Minds that during December at Schomburg House, there had been a “confidential” meeting between the DUP and the UUP to discuss unionist unity, organised by the Orange Order. The meeting was attended by Sir Reg Empey and David McNarry of the DUP and by Peter Robinson and Nigel Dodds of the DUP.   

In the course of the programme, it was revealed that the discussions included candidacy at the Westminster Elections and the likelihood that Sinn Fein would hold the office of First Minister after the next Assembly elections.   

On Thursday night, Nigel Davenport continued to stir the pot on behalf of the BBC.  After taking soundings from Conservatives on their reaction to the Broadcast, he used rugby union analogy to describe how they had been let down by the UUP   

“More spooked I would say are the Conservatives who were blind sided by their partners the Ulster Unionists. Owen Paterson need not have gone to all that trouble booking Hatfield House if he had been aware that Bobby Saulters was already doing the job of bringing unionists together. The Conservative sources I spoke to tonight expressed some concern and dismay and said they would be looking for an explanation from Sir Reg Empey who attended the talks alongside Peter Robinson.”   

By Friday morning, all eyes were on Owen Paterson.  Writing for the BBC again, Michael Crick reported that Owen Paterson was seeking urgent clarification from Sir Reg Empey. He said  

“The Conservative Northern Ireland spokesman Owen Paterson is seeking an urgent meeting with the Ulster Unionist leader Sir Reg Empey today over the future of the Conservatives’ pact with the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP).”   

Owen Paterson’s objective in having that meeting was clearly damage limitation.  By 3.45 pm on Friday, Owen Paterson released the following statement:   

“In his capacity as Ulster Unionist leader, Sir Reg Empey regularly meets all strands of opinion throughout Northern Ireland. He referred ‘in passing’ to a meeting, requested in October and held in December, but I was not aware of the content or the participants.   

“As there was nothing of consequence arising from the meeting he did not mention it to me again. Sir Reg Empey has made clear to me that it has no bearing on our joint determination to stand together as ‘Conservatives and Unionists at the forthcoming Westminster elections to bring national, mainstream and non-sectarian politics to Northern Ireland.”   

By 5.00 pm, Sir Reg issued his response to the crisis (source Conservative Home)

 “The Ulster Unionist Party was invited in October 2009 by the Orange Order to a meeting with their Grand Master. On behalf of the UUP I accepted the invitation. Mr Saulters wanted a private and confidential meeting to discuss ‘ways and means of finding co-operation on the way forward.’ I have respected his request for confidentiality. Sadly this was not respected by others. Despite a conversation and discussion on the issues that Mr Saulters wished to raise, no agreements were reached.

 ”We are often asked to talk about Unionist cooperation where possible and about how best to provide stability for the future of Northern Ireland.  However the UUP is very much aware, given past history, that cooperation is not always achievable. Indeed it makes it much more difficult when a significant aim of one of the organisations you are dealing with is to destroy you. The Ulster Unionist Party will continue to have discussions with organisations on issues that are of benefit to the Union, but we will not be used as an escape route for others who have significant political difficulties.

“Let me also reaffirm my commitment to developing our relationship with the Conservative Party.  Along with our Conservative colleagues we will do all we can to promote, protect and preserve the Union and bring national politics unto the Northern Ireland agenda. The spectacle of recent days in our political journey at Hillsborough illustrates the need to get back as soon as possible to dealing with the issues that matter to people such as jobs, health and education.”

The question now is whether these press releases represent an an attempt to repair a hole in a sinking ship.  Before Crick’s update was posted, Jeffrey Peel and most of the commenters who contributed to his blog yesterday were of the view that the pact could not survive.  Meanwhile, on the Ulster Unionist side, Chekov published a scathing criticism of the conduct of the UUP leadership while Boballs insists that the UUP must clear up the mess.   In his last post, he has expressed his belief the pact can not survive.

This morning, the Belfast Telegraph reports that Sir Reg Empey is blaming the DUP for trying to destroy his party.  Is that news?  After all, why else would the DUP have negotiated at St. Andrews for the largest party to hold the first minister’s position?   Few are likely to be impressed with Sir Reg’s response to this crisis.  It  is unlikely to suppress rising anger within his party or more press speculation that the pact will unravel.  

This morning, David Gordon began the tomato throwing on behalf of the Belfast Telegraph.  Expect a pounding from other sections of the media over the next few days.

Mr. Paterson, will you please clear the air for us

Last Weekend, the Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Owen Paterson, held a “secret” meeting with leaders of the DUP and the UUP.

At first sight, such a meeting would have seemed logical and sensible. With Sinn Fein threatening to bring down the Executive over Policing and Justice, seemingly more likely as a result of the Iris Robinson scandal, it would make sense to have these meetings to enable Mr. Paterson to be on top of his game when he assumes office as the New Northern Ireland Minister.  

According to a report by Henry McDonald in the Observer today, three of our prospective parliamentary candidates have resigned from the Party nomination because the talks were about entering into a political pact.  That is certainly a loss to the Conservatives and to the Northern Ireland electorate.  Of the three, I do know Sheila Davidson.  She would have made an exceptionally good candidate.   In response to the Observer report, Ian Parsley, who was present when the three resigned their nomination, has denied that the withdrawal of these three were anything to do with a prospective pact with the DUP.   Two of the three were Catholics.  That seems to be nothing more than an unfortunate co-incidence.   Perhaps Henry McDonald will have egg on his face for latching on to an assumption. 

I find it difficult to believe that Northern Ireland Conservatives are calling for Mr. Paterson’s head.  Mr. Paterson has done so much good work to give meaning to the Conservative cause in Northern Ireland.  He would not throw all that away in a “sectarian carve up.”  However, there is no doubt that Conservatives in Northern Ireland have been unnerved by the talks with the DUP. 

A statement from a conservative spokesman did indicate that the Conservatives would not be entering into any sectarian pact. I quote from the Observer report

“We remain absolutely committed to putting up 18 Conservative and Unionists candidates at the next general election to offer the people of Northern Ireland national, non-sectarian normal politics. Nothing that has happened in the past 24 hours deflects us from that,” the spokesman said. “We are absolutely clear that we will not be entering any sectarian pact. We remain committed to our existing pact with the Ulster Unionists, but David Cameron will do absolutely nothing that undermines political stability or puts the peace process at risk.”

So what exactly have the Conservatives agreed with the DUP that might be so unpalatable?   What does the last phrase in that statement mean exactly?

An agreement over the contesting of seats at the General Election? – The Conservatives have always consistently stated they would field 18 candidates.  They will not change that position.  It has been suggested that the DUP have offered not to field candidates in two of the seats in return for something else.  This is unlikely.  It would amount to a sectarian pact by the back door.    

An agreement not to vote against the Conservatives in the Commons if there is a hung Parliament?

There is nothing wrong, in principle, with negotiating terms with another party given this scenario, so long as the price is right.  If the price means adopting a policy which is inherently sectarian, such as the DUP position on parades (see below), it most certainly is not.

An agreement over the terms for devolution of Policing and Justice? – It is worth noting that as the UK Government, the Conservatives will have to take a neutral position on P & J with the object of bridging the gap between the DUP and Sinn Fein, if that is possible.  However, if Assembly elections are imminent, the Conservatives and the UUP are going to have to declare their hand in relation to the terms under which P & J should be devolved.

No matter how reasonable the Ashdown proposals may sound to people who do not live in Northern Ireland, they do not justify the abolition of the Parades Commission on merit.  The Commission now has years of experience and expertise behind it.  Support for the Parades Commission has grown within the Unionist community as they note its contribution to peace on the streets. 

Thirty seven of Northern Ireland’s 54 MLAs are members of the Orange Order.  The DUP policy on parades (and probably that of the UUP) has the stamp of Orange influence.  It is not a policy which is beneficial to Northern Ireland.  Furthermore, adoption of such a policy would be perceived as being sectarian.  The Conservative Party can not afford to be associated with it.

An agreement not to go into the Northern Ireland Government if Sinn Fein are the Largest Party at Stormont?

It is now possible, perhaps even likely, that the UUP will once again be the largest unionist party at Stormont after the Assembly elections but not necessarily the largest party.  The OFM and ODFM are equal in terms of power.  It does not surprise me that the DUP would refuse to nominate a DFM but what about the UUP?   If that is the UUP policy, it is wrong.  The Conservatives should be above that kind of childish nonsense.  They can not afford to be seen to support it.  In any event, it would be inconsistent with advancing the peace process. 

There are now rumours that the UUP is to enter into a compact agreement with the DUP in order to ensure they are the largest “party” at Stormont – thus preventing Sinn Fein from being able to nominate First Minister.  Well, that one would also have to go through the Courts, including the Appeal Courts and could fail in them.   Such an agreement, even if legal, would be the most sectarian of sectarian agreements.  If that is what the UUP want to do, it is hard to see how the Conservatives can enter into any agreement with the UUP on assembly elections. 

Has the Conservative leadership sold its soul in order to get more seats or buy an insurance policy for a hung parliament?  Without the information in the public arena, it is too early to judge but Owen Paterson now needs to answer those questions in detail in order to clear the air.

Why spoil a good Christmas party?

Last week, I attended a Christmas drinks party hosted by the Conservatives. The party was well attended by prominent conservatives and Ulster Unionists, including Chris Grayling MP, Shadow Home Secretary, Owen Paterson MP shadow secretary of State for Northern Ireland and Sir Reg Empey MLA, Minister for Employment and Learning and leader of the UUP. Both sides of the Joint Committee were also well represented.

I did not get time to circulate with all of those present but I did detect a silver stream of optimism regarding the prospects of UCUNF candidates in the forthcoming general election. This confidence was underlined in Chris Grayling’s speech.

In less than a month, the UCUNF parliamentary candidates will be announced.  We are hearing that some members of the UUP who are presently MLAs may be standing as parliamentary candidates.  Under the terms of the agreement between the Conservatives and the UUP, any MLA who is elected to Parliament will be obliged to resign his/her Assembly seat. That seems fair enough.  However, it is now becoming increasingly likely that the Assembly elections and the General Election will occur on the same date.  If that happens, any MLA who intended to stand for Parliament would be obliged to withdraw his/her candidacy from one of those elections.  Given that scenario, I am wondering if the Joint Committee has discussed or will be discussing possible stand-in candidates for those constituencies?

As I thought of putting that question to one of the joint committee, I was standing very close to Mark Cosgrove.  Then he faced another direction.   I then let the thought pass. Why spoil a good Christmas party!

Election criticisms of the DUP highlight all that is wrong with Northern Ireland politics

Visiting the duppantsonfire website does not just provide laughs. A great deal of what is said on it highlights what is wrong with Northern Ireland politics and its present constitutional arrangements.   

Consider this example.  Diane Dodds had said that “other Unionist parties attack the DUP whilst the DUP’s battle is with Sinn Fein.”  This piece of hypocrisy was was countered with the following words:

“The DUP has averaged one attack a day on the UUP since Mrs Dodds was nominated. They have averaged one attack a week on Sinn Fein.”

The sad truth behind this exchange is that Unionists are competing for “unionist” votes within the so-called “unionist community.”  It is an acceptance of the nature of sectarianism behind Northern Ireland politics.  For my own part, I feel a certain amount of sorrow that I have been sucked into the same game.  Certainly, if you trawl this website, you will find that I have criticised Sinn Fein and the SDLP.  Unfortunately, during this election campaign, most of my inter-party criticism has been directed against the DUP.  That is not to say that I won’t be firing some arrows in the direction of the Nationalist parties before June 4^th

Here are some other quotes from the duppantsonfire website

“Peter Robinson needs Martin McGuinness’s permission to call the Executive”

and 

“The DUP doesn’t even have the authority to get rid of the most incompetent minister in the very Executive Committee they claim to control”

The second comment is, of course, about Catriona Ruane.  Both comments are a reference to some of the legal mechanisms of power sharing.  The system itself forces the two dominant parties from each community to sacrifice some of their principles in order to avoid a collapse of the executive.   

Power sharing is a dysfunctional and inefficient system of government.  In recognition of this, Owen Paterson has said that the Conservatives would negotiate with Northern Ireland Parties to reform the Power Sharing Executive. Martin McGuiness of Sinn Fein has ruled that out but in any event, it is too early for reform. I suggest that before we begin to dismantle Power Sharing, we need to achieve an appropriate level of normal politics in Northern Ireland.   

Until we reach that point, we are stuck with the present power-sharing system.  UUP critics of Mr. Robinson’s predicament need to be careful.  If the UUP or UCUNF are successful at the Assembly elections in 2011, they could be sharing the offices of First Minister and Deputy First Minister with Sinn Fein.