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.

Why I will be voting SDLP in this election

David Cameron is under a lot of pressure at the moment.  Understandably, he needs and wants all the seats he can get.  He has his own problem on how to burst the Lib Dem bubble.  I hope that he does well in the 649 seats that the Conservatives are contesting.

Meanwhile, back in the unrepresented constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, yours truly is still smarting from the decision to support a sectarian deal. 

I have considered casting my vote for Mr. Rodney Connor.  I do not doubt that he will take the Conservative whip, if elected.  I also do not doubt what is said about him that he is a “genuine cross-community man”.  However, it was a matter for him that he accepted the nomination as a compromise candidate in the circumstances that he did.

He is an independent.  The fact is that there is no Conservative candidate in this constituency.  In this election, I am at liberty to state publicly who I intend to vote for.

It has not been easy for me to decide on how to prioritise my vote.  Voting for Mr. Connor does help the Conservative Party.  On the other hand, a vote for him is a vote of support for the sustenance of political sectarianism.

As long as I remain a conservative, I will not tolerate the endorsement of a sectarian carve up.  The Conservatives must never get involved in a similar deal again, in this constituency, or any other. 

I believe it is right that I give expression to my disapproval of what has happened in the ballot box.   Accordingly, I will not be voting for Mr. Connor.  Instead, my vote, in this election, will go to Fearghal McKinney of the SDLP.

Why Connor must try hard to get Catholic votes

Chekov, commenting on my previous blog has said that he seriously disputes that Rodney Connor is almost certain to with the Fermanagh and South Tyrone seat.   On revision, I defer to Chekov’s point.  Connor has a very strong chance of winning but victory is by no means certain and there is a possibility that  SDLP supporters will vote tactically for Sinn Fein in order to prevent Connor from succeeding.

The net effect of Connor’s candidacy is that instead of the decision to elect an MP resting with Sinn Fein supporters, the decision to elect an MP now rests with supporters of the SDLP. 

In order to win, Michelle Gildernew needs approximately 90% of the Nationalist/Republican vote.  In practice, this means taking approximately 3,500 votes (about 48%) of current SDLP support. 

One lifelong SDLP supporter that I know particularly well is my wife.  Yes, I can imagine the surprises when people read this.  At the very least, I have some insight into the thinking of one type of SDLP supporter that I believe represents a very sizeable proportion of their support base. 

Sinn Fein, as I have already observed, has probably taken away all the votes it is likely to have taken from the SDLP in previous elections.  Those left supporting the SDLP are still very much culturally Nationalist Irish but they also tend to be disaffected middle-class Catholics.  They are unimpressed by the link between Sinn Fein and the IRA and regard that as a complete bar to supporting Sinn Fein.  Many of them support academic selection and do not agree with their leadership.  Some SDLP activists, recognising the problem are quietly telling their supporters that their policy on academic selection and the abolition of the 11+ was a mistake.  Most SDLP supporters are extremely uncomfortable with socialism.  Most of all, as far as your average SDLP supporter is concerned, there is no love lost between them and Sinn Fein.

SDLP supporters do not like the Unionists either.  They certainly do not like overtly sectarian unionism.  They see little chance of progress towards a shared future in Northern Ireland so long as Orangemen dominate unionist politics. 

How they will view Rodney Connor’s candidacy, I don’t know.  What I do know is that Fearghal Mckinney has already struck up a positive note amongst SDLP supporters.  By the day of the election, most SDLP supporters in Fermanagh and South Tyrone will know that they hold the key to who gets the seat. 

Rodney Connor is unlikely to attract very many Catholic votes but he can ill afford to be complacent that the SDLP will hold.  Should he at least make a strong effort to canvass the Catholic vote, he will turn a few heads.  It could just be sufficient to nullify a potential anti-unionist tactical vote.

Have the Conservatives sold their soul for one constituency in one election?

The part played by the Conservative Party in the agreement of Rodney Connor as a compromise unionist candidate in Fermanagh and South Tyrone is by far the most controversial step that the Conservatives have taken since the announcement of the pact with the UUP. 

The central question, which I attempt to answer here, is whether it is a step forward or a step backwards in terms of the longer-term Conservative political objectives in Northern ireland.  Firstly, what does the deal amount to in practice? 

Fermanagh and South Tyrone is a constituency where the Unionist and Nationalist vote is near parity but where Nationalists are in a majority.  In the 2005 General Election, the ratio of Nationalists to Unionists was about 53:47 on a turnout of 72.6%.  At that election, Sinn Fein polled 18,638 votes with the SDLP polling 7,230 votes.  On the Unionist side, the DUP polled 14,056 with the UUP polling 8,869.  Projecting current demographic trends, the Unionists are now down to about 45%.  A single Unionist candidate could expect to poll in the region of 22,000.  For Sinn Fein to win the seat, they would need a swing against the SDLP of approximately 5.5%.  The trend of the SDLP losing votes to Sinn Fein appears to have been arrested in the 2009 Euro election.  They have also been given a further boost with a fresh candidate in Fergal McKinney.  It is therefore highly unlikely that Sinn Fein would win the seat.  I would expect a majority for a single Unionist candidate in the region of 2,700.

Rodney Connor is almost certain to win the seat.  However, Fermanagh and South Tyrone is just one constituency out of 650.  On its own, it would be very unlikely to make any significant difference, even in a hung parliament.  This is particularly so when you consider that Sinn Fein, who hold the seat at present, do not take up their seats in Parliament.  Is it symbolically important to the Conservatives?

After the European Election, the Conservatives boasted that they had an MEP in every part of the United Kingdom.  They would certainly like to be able to claim that on May 7^th.  Rodney Connor, if elected, will take the Conservative whip.  It is, however, only “half a loaf”  because Connor will not be campaigning under the Conservative and Unionist banner. 

There is little in it, then, from the National perspective.  What about the credibility of the Conservatives in terms of their longer term aims Northern Ireland?

Bringing normal politics to Northern Ireland involves setting examples.  One thing that the Conservatives always wanted to avoid was a sectarian “carve – up”   By avoiding a sectarian carve – up, a message would be sent to the Catholic community that they really were interested in the pursuit of Catholic votes on the basis of shared values, rather than on future constitutional aspiration. 

In defence of the arrangement, Conservative and Unionist spin doctors are describing the arrangement as “not ideal” and pointing out that Rodney Connor has genuine cross-community credentials.   Unfortunately, that kind of propaganda looks like a fig-leaf to try and cover what is a sectarian carve-up.   The almost pathological hatred of Sinn Fein by a very large proportion of the unionist electorate practically guarantees Mr. Connor a free ride.  It really is hard to see the deal in any other way. 

Mr. Connor is not a UCUNF candidate.  He may say that he will take the Conservative whip but he is Independent and can change his mind.  He is not strictly bound by party obligation.  It would therefore be quite wrong for the Conservatives to be able to claim that the people in Fermanagh and South Tyrone genuinely have the opportunity to vote for the next Government.

For many in the Northern Ireland Conservative party, particularly Jeffrey Peel, the Conservatives have sold their soul and the integrity of the UCUNF project for the price of one constituency in one election.  Whatever future efforts are made to bring about normal politics in Northern Ireland, it is not hard to imagine well-intentioned Conservative activists having this deal thrown back in their faces whenever they canvass on a Catholic doorstep.  This one is going to be milked for years to come.  Disaffected conservatives, like Jeffrey Peel, will lose the will to work for the party in Northern Ireland and it will now be much harder to recruit Catholic members to the party.

I believe that the deal was a huge mistake on the part of the Conservative leadership and one which they will eventually regret.  Rodney Connor will get my vote but I will not be casting it with the same excitement and anticipation that I might have done if we had a genuine UCUNF candidate. 

My own disappointment with the deal will linger for a while.  Eventually, it will pass.  I will pick myself up again but I will never attempt to justify what has happened.

“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.

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.

Ritchie’s speech looks like the SDLP’s suicide note

Today, Margaret Ritchie made the opening speech of her campaign for the SDLP leadership.   It has been published on Slugger.

Ritchie has reacted to political commentators who wanted to see her answer questions about her vision.  She began by talking about the economy.  She said this

“We have already shown in devolution that we have stronger ideas for developing our economy – both in the North and throughout the wider island. And clear thinking to bring our region out of recession”

OK, so devolution brings out the big ideas in the minds of the SDLP but what about delivering them?  What exactly were those ideas?  Ritchie does not say what they were but she then talks about “bigger” plans

“But we have bigger plans: we want more economic independence from Britain – and ultimately our own taxation and welfare regimes. Northern Ireland needs to be able to retain the gains made through better economic management. We believe in devolution so we want more of it. Broadcasting and Telecoms too”

For those not familiar with the Northern Ireland constitution, it is worth recalling how Government Power is divided up.  The Northern Ireland Act 1998 divides Government Power into three groups – excepted matters, reserved matters and transferred matters.  Transferred matters are the powers already passed to Stormont.  Reserved matters, which still include Police and Justice, are powers which may be transferred to the Northern Ireland Assembly at a future date.  Excepted Powers are those unlikely ever to be transferred.  Here is the complete list

 Reserved Matters

• Criminal law
• Police
• Navigation and civil aviation
• International trade and financial markets
• Telecommunications/postage
• The foreshore and sea bed
• Disqualification from Assembly membership
• Consumer safety
• Intellectual property

Excepted matters

• Royal succession
• International relations
• Defence and armed forces
• Nationality, immigration and asylum
• Taxes levied across the United Kingdom as a whole
• All elections held in Northern Ireland
• Currency
• Conferring of honours
• International Treaties

So Ritchie wants telecommunications and postage to be transferred.  Is that such a big idea?  When you look at the list of reserved matters, there is not much that is left of particular note.  Police and Justice are the big ones and will soon go.  Consumer safety and Intellectual property rights will be subsumed to European Law.  Her proposal for a Northern Ireland taxation regime relates to excepted powers.  This is a complete non-starter.  However, what she said next that will have got the unionist hands scratching heads. 

“At the same time we want to deepen our North/South economic integration. And get serious about the green economy as a source of competitive advantage.
As a first step we will campaign for an all-island independent Environmental Protection Agency and a single all-island Regulator for Energy.”

There is nothing wrong with wanting to deepen economic integration with the Republic of Ireland, provided this is designed to promote business and does not involve any transfer of powers.  However, setting up an environmental protection agency does imply the transfer of powers.  That would require special legislation from the UK Parliament, which would not be enacted unless there was all-party consensus in Northern Ireland.   It also smacks of a policy which has as its ulterior motive not the economic well-being of Northern Ireland but an incremental slow-creeping step towards a united Ireland. 

Credence for this deduction comes from the words of Ritchie herself.  Later on in her speech she unambiguously puts nationalism at the centre of her vision for SDLP policy.  After setting out her desire for a United Ireland, she says this

“I will take our unique ideas for achieving unity to the very heart of decision-making in Dublin. I will campaign hard for the establishment of a new all-party Commission with a clear remit to agree a modern, inclusive vision for a United Ireland.”

So there you have it.  So long as Ritchie is leader of the SDLP, Nationalism will be at the centre of that party’s politics.  More Nationalism and republicanism in Northern Ireland would be an unwelcome distraction from normal “bread and butter” politics.  Contrary to Ritchie’s laudible aim of reconciling society, such policies are divisive. 

I have already stated in an earlier post that the SDLP can play a role in the elimination of sectarianism from politics by “parking” nationalism and campaigning with the Labour Party. 

Margaret Ritchie, instead trying to steer her party away from Sinn Fein has decided to do an ‘about turn’ and rally the SDLP army to make one more glorious charge for the ground lost to Sinn Fein. 

Do the SDLP rank and file realise that this is about to happen?  I fear not.  The following words come to mind

“Not tho’ the soldier knew, someone had blunder’d… Charging an army, while all the world wonder’d.”       ["The Charge of the Light Brigade" - Tennison (1854)].

Ritchie’s speech looks like the SDLP’s suicide note.

SDLP leadership election very important for Northern Ireland’s future

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nicholson is No. 1. This is how I have decided upon my No. 2 vote

Tomorrow is polling day.  It is decision time for Northern Ireland people, including me.  My mind was made up, a long time ago, to vote for Jim Nicholson No. 1. What about second and further preference votes? 

At the outset, I want to make it clear that I am not interested in a party’s constitutional preference for Northern Ireland.  As a Conservative, I preach normal politics.  As far as I possibly can, I want to practice it too.   

When looking at a party’s policy, it is worth bearing in mind that what they say on certain things, has got nothing to do with the job of the euro MP.  For example, keeping the pound is a matter for the Westminster Government.  So also is whether or not to have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.  When our MP is elected, they will all be expected to bat for Northern Ireland.  In practice and in most respects, that is what our existing three MPs have done.  Most of the policies which are concerned with looking after Northern Ireland’s interest are similar across all the parties.  That said, heads of policy are worth looking at to get a sense of the political direction of those parties.   

It is also worth bearing in mind that in terms of influencing politics in Europe, individual parties do not get seats on committees.  It is voting blocks which do.  The conservatives are cutting themselves off from the centre-right group (the EPP) after many years.  The reason for this is simple and it has to do with history.  The UK has no memory of being invaded.  Nearly all of the rest of Europe has.  Those countries are therefore emotionally driven towards greater union.  That is why the Conservatives are keen to form a new block – to act as a counterweight against federalism.    

The two parties with the nearest policies to the Conservatives are the DUP and the TUV.  The DUP say “Oppose the Lisbon Treaty, keep the pound.”  Similar things are said by Jim Allister, which I totally agree with.  As parties of the centre right, the DUP and the TUV would join the new group being formed by the Conservatives.    

The other parties are much further away from the Conservatives.  The starting point of both Sinn Fein and the SDLP is that they are both socialist with left-leaning politics.  The SDLP support the Lisbon treaty.  Sinn Fein, for reasons which I will not discuss here, opposes it.  Both of those parties would like to see the UK give up sterling for the euro.  So also would the Alliance Party.    

I have looked at the Green Party manifesto.  There are a couple of “whacky” things in their manifesto such as lowering the voting age.  I would also be concerned about some of the cost aspects in their policies but overall, their manifesto is reasonably pleasant and not inconsistent with many conservative policies.  The Northern Ireland Green manifesto says nothing about the Lisbon treaty.  I have looked at the manifesto of their British Counterparts and they do oppose the current Lisbon treaty.  They are silent on the question of sterling.    

The Alliance parties and the Green party preach vociferously against sectarianism.  That is obvious both from their manifestoes and what their candidates have said.   

The DUP, the TUV and Sinn Fein all fall down heavily in relation to sectarianism.  The DUP and Sinn Fein thrive upon the “sectarian headcount.”  Neither of these parties show a desire to tackle sectarianism.  The TUV and DUP differ over the St. Andrews agreement but are no different in nature from each other.  During the campaign, I have noticed from the remarks made both Jim Allister and Diane Dodds that their sectarian mindset is obvious and gross.    

The SDLP’s website pays “lip service” to being a party which is against sectarianism.  If you go back to some of the things John Hume used to say about Northern Ireland, he passionately wanted the two communities to be brought together.  When I have listened to other SDLP leaders like Mallon and Durkan I could not hear this being said from the heart.  During the campaign, Alban Maginnis has said that he wants to bring the two communities together.  It is hard for me to explain this but I felt that he did say it from the heart.   He said enough to convince me that he regards tackling sectarianism as more important than a united Ireland.    

Of the other candidates seeking election as Northern Ireland’s Euro MPs, only the DUP, TUV, Sinn Fein and the SDLP have any chance of being elected.  With respect to the Greens and the Alliance, their potential to attract No. 1 votes is not great enough this time around to influence me into giving them my second preference vote.  I will look at these parties again in future PR elections.   

That leaves me with a choice of 4 candidates for my No. 2 vote.  Sinn Fein has nothing to offer, as far as I am concerned.  I am therefore left with a choice between two sectarian candidates who are conservatives and a socialist candidate who is not.   

On the matter of sectarianism, I wish to say this.  It is Northern Ireland’s biggest political and social problem.  It is such a big problem that if you asked me what my choice would be – keep Northern Ireland in the union or eliminate sectarianism from Northern Ireland, I would chose the latter.  Unless politicians start making effective efforts to tackle sectarianism, it will be a perpetual curse on our society. 

Given all the circumstances, Alban McGinnis gets my No. 2 vote.