Bigotry in Britain and Northern Ireland

There is a lot of  political news at the moment and I am trying to catch my breath – the resignation of Alan Johnson, Shadow Chancellor and the announcement of a General Election in the Republic of Ireland.   As I write, Tony Blair is giving evidence to the Iraq enquiry.  Posts on those subjects will follow shortly.

Meanwhile, yesterday, TV coverage was also given to Baroness Warsi, the co-Chairman of the Conservative Party after she highlighted the problem of Islamaphobia in Britain.  It is very important Conservatives across the country show their solidarity with Baroness Warsi.  The message will be all the more powerful if senior conservatives, who are non-muslims, express their public support.    

Bigotry in Britain is not discussed as much as it is in Northern Ireland.  Nonetheless, Baroness Warsi’s public comments are to be welcomed by anybody in Northern Ireland who is interested in tackling bigotry against groups of people, whether it is sectarianism, homophobia or any other act of prejudice which is demeaning, divisive or stigmatising.

Northern Ireland’s problems are compounded by the institutionalization of some forms of bigotry.   If the leader of an institution, religion or any other body fails to take moral responsibility for the problem of bigotry, then it is so much the harder for individuals, who are members of that institution, religion or other body to tackle it themselves. 

I come across bigotry by individuals on a regular basis.  Recently, I heard somebody say, ““X” is a Prod but his shop does some very good bargains.”  This is not acceptable.  This is not some phenomenon which we can just brush aside as being a harmless conversation within a community.  At the extreme end of the continuum, somebody will be sufficiently influenced by it to commit a hate crime.  Anybody who notices it in their own community has a moral duty to clamp down upon it and set an example. 

In my various posts, I have highlighted the fact that institutions or bodies have not done enough to tackle bigotry. This includes not just the Orange Order but also the GAA and the Churches.   What Northern Ireland needs, particularly, is for leaders of those institutions to be courageous and challenge bigotry within their own community.

Sein Fein parades itself

In the Newsletter and in my local papers, it was reported that a parade, which took place in Fermanagh on New Years Day, was illegal. The parade was said to be illegal because no request had been made to the Parades Commission to hold it.

Last year, as the Policing and Justice devolution wrangle was at its height, Sinn Fein vigorously opposed any proposed scrapping of the Parades commission. Both Martin McGuiness and Gerry Adams stated that DUP proposals to scrap the commission as a pre-condition of the transfer of Police and Justice was totally unacceptable. What is “sauce for the Goose is sauce for the Gander,” as they say. Sinn Fein will not be able to find a political excuse for breaking the law, if that is what has happened.

This particular parade is an annual event. Normally, it would not be in the news. Sinn Fein attracted criticism about it because, in furtherance of their politics, they published a report about the parade on their website.

I have been to numerous 12^th July parades and St. Patrick’s Day parades. This was the first time that I had witnessed a purely republican parade. I had been invited to it by a friend of mine, himself a republican. I decided to go, with a view to learning from the experience.

The location of the procession was in a remote area of the Fermanagh countryside, known as Moane’s cross, near Roslea. It is highly unlikely that there would have been any bystanders.

The story of the failed attack by the IRA on an RUC barracks more than 54 years ago is legendary within the republican movement. It formed part of the IRA border campaign of 1956-1962. Two of the attackers, Sean South and Fergal O’Hanlon, were killed in the incident. There is a well known song about the incident called “Sean South from Garryowen.”

South was from Limerick. When I was in my teens, I lived with my family in Limerick. I have sung the song many times. It was not until I came to live in Fermanagh that, years later, I became aware that the song referred to an incident within living memory.

At the site where South and O’Hanlon were killed, located by the side of a road, is a monument. The procession began from a distance of about 150 yards and ended at the monument. When the procession ended, the commemoration continued in front of the memorial. The ceremony included the playing of Amhrán na bhFiann (the Irish national anthem) by a solo flautist, a speech by Sinn Fein Councillor, Sean Lynch and another speaker saying the Rosary. The use of the Rosary on such an occasion would have offended many who are of the Catholic faith. It also provided a stark illustration of how Sinn Fein uses sectarianism to promote its politics.

The concluding speech by Sean Lynch began with a mention of previous IRA campaigns. The results of those campaigns were presented as a triumph. There were no surprises there. Then the “Elephant” (the dissident IRA) swam into my mind. As you would expect, the dissidents were not mentioned in any of the speeches. However, they must have been in the thoughts of some of those present. Even the most tongue-artful republican would find it very difficult to distinguish the current dissident IRA campaign from previous IRA campaigns.

The last part of Lynch’s speech was about Sinn Fein’s future political prospects.  Lynch discussed the general election on the horizon in the Republic of Ireland and the Assembly Elections in Northern Ireland, emphasising his party’s credentials as the only “All-Ireland” political party. He finished with a plea to young and intelligent people to come forward to join Sinn Fein.

After the ceremony, we went to the local hall where tea and food were waiting. In the hall were exhibited three old weapons of the sort used at the time of the 1957 attack. These included a Bren light machine Gun and a Thompson Sub-machine gun

It was an enjoyable and insightful afternoon.

The future is bright but it certainly isn’t Orange

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NI Centre Right Campaign strengthened by events of the last week

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

Conservatives – We must put any immediate prospect of dumping the UUP out of our minds

The Conservative Party has held a presence in Northern Ireland politics since the mid 1980s.  It has had very little electoral success.  One of the reasons for that was a failure by Conservative Leadership to direct resources to enable its Northern Ireland branch to build a political power base.  Perhaps it was correct to avoid doing that before the Good Friday Agreement. 

In December 2005, David Cameron became the leader of the Conservative Party.  Soon after that, he made public his vision for politics in Northern Ireland.  Speaking to the Institute of Directors in October 2006, he said this:

“I want politics in Northern Ireland to be about the real things – schools, hospitals, tax…not about timetables, deadlines and institutional arrangements.  And I want the Conservative Party to be a part of that new politics. We’re moving in a new direction.  Leading the debate.  Pulling ahead of a tired Government.  Developing policies for the future. In doing so, one thing is certain. My Party’s commitment to Northern Ireland, and to all its people, will be whole hearted and unshakeable.”

David Cameron’s speech epitomised what Northern Ireland Conservatives have always wanted – normal politics in Northern Ireland.  One of the steps necessary to achieving that objective is to move Northern Ireland away from its semi-detached status by giving its people a say in who will form the next National Government. 

Very soon, we will have a General Election and the first part of David Cameron’s objective will have been achieved.  I say “first part” not just because the Labour Party are not yet here but because Mr. Cameron was not just talking about tax.  In a clear reference to devolved powers and the Northern Ireland Assembly, he also mentioned schools and hospitals.  Furthermore, his reference to “real things” and “not about timetables, deadlines and institutional arrangements” was a clear indication of his desire for an end to sectarian politics.

Not all Northern Conservatives agree that being in partnership with the UUP was the right way to pursue David Cameron’s vision. 

Some in our party have argued, not without considerable force, that the UUP is not a party which is capable of moving away from sectarian politics.  It has also been argued, again not without considerable force, that the Conservatives are not capable of winning Parliamentary seats or building up a significant power base in Northern Ireland without a partnership with one of the leading Unionist parties.  If you agree with both of those viewpoints, then you will have reached a conclusion that there was never anything the Conservatives could have done to bring about normal politics in Northern Ireland.  I am one of those that dont agree with either argument. 

To borrow an old cliché, there is no such thing as a free lunch in the jungle.  Whichever path the Conservative party chose to work for normal politics in Northern Ireland, there was always going to be a lot of hard work with many hazards and very little electoral reward in the short term.    

The path chosen by the Conservatives was the link-up with the UUP.  After much thought and agonising on this subject, I eventually concluded that it was the right route to take even though there is no certainty that the pact will survive after the General Election.

The UUP have considerable obstacles to overcome in moving away from sectarian politics.  Within the last couple of months, the UUP has been lampooned for its equivocation in relation to making deals with the DUP to promote unionist “unity” candidates.  From an electoral tactical point of view, this equivocation has been rightly described as a missed opportunity to gain the ascendancy over the DUP during its weakest moment during the Christmas period.  The positive aspect to this struggle is that, in the end, the UUP came down firmly and unequivocally in favour of the pact with the Conservatives.  For those of us who have charted the progress of the UUP, this is the sort of struggle which goes with the territory, whenever a party is evolving.  There will be further struggles ahead.

Yesterday, the UUP voted against the transfer of powers for Police and Justice.  In my opinion, this was an error of judgment which will have much more of an impact on their political fortunes than their decision to hold talks with the DUP over unionist unity.  Within the Unionist community, there is a majority who would have supported the transfer of P & J from at least a pragmatic point of view.  Peter Robinson and his party will not have taken lightly their decision to support the transfer of powers.  Unfortunately for the UUP, the DUP have “read the tealeaves” correctly and the UUP have not. 

Even more damaging to the UUP is the prospect that Unionist voters will no longer consider them to be the moderate voice of Unionism as compared with that of the DUP.  That makes it much more difficult for the UUP to distinguish itself from the DUP as the party of civic unionism.

It will also make it much more difficult for the Conservatives to justify a future partnership with the UUP after the General Election.  Pressure will undoubtedly grow within the Conservative Party not to enter into any further pact. 

I am one of those who would not wish to rule out further pacts or even a merger between the Conservatives and the UUP.  For one thing, the latter has many moderate civic unionists within it who could yet rise to the top.  If failure in the next Assembly Elections is the price that brings that about, it could very well be a price worth paying.  

Meanwhile, we in the Conservative Party should be patient.  We must allow time and space for the UUP to continue their evolution.  We should commit ourselves to working in partnership with the UUP at least until beyond the next Assembly Elections.  Above all, we need to remind ourselves that one of our aims is to influence the Unionist community towards our way of thinking.  We are much more likely to do that in a partnership with the UUP than outside it.  We must put any immediate prospect of dumping the UUP out of our minds.

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.

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.

The non-sectarian way is the only proper way to oppose Sinn Fein

In my previous post, following the Hatfield House meeting, I invited Owen Paterson to “clear the air” on speculation that the Conservatives may be agreeing to or acquiescing in a pan-unionist pact involving the DUP, which amounts to an entrenchment of sectarian politics. 

Before I go on, let me repeat that there were perfectly legitimate reasons for having the talks between the parties concerned.  The possible collapse of the Executive is a worry.  The Conservatives, acting as the party about to form a Government, would be absolutely right to explore ways to save to the Peace process.  

I do not claim to have any influence over Owen Paterson, let alone David Cameron.  What is perfectly obvious though is that with neither of them having spoken further about the talks, there remains a stench in the Northern Irish political air.   Unfortunately, the stench has become worse as the week has progressed.  Peter McCann and Sheila Davidson have now revealed that part of their reason for resigning as candidates was a fear that the UUP would do a separate deal with the DUP.   Furthermore, as The Times indicates, Mr. Paterson has not yet held talks with the Nationalist Parties. 

The result is that Conservatives are now left with a credibility problem as far as their non-sectarian credentials are concerned.  That problem is now being compounded by the ill-informed writings of journalists and bloggers from across the water.

Once the Labour Party weighed in with their criticism of the Hatfield House talks, it was inevitable, as the night follows the day, that some Conservative journalists would rise to the bait.  Benedict Brogan of the Daily Telegraph seems to have been the first fish to bite this worm. His piece is clearly written without any discussion of one of the central aims of the Tory / UUP pact, which is to drive sectarianism out of Northern Ireland Politics. 

A much more thoughtful piece was written on Conservative Home by Paul Goodman.  Much of it contained entirely sensible reasons why the Hatfield House meeting should have taken place.  It is therefore a pity that he wrote this sentence in support of Ben Brogan.

“It’s essential, Ben wrote, “to find political ways to ensure Sinn Fein doesn’t end up the winner as the result of the failure of Unionism in Northern Ireland to get its electoral act together” (and such ways, incidentally, don’t necessitate a DUP/UUP merger).

This is the first reason why we were right to promote the recent talks between pro-Union parties.”

The words “to find political ways to ensure Sinn Fein doesn’t end up the winner” have not been fully explained but it is difficult to read those words in any way other than that the Conservatives should be prepared to embrace a pan-unionist pact. 

I reject that notion.  It is worth repeating the fourth paragraph of the pre-amble to the Memorandum of Understanding which the Conservatives and the UUP signed up to on 20^th November 2008. 

“Both parties recognize the need to change politics in Northern Ireland, are committed to reaching out to the increasing numbers of alienated voters, and developing non sectarian politics in Northern Ireland.”

There is only one, non-sectarian, way to oppose Sinn Fein.  That is to fight for the votes of people from all communities at elections.  That may look like an insurmountable task to some.  It is not, so long as Conservative and Unionist politicians are prepared to take a very long – term view of politics.

UPDATE

I have just stumbled upon an email circular which was sent to me on Friday 22nd January by David Fry, the Conservative Agent for Northern Ireland.  It reads

“During his two day visit to Northern Ireland this week Mr Paterson met with deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness MP MLA to discuss the ongoing political instabilities in Northern Ireland”

That partially answers the criticism  in “the Times ”  reporting on the comments of Alasdair McDonnell.  Perhaps Mr. Paterson should be talking to the SDLP as well.