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

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

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

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

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

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

David McNarry has called for Owen Paterson’s head following his stated refusal to change the rule, enacted following the St. Andrews Agreement, that the First Minister will be the leader of the largest party – not the leader of the largest party within the largest designation. The rule has made it slightly more likely that Martin McGuinness will become First Minister, following the May Assembly elections.

Nobody here is surprised by what Owen Paterson has said. His position has been consistent for a long time. There will be no changing of any of the rules regulating Stormont without a consensus from both communities.

McNarry has also suggested that there is a difference of position between Owen Paterson and David Cameron. He is quite wrong. David Cameron has spoken out about his personal feelings when dealing with Martin McGuinness.  But he has also made clear the paramountcy of maintaining peace. He said:

”I do find it painful that I now sometimes sit around a table with Martin McGuinness and I think about what that man did.

”But everyone has to come to terms with that because that is the price we are paying for peace, and it is a price that is worth paying, because peace is so much better than the alternative.”

The idea that Conservatives would introduce a measure which would be likely to bring Stormont crashing down is ridiculous. It may be worth recalling the following words of the 2010 election manifesto, which the UUP once bought into

“In Northern Ireland, we strongly support the political institutions established over the past decade and we are committed to making devolution work.”

The Party has issued the following announcement copied by email to the membership:

“The Conservative Party in Northern Ireland has committed itself to an ongoing programme of campaigning and development and will shortly move into a new campaign headquarters in Bangor, Co. Down. A full time member of staff will be based at the headquarters and one of the Party’s most senior campaign directors has been appointed to liaise with the Party in Northern Ireland.

The Party is committed to the development of progressive centre right politics which offer the electorate of Northern Ireland the opportunity to cast their votes for and participate directly with the national Government of the United Kingdom.  The Party will continue to review how Conservatives in Northern Ireland can play a full part in the Conservative Party as in every other part of the United Kingdom and senior Conservatives in Northern Ireland will work with the Board of the Party to develop that relationship.

Central to that development will be the Party’s desire to see Conservative Associations formed in every Northern Ireland constituency and an active programme of membership recruitment at a local level.

Conservative Party co-chairman Baroness Warsi said: “The Conservative Party in Northern Ireland has the unequivocal support of the Party nationally. Politics in Northern Ireland continues to evolve and we are determined to be at the heart of that evolution. Our approach will be one of active engagement – starting with the fielding of candidates in the Local Council elections in May.”

With that issue having been settled, the regional chairman of the Conservatives, Irwin Armstrong has now withdrawn his offer to resign. So is this the end of the uncertainty for Northern Ireland conservatives?

Jeffrey Peel’s headline suggests that the Conservative Party has “dumped” the UUP. In his statement on the question of fielding candidates at Assembly elections, Irwin Armstrong has said as follows:

“Members of our Executive have agreed that we would not now be able to properly contest the Assembly elections as we will not have the necessary infrastructure in place due to the events of recent months.”

The right to field Assembly (and presumably Parliamentary) candidates in the future is very important but there will be no further elections on the horizon (except the Euros) for four years.  Furthermore, you do not need an “infrastructure” to field a candidate. Ask an Independent. You just need to be able to register and pay the deposit.

There is a very strong case for the Conservatives putting up candidates, even in the limited time and space available. Nobody would suggest that a Conservative candidate would stand much chance of winning an Assembly seat but the act of fielding candidates would make the clearest possible statement to the electorate that the party no longer has any ties with the UUP.

Last November, Conservative leaders promised the UUP that they would not be fielding candidates.  The effect of this latest declaration is that the Conservatives will not be breaking that promise.  The UUP may now be in the equivalent of a bin liner but it could be taken out of it later.  It is much too early to say that it has been dumped.

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.

OK, you all know the answer. A Nationalist or Republican would usually only say “Derry.” A unionist would usually say “Londonderry.” If Martin McGuinness made that gaffe, I suspect that his supporters would be angered and embarrassed in equal measure.

That is the nearest local analogy that I can think of to describe the gaffe make by Nicolas Sarkozy when he visited Alsace, a region of North-Eastern France on the border with Germany. Except that the gaffe was far worse than that. Firstly, the background.

In 1871, France went to war with Germany after the German States merged to become a Prussian – dominated German Empire. The French lost the war and part of its lands. The Germans annexed the territory known as “Alsace-Lorraine” which remained in their possession until the end of the First World War. In the Second World War, the region was, again, treated as part of Germany.

As the Telegraph reports:

“Mr Sarkozy made the slip during a speech in the Alsatian town of Truchtersheim, less than 20 miles from the German border.

Speaking to representatives of the agricultural industry, Mr Sarkozy said he could accepted unfair competition between China and India, but not between Germany and France.

"I’m not saying that simply because I’m in Germany," he said, before correcting himself to say: "I’m in Alsace."

The crowd immediately began jeering and then booing Mr Sarkozy, who appeared shocked by what he had said " putting his hands up in the air as if surrender. “

To be fair to Sarko, it was probably an innocent slip of the tongue. "Allemagne" (meaning Germany) and "Alsace" are phonetically very similar words of the French language.  

After two previous public Inquiries, we were still some way away from finding out the full facts about the Government’s conduct of the Iraq crisis and the decision to go to war.

In September 2002, the Government published a dossier, which was laid before Parliament. The dossier contained allegations that Iraq held biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction and had reconstituted its nuclear weapons programme. The dossier was based upon the interpretation of intelligence available to the Joint Intelligence Committee. The findings in the dossier were used as a justification for going to war with Iraq. After the war, the allegations contained in dossier were discredited.

The first Inquiry, led by Lord Hutton, was tasked with finding out the reasons for the death of Dr. David Kelly, a former biological weapons expert and employee of the Ministry of Defence. Dr. Kelly was the source used by BBC reporter, Andrew Gilligan, to justify his allegation that the Government had “sexed up” the dossier. Consequently, it was alleged that Tony Blair and the Labour Government had misled Parliament. After being named as Gilligan’s source, Dr. Kelly committed suicide.

The Hutton report was published in January 2004. The report was highly critical of the journalistic standards of the BBC and Mr. Gilligan, in particular. More importantly, Hutton exonerated the Government, having concluded that the Government was unaware of the reservations, relating to the evidence about WMD, within the intelligence community.

In February 2004, the Government initiated a review into the intelligence relating to Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. The review also dealt with wider issues of intelligence relating to countries of concern, other than Iraq. However, the review was not concerned with the political decision-making leading up to the war. That deficit in the remit of the review forms part of the context in which this latest story is developing.

The review was chaired by Lord Butler. Lord Butler’s report was published in July 2004. The report concluded that Intelligence had not checked their sources thoroughly enough. The intelligence was flawed. Furthermore, warnings from the Joint Intelligence Committee on the limitations of intelligence were not made clear. Read the BBC’s summary of the report here.

Many were not satisfied by the report. The exemption of political decision-making from its remit left an important gap in public knowledge which had not been filled by the time of the 2005 General election.

The Chilcott Inquiry into the UK’s role and involvement in the Iraq war was announced by Gordon Brown in June 2009. It has been ongoing since November 2009.

This Friday, Tony Blair will give evidence to the Inquiry. He will presumably provide answers to the criticisms of Lord Goldsmith.  The UK has waited far too long for the full truth to come out about the Iraq war.  Let us hope that we may soon, at last, get a proper insight into what really happened. 

It was the demise of Munster and the rise of Ulster.  For the first time in 13 years, Munster failed to reach the quarter-final of the Heineken Cup, losing 32 – 16 to Toulon.  At the other end of the Irish Rugby scale, Ulster beat tournament favourites, Biarritz of France.

As a former resident of Limerick (Ireland’s rugby capital), I know how my friends down south are feeling right now. They follow Munster with passionate devotion. For them, this really is a sporting Armageddon.   Such was the blow to them that I even resisted the temptation to slag that it was the English fly-half, Johnny Wilkinson, who did much of the damage.

Some will blame the team’s poor showing in this competition on injuries.  Certainly, that has not helped.  It may be, however, that the spine of this present team is ageing and in decline. 

Perhaps Munster needed this defeat. They have come back many times from the brink to grab a quarter final place.   Now, they can accept that they need to re-build their team.  Munster will rise to glory again.

Contrast Munster’s position with Ulster, whose fortunes in this competition are almost a mirror reversal.  Ulster are still in the competition following their famous 9 – 6 win on Saturday against Biarritz.  Ian Humphries did the business. 

If Ulster win next week against bottom-of-the-pool Aironi of Italy, they are almost certain to obtain a quarter final place.  Biarritz have a harder game against Bath but are still favourites to win that match.  Ulster will win the group if they achieve one more point more than Biarritz next week.  A weekend trip to Viadana now looks tempting.

The Coalition has lost popularity since it came to power. There is no surprise here. Indeed, senior Conservatives and Liberal Democrats had urged their supporters to prepare for unpopularity.

Opinion polls are important at any time in a political cycle. Early in a Government’s administration, they are a useful guide to predicting by-elections and local authority elections.

The Conservative opinion poll rating has hardly changed at all. Their rolling average is 37.03, compared with their general election poll of 36.93%. The big change has been in the Lib Dem share of the vote, down 13% from 23.56%. 10.5% of those lost Lib Dem voters have swung to Labour. The latter now top the opinion poll ratings with 39.95%. If those swings were repeated on a uniform trend in a general election, Labour would be back in power, winning about 336 seats and a comfortable overall majority in the House of Commons.

We are, of course, in a period of austerity where unpopular measures being taken by the Government are beginning to bite hard. At the moment, the Conservative leadership is very unlikely to be unflustered by the drop in popularity. For the following reasons, they are likely to take them with a pinch of salt for the next couple of years, at least.

When the Conservatives came to power in 1979, they won 339 seats, 43.9% of the popular vote and a very comfortable overall commons majority. The legacy of the outgoing Labour administration was very high inflation, over taxation, poor industrial relations and the outlook of a nation whose economic prospects were spiralling downwards. Their most urgent priority was to bring down inflation. The minimum lending rate shot up. The exchange rate went up. Manufacturing production fell violently. Businesses were forced to make savings either through wage cuts or redundancies. If they did not succeed, they went bankrupt. Unemployment rocketed to more than 3 million. The recession of 1979 to 1981 was the worst that the country had suffered since the early 1930s.

The lost production which occurs during a recession always takes longer than the period of the recession to claw back. In that recession, the level of GDP did not return to its pre-recession high until about the time of the May 1983 General Election. There were multiple reasons why the Conservatives won that election by a landslide. Labour’s lurch to the far left was a very big factor. Back then, we were still fighting a cold war and we had just fought a conventional war in the Falkland Islands. The war exposed Michael Foot’s pacifism. However, just as big a reason for the Conservative victory was the return of the economic feel-good factor. Inflation had by then come down to below 4%. Correspondingly, interest rates had come down. Unemployment was falling and the economy was growing.

There are big differences between the fortunes of Mrs. Thatcher’s first administration and the prospects of this present coalition government. The obvious one is that this is a government of two parties. Another one is that this Government took power about 6 months after the end of a recession, meaning that the change of Government took place at different stages of the economic cycle. We have not yet reached the stage of full GDP recovery. That is not expected to occur until about late spring 2012. A general election in May 2015 will be approximately 3 years into full recovery. In terms of the relationship between economic cycles and political fortune, the 2015 election may be more comparable to the 1987 general election. By that time, the UK was 4 years into recovery. There was a new, more realistic, Labour leader. The Conservatives still won the election with a majority of more than 100 seats in the House of Commons.

It might not be as simple as that. It is not so easy for a Government of two parties to maintain discipline. The economic problems of this government are about controlling debt, rather than inflation. That is a longer-term problem requiring longer-lasting economic pain. The effects of the Government’s economic medicine – spending cuts and taxation increases – will still be felt in 2015. The budget deficit is not scheduled to be in balance until 2016 and new (almost certainly unpopular) measures will be needed to tackle the welfare time bomb.

2013 to mid 2014 is likely to be a crucial period. That is when you should see a start to a reversal in trends in the opinion polls. Until then, we can ignore them as national news. Certainly, I will.

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.

One of the curiosities of the Agreement is that the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, James Molineaux was not consulted as the negotiations progressed. This is most odd. That the negotiations were taking place was not a state secret. From time to time, the fact of these discussions was made public. The SDLP was certainly consulted. In about September 1984, the Conservative Party, in edition No. 31 of their contact programme (“CPC 31”), published a detailed brief on the state of the negotiations at that time. It was available for sale in the Conservative Party bookshop for anybody who wanted to buy a copy. A link to this document can be located on the Conservative Party Archive website.

It is not as though the Ulster Unionists were sitting there doing nothing about the political problems either. In May 1984, they published their own document “the Way forward” (also for sale in the CPC bookshop). 

Perhaps when the Government archives are published in 3-4 years time, we will have a more precise picture on unionist consultation.

CPC 31 mentions the three proposals put forward by the Irish Government which were rejected by Mrs. Thatcher.  These were: a unitary state; a federal or confederal state; or joint authority. Dr. Fitzgerald, writing in the Irish times, recalled Mrs. Thatcher’s public reaction to those proposals in November 1984, some time after they were rejected.

On Open Unionism, in a post entitled “Reflections on the Anglo-Irish Agreement,” Turgon articulates the mainstream unionist view of the agreement. He recalls the sense of betrayal felt by unionists following the agreement. The Government would have known how Unionists would have reacted to the proposals, regardless of whether or not they had been consulted.  Why, then, did they risk alienating the great mass of the unionist population?

Better security was often cited as the main reason for it. Certainly, Mrs. Thatcher put a strong emphasis on the importance of better security but if that all there was to it, the agreement would not have taken place.

The 1981 hunger strikes proved to be a watershed in Northern Ireland’s political history. It launched the political career of Gerry Adams and later Sinn Fein representatives. This development worried the ROI Government, particularly.

The Catholic population in Northern Ireland was a large minority but barely represented in Parliament. In the 1983 General Election, the number of seats in Northern Ireland had been increased from 12 to 17. Still, the representation of the Catholic Population at Parliament was very small. Of those 17 seats, Gerry Adams of Sinn Fein had been elected as MP for West Belfast in place of Gerry Fitt. The only other non-unionist MP to be elected was John Hume in the constituency of Foyle.

The Government, rightly, perceived that there was a link between support for terrorism in the Catholic community and the lack of political representation. Looking for a solution to this problem remained a Government policy, despite the collapse of Sunningdale.

James Prior, Northern Ireland Secretary of State (1981-1984) summarised five principles which had to be observed, if there was political advance. These are set out in set out in contact programme document No. 31 at page 5: They were:

(i) The Constitutional position of Northern Ireland of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom can only be changed freely given consent of its people. This is not a matter of law. Any other approach would be immoral, undemocratic and unworkable.

(ii) Not all of the political aspirations of the two communities can be completely or equally satisfied. There are two identities to be accommodated, in an environment where alienation exists on both sides.

(iii) The government and administration of the Province must ultimately remain a matter for Parliament. This means that there cannot be any Unionist or nationalist veto over the framework which Parliament prescribes.

(iv) The distinctive needs of Northern Ireland are best met through a devolved administration commanding support from both sides of the community. In the absence of agreement the Government will continue to administer the Province in the way it judges to be in the best interests of all the people and of the United Kingdom as a whole. The determination of the majority to maintain the Union must be upheld but this must be balanced by showing due regard for the minority’s interests in any internal arrangements.

(v) Geography, history and economic interest together with the identification many in Northern Ireland feel with Dublin call for a closer relationship between the United Kingdom and the Republic.

There was nothing wrong with the Government’s principles or motives for signing the Agreement.  As it turned out, the Agreement yielded very little in terms of security gains. However, the political gains are still underrated. The agreement, fully supported by the SDLP helped many Northern Irish nationalists to see the UK Government in a new light. The agreement also secured formal recognition, by a Republic of Ireland Government, that Northern Ireland was a part of the United Kingdom.

Today, the scars of the Anglo Irish Agreement are still felt by unionists. At the Ulster Unionist Party conference in December 2008, David Cameron felt compelled (albeit in an oblique manner) to make an apology for the signing of the Agreement.  Looking back on that speech, David Cameron’s apology had more to do with appeasing Ulster Unionists than taking responsibility for a political wrongdoing.  He should not have made that apology, unreservedly. 

The unfortunate thing is that many Northern Irish Unionists still do not seem to recognise their community’s failure to be fair to Catholics in the past was a major cause of the Anglo-Irish agreement coming into effect. In CPC 31, the Conservatives said this about a UUC proposal to turn the regional Assembly into a super council:

“The local Government was the sphere where most of the discrimination has tended to take place; matters such as housing and education are thus extremely sensitive.”

Back in 1985, power sharing seemed a long way off and Northern Ireland unionists were angry. They can not deny that the Agreement was a stepping stone to the Belfast Agreement.

In years to come, they will not be able to deny that the Belfast Agreement (and therefore the Anglo Irish Agreement) paved the way for peace, prosperity, a stronger union and a shared future for Northern Irish people.

Conservatives, meanwhile, should not be ashamed of the Anglo-Irish agreement. They have every reason to be proud of their government’s achievement at the time.