Conservatives prepare for UUP failure but they might still be hedging

At long last, agreement has finally been reached between the Northern Ireland Regional Conservatives and the Conservative leadership on a strategy for promoting Conservativism into the future.

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With that issue having been settled, the regional chairman of the Conservatives, Irwin Armstrong has now withdrawn his offer to resign.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.

The future is bright but it certainly isn’t Orange

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The powerful thoughts of a Scottish Tory may shed some light on the Northern Ireland problem

No Conservative needs to be reminded that the Conservative Party has a problem with Scotland.

Since before the General Election, I have followed what bloggers and politicians have been saying about the causes of the problem and what to do about it but always bearing in mind that the problems of Scotland and Northern Ireland are not the same. Picking out the features of the Scottish problem and applying those parts of it, which are relevant to the Northern Ireland problem is not a straightforward exercise. The exercise is an important one, nevertheless. Back in June, I wrote my first post on this subject.

A few weeks ago, the Sanderson report was completed. Since I published a post in reaction to media commentary, I have had an opportunity to read the full report. Despite the report’s very hard-hitting observations on party organisation and structure, I could not help feeling that the report fell short of proper analysis on the prospects for an Independent Scottish Party.

I am now glad to say that another Conservative with far more knowledge of this subject than me has written a post, which cuts very deep and makes a case to answer for an independent party. He is Blair Murray and his post has been published on Conservative Home.

Murray makes some important observations about where ‘would be’ tories have parked their vote:

“The fact is that there are many centre-Right voters in Scotland who do not vote Tory. In rural areas, particularly in the Highlands, they vote Lib Dem. In the North-East and in urban areas many vote SNP. Indeed, canvassing in previous elections it became clear to me that many SNP supporters would prefer lower taxes, incentives for business and less government regulation. Some of these voters were even ambivalent towards the SNP’s central goal of independence. It is these voters, to the right of Scottish Labour on economic arguments, that we must win in the future.”

Murray also makes very important points relating to the history of the Scottish Unionist Party leading up to the merger with the Conservatives in 1965. An important Scottish political identity had effectively been killed. Murray makes this very important observation about the branding and identity of political parties in Scotland before the merger:

“What all of these have in common is the deliberate avoidance of the term ‘Conservative’, which had always been associated with the English party. The effect of the 1965 merger should be clear for all to see.”

Murray also defends the proposal to give Holyrood greater fiscal autonomy and argues against those who say that it is more likely to lead to Scottish independence.

I totally agree. A look at history might help to understand the Scottish psyche a little better. The Scots were not conquered by England. The first Unionist was a Scot. Somewhere buried deeply in the Scottish psyche is a desire to be seen as having parity with the English.

Murray concludes:

“All the evidence shows that Scots feel more Scottish than British. Incidentally, the evidence also shows that the English feel increasingly English rather than British. This does not for a moment mean that those who feel more Scottish or more English want the UK to split. Most of us are comfortable with overlapping identities. I, like most Conservatives, am a passionate supporter of the Union. And many of those voters in Scotland who feel more Scottish than British would vote for a party of the centre-Right. They would vote for a party supportive of enterprise and social stability, emphasising tradition and responsibilities as well as rights. At the moment they don’t. Only by becoming like those voters – proudly Scottish but supportive of the UK – will the Scottish Conservatives become a success.”

Identity is a key problem in Northern Ireland too. I make no bones about the fact that it is not easy to persuade a voter who is a unionist to make a journey which leaves behind the comfort zone of a party with a unionist identity. Just reading the exchanges that I have had on this blog with Conservative officials bears that out.  It will also be just as difficult to persuade Nationalists to leave the comfort zone of a party with a nationalist identity.

There are three powerful arguments in response to that which lend weight to the theory that the Northern Ireland Centre Right campaign is the right one to break down this paradox. Firstly, a party which is neutral on the constitutional position shortens that journey by half. Secondly, the overwhelming majority of Northern Irish people want an end to sectarianism. Thirdly, a Conservative Regional party which makes that journey from its present position would send a very inspiring powerful signal of leadership to the Northern Irish people.

NI Centre Right Campaign strengthened by events of the last week

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scottish Conservatives will not be separated from the main party in the near future.

As reported in the Scotsman today, the review by the committee, headed by Lord Sanderson, on the failure by the Conservative Party, to achieve electoral success in Scotland at the general election, has now been published.  The report will be regarded with keen interest by Northern Ireland Conservatives, as they look to make comparisons with the failure of UCUNF campaign in Northern Ireland.

According to the BBC, the review has recommended a “major overhaul.”

"significant weaknesses" in the party’s decision-making structure need to be tackled and more full-time staff taken on, including a chief policy adviser”

"The consistent themes in the many submissions we received were of a need for clarity of leadership, a distinctive Scottish identity, a welcoming and broader party, increased decentralisation of the party structure and the empowerment of the members.”

The report recommends the creation of a new Scottish Party leader, who need not necessarily be same person as the leader of the Conservative MSP group in Holyrood.

The report also recommends the creation of a post of Scottish Conservative Party leader.   The present position is that Annabelle Goldie is merely the leader of the Scottish Conservative group in Holyrood. 

The report provides some acknowledgement that the Conservative brand North of the Border is toxic in the sense that it is anti-Scottish.  The Scotsman says:

“The review lays out the Scottish party’s problems with brutal honesty, noting how polling shows Scots remain unclear about "what the Scottish Conservatives stand for", except that they still consider the party to be "anti-Scottish"

According to the BBC, this ‘anti-Scottish perceptions originates from the days of Margaret Thatcher (when the poll tax was introduced). 

However, the report does not make any recommendation to change the party’s branding.  According to a report by STV:

“The Commission also said there was no need for the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party to change its name, stating: "The problem is not the party’s name or logo, but its failure to convey clearly and consistently what it believes in and stands for."

Clearly then, the review implies that the perception that the Conservatives are ‘anti-Scottish’ can be changed by conventional campaigning.   With respect to the Sanderson committee, the Party has been trying to change that perception, without success, for the last 20 years.  Having a Scottish Conservative leader is only tinkering with this problem.   Scots will rightly conclude that such a leader is still a puppet of the London Party.  

It is regrettable that the committee has not fully ‘grasped the nettle’ of toxicity.  For Northern Irish Conservatives who want to see a new Independent party, this effectively indicates that there will be no change of the position here for the next few years, at least. 

Ireland “A society that disappeared up its own backside”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robinson is moving the DUP towards becoming a moderate party

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Labour Petition to fight elections in Northern Ireland

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

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

Campaign for a New Northern Ireland Centre-Right Party begins

I was not the first blogger to advocate the creation of a new non-designated centre-right political party for Northern Ireland and I am now not the last.

I have launched my own campaign for the Northern Ireland regional branch of the Conservative Party to be converted into this new centre-right party with a new name.  The focus of this campaign is set out at my new blog.

All debate on this subject (whether supportive or hostile) is welcome and I invite anybody who has an opinion on the subject to comment on the new blog.

“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.