“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.

A fast track for ending sectarian politics – the triple Alliance

Last night, I enjoyed watching the results of the Euro Elections coming in.   It was a good night for the centre-right across Europe.  

Perhaps that last sentence would be meaningless to most people.  In years to come, politics will have moved on and what happens with political parties all over Europe will matter, whether we like it or not.  In this context, this is not a bad time to wheel out an idea that formed just after the Conservatives negotiated their agreement with the UUP. 

The idea originated after I thought about the potential alliance between Fianna Fáil and the  SDLP .  

When I first heard (some years ago) that the SDLP and Fianna Fail were negotiating a political alliance, I pondered about whether this would be a good or a bad thing.  I originally thought that anything which would weaken Sinn Fein was a good thing.  As my thoughts developed, and believing that Fianna Fáil  was a conservative party, I thought it was a bad thing.  The SDLP is a party of the socialist left.  It seemed to be like “trying to put a square peg into a round hole”

I re-considered that question after a friend of mine insisted that Fianna Fáil is a party of the left.   I checked again.  Looking at the Fianna Fáil website, it is obviously a Republican party.  It also states that it has a commitment to the historic principles of European republican philosophy, namely liberty, equality and fraternity.  On Wikepedia, it is stated that the party is Liberal Conservative.  In Europe, it is a member of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.  It seems to be more like a Lib Dem Party.  Whether Lib dem or liberal Conservative, the SDLP are far more fixed on the socialist wing of political philosophy.  Somehow, I still dont think those two parties would make very comfortable political bedfellows.  Let us suppose, however, that they were able to.

The problem with such a set up is that it would be a Nationalist alliance, unable to attract voters from the Protestant community except in a protest vote.  They might be able to make inroads into the Sinn Fein vote.  Unfortunately, I still do not think it would help towards establishing normal politics.   

The recession has meant that the SDLP and Fianna Fáil have postponed their alliance indefinitely.  I do not know if that project will ever re-surface.  It may be better for both parties if it did not.  If the SDLP wants to be a cross- community party, it needs the British Labour Party.  The problem with that is that it inhibits its Nationalist identity that it would want to keep.  How can it resolve that?

I would suggest that the SDLP enters into a triple alliance with the Labour Party in Britain and the Labour Party in the Republic of Ireland to promote a pan-British Isles socialist agenda.  Whichever way you cut it, Northern Ireland has business and cultural intimacy with both Britain and the Republic of Ireland.  This would be a way of promoting socialism in Northern Ireland with an Irish element but without diminishing the British link.  Such a relationship may be one which both Irish and British socialists could buy into. 

Such a relationship would actually achieve more than just setting right the SDLP.   Whichever way you cut it, Northern Ireland has a business and cultural intimacy with both Britain and the Republic of Ireland.  It would add a new exciting dimension to cross-border politics.  This leads me to the idea that I had.

In the next few years, we will get an idea of the extent to which the Conservatives and the UUP have been successful attracting Catholic voters who have conservative values.  The means by which this ought to be achieved may be difficult for unionists to accept.  I am also concerned that unionists in Northern Ireland may not find it easy to think in terms of conservativism without getting away from their fixation on the Union.  There is also a possibility that no matter how many “olive branches” are made towards the Catholic community, the CU brand is too toxic to ever be attractive to Catholics who are naturally conservative.  Is there a faster route to breaking down sectarian politics?

I think there is but readers of this post – at least in 2009 – may prefer to “shoot down in flames” the idea.  Alternatively, the reader who likes “thinking outside the box,” might warm to it.  It has many advantages but it would be extremely difficult to sell because it requires unionists in Northern Ireland to make a quantum leap in their political thinking. 

That is why I was almost afraid to talk about the idea until now.   A couple of days ago, I read a post written by Horseman, in response to one of mine in relation to a CU candidate.  Horseman was not correct in assuming that UCUNF was formed in order to co-opt Catholics into Unionism.  It was formed to promote conservativism in Northern Ireland.  However, if the UCUNF project is to be successful, it requires that sectarian politics is brought to an end.  I do accept what some unionists have told me which is that the preservation of the Union is likely to be a by-product of such an achievement. 

I agree with Horseman’s analysis that more Irishness would strengthen the union.  This is entirely consistent with the Conservative core aim, which is to improve the well-being of Northern Irish people.  That includes embracing cultural diversity.

Looking to the future, I believe that more intimacy is needed for the economic and cultural well-being of Northern Ireland.  That means, particularly, freeing up obstacles to cross-border trade, joint planning capital projects, shared public services, shared development or any other public concern which could make efficient use of the land border.

Furthering Northern Ireland’s interest on the other side of the border would have added dynamism if there was a political party on the other side to promote Northern Ireland’s interest.  In the scenario that I have already provided, the left achieves this by through a triple alliance of the three labour parties.  The conservatives and the UUP could also achieve that by aligning with Fine Gael.  In practice, that would mean, effectively, Fine Gael joining the New Force.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fine Gael is a conservative party, although it calls itself a party of the “progressive centre.”  It is a member of the centre right EPP.  With the Conservatives set to leave the EPP, it will now be in a slightly different political position in Europe.  In Ireland, however, there is no reason why Fine Gael should not be invited to set up in Northern Ireland and join a conservative triple alliance.  Would Northern Irish people want this?

I have no doubt that they would.  However, I dont think many unionists are anywhere near being ready for this kind of politics.  Most of them, including some of their politicians, have a mindset which leads them cynically to conclude that ideas involving anything to do with the Republic of Ireland are a trojan horse for bringing about a united Ireland.   We are perhaps 10 years or so away from an idea like this being taken seriously, unless the Labour Party and the SDLP get there first.

Allister benefits as he lets the papers make a meal out of the Robinsons

Cast your eye over some of the comments attached to the Belfast Telegraph report on Peter and Irish Robinson and you might notice something that I did.  

It was not just public disgust.  It was anger everywhere.  I believe that we are in for something of a watershed in the European Elections.  Labour will be hit by it.  So will the Conservatives.  There may even be an additional dimension to this in Northern Ireland.

Until last year, the leader of the DUP (previously named the “Protestant Unionist Party) was Revd. Ian Paisley.  This is the man for half a century managed to mix religion and politics.  He was despised by many from the Catholic community.  There was no shortage of bigotry in his speeches.  There was plenty of distortion of facts in a lot of the things he said.  Was he ever found to be dishonest?   

I am not aware of any allegations of dishonesty against Revd. Paisley. It looks very much as though he remains the non-smoking, non-drinking, bible-adherent fundamentalist Protestant.   

One of Paisley’s legacies is that orthodox Protestantism seems to form part of the DUP’s ideology.  That is apparent from some of the things that their politicians say on matters such as creationism.  I am therefore wondering if the impact of the Robinson’s expenses claims will be far greater than just a couple of weeks of embarrassment.  Will a lot of people not feel too let down to forgive or will they more easily forgive?  

One politician who may be wondering if divine intervention is going his way is Jim Allister. Allister is a chip off the old DUP bible-thumping block.  The timing of the scandal could not have been much better for Allister.  In fact, he seems to be so confident about the impact of the story on the Robinsons that he has not even named them directly in his latest post.  He also uses his post to highlight his good transparency in that his expenses are posted on his website.  

There’s only one good piece of news that would top what has already happened – An expense claims scandal against Nigel Dodds. Casting my eye over the table that I published on 31^st March, lo and behold, he is the Northern Ireland MP with the second-highest aggregate expense claim.  Hmmm.

The other anniversary

Today, there are two anniversaries.  The big one, which I have already alluded to in an earlier post two days ago is the 30th Anniversary of Mrs. Thatcher becoming Prime Minister.  

A rather lesser known anniversary is that the current Stormont Executive in which the DUP and Sinn Fein respectively hold the First and Deputy first Ministries, is now two years old.  

Plenty has happened in those two years.  It began with Revd.Ian Paisley becoming the First Minister at the twilight of his career.  Going into partnership with Sinn Fein prompted much anger amongst many of the DUP’s own supporters.  This has caused a schism within the DUP.  Their MEP, Jim Allister, resigned from the DUP, formed his own party and took with him a very substantial chunk of their support.  We do not yet know how much of the DUP is left.  There have been no opinion polls and the only yardstick we have had is the Dromore Council by-election.  

Ian Paisley retired to make way for Peter Robinson.  Straight away, there was difficulty as Sinn Fein boycotted executive meetings in response to apparent failure to devolve policing and justice.  This was a battle of nerves which the DUP eventually won.  Having accepted that they all faced electoral fallout if they did not get back to Government, they reached a deal on devolution of Police and Justice last November.  The DUP now control the timing of devolution of Police and Justice.   

The months of Executive inactivity meant that the Executive had to act quickly on certain matters.  They almost tripped over themselves as they brought in the Financial Assistance Bill described by some politicians as “emergency powers” legislation to enable certain welfare payments including winter fuel poverty allowances to be paid.  In the middle of the debate on the Bill, Mark Durkan fell foul of Parliamentary standards.   

At about the same time, it was near “crunch time” on academic selection.  With no yielding from the Unionists, no legislation could be brought forth to end it.  The Education Minister, Catriona Ruane faced with two assembly motions to put temporary tests in place chose to leave matters at an impasse.  This has forced Grammar Schools to “do their own thing.”  In effect, the system remains without a centrally organized transfer test exam and no orderly system for the administration of admissions.   

With the impact of the recession increasing, it was inevitable that the pre-agreed financing of the Programme for Government might need to be revised.  Pressure has come to bear on Nigel Dodds, the Minister for Finance to reach agreement through the executive for changes to the finance package. UUP politicians have made reference to a 1 billion “black hole” which so far, Dodds has denied. On the other hand, there has been recent acknowledgement by the DUP that there will have to be cuts in public spending.  This issue is set to develop further.    

The most colourful of Northern Ireland’s politicians is the DUP’s Sammy Wilson.  Who ever would have thought that the Minister for the Environment would turn out to be a denier that climate change was man made?  Who would have thought that he would have interfered with Government advertising campaigns to help people save energy? Rumour is growing around Stormont that Sammy Wilson will be removed after the June 4^th election.  If that is true, it will take away some of the fun for journalists and bloggers like me.  To be honest though, it would be the right decision.    

Other ministries have had a relatively quiet time, or have they?  Margaret Ritchie, the   Minister has been in the spotlight recently for having her decision to withdraw funding for Farset, which was quashed by the Courts.  Michele Gildernew, the Agriculture Minister, gave a demonstration of how ideology affected decision-making in her department.  She also  became embroiled in controversy over the handing out of grants under the Rural Development Programme for Northern Ireland (2007-13)   

Dissident Republican terrorism brought about the murder of a police officer and two soldiers.  The First Minister and Deputy First Minister had the opportunity to display solidarity.  Martin McGuiness, in particular, sailed as far as anybody from his party could go on criticizing the dissidents with his now famous quote: “they are traitors to the Island of Ireland.”   

Overall, it has been an interesting two years.  We have seen the parties bash each other like never before.  The opposition have scored some hits, most notably over double jobbing and expenses whilst the DUP and Sinn Fein have scored a massive own-goal over bullying and their war with the media.   

Of course, the defects in power sharing are there for all to see.  There is no such thing as collective cabinet responsibility and there is resultantly much more negativity in decision making.  The impasse on educational issues is a classic example of that. 

The next two years of the Executive are likely to be just as interesting as the first two.   In the Belfast Telegraph today, the Challenges facing the Executive have been identified in the areas of Devolution of Policing and Justice,  Education,  Irish Language,  National Stadium Funding,  the Review of Public Administration and Parades.  These are all contentious issues, yet somehow I feel that cuts in public spending will be at the centre of contention.   

As the recession continues to bite, one is left wondering how vulnerable to negative voter opinion the UUP and the SDLP are as occupiers of the 3 most high-spending ministries.  Will they be politically vulnerable to high-profile spending cuts?  Will the DUP be tempted to try and abuse its position as the controller of Finance Ministry?  We shall see.

When it comes to human rights, the DUP is not a party to be trusted

Iris Robinson will not be prosecuted over remarks that she make last year about Homosexuals. 

Reports about what she said are well documented elsewhere and I will not repeat them here.  I am not surprised that there will not be a prosecution.  I thought that when I heard there would be an investigation, thinking with my Lawyer’s hat.  That will be of little consolation to people from the Gay community who see this as an injustice.  

I wish I could say that in some way, Iris Robinson will pay a significant political price for her remarks. Most of those who support her do not disagree with what she said.  Her husband, the First Minister, Peter Robinson has since defended her remarks using references to the Bible, particularly in the Old Testament where the practice of Homosexuality is referred to as an abomination (e.g. Leviticus 18:22).  

By contrast, discrimination laws, whether about employment or Human Rights, have developed and by-passed the Bible as a moral starting point for making law.  It is as if we need a new equivalent of Charles Darwin to take religion out of the dark ages on this subject. 

For anybody who would like an authorititave scientific understanding of homosexuality, I recommend a book entitled “Why men don’t listen and why women cant read maps” by Alan and Barbara Pease, two famous psychologists.  The book is easy for a lay person to follow.  It provides a wonderful insight into the differences between male and female brain-wiring.  People I have talked to who have read the book have acknowledged the positive impact of the book on their own prejudices, not only towards the opposite sex, but towards homosexuals too.  

There are many who do not agree with the laws against discrimination, particularly DUP politicians.  Indeed, the DUP do not like Human Rights, full stop.  Last summer, they supported the Labour Party over the 42-day bill despite Labour’s failure to put a case to Parliament that a longer detention period was needed to deal with terrorism.  Last November, Sammy Wilson MLA, once again demonstrating his tendency not to appreciate the bigger picture, called for a debate in Parliament on Human Rights.  This was because he could not accept reporting restrictions in relation to alleged drug trafficking.   

More than 2 years ago, Peter Hain, then Northern Ireland Secretary, pushed through regulations on sexual orientation in order to prevent them being blocked by the DUP.  When it comes to Human Rights, the DUP is not a party to be trusted. 

Sinn Fein’s Conor Murphy in legal row over changes to Executive document

A dispute could now be decided in the Courts after Sinn Fein’s Minister for Regional Development, Mr. Conor Murphy, made alterations to an official executive document.  

It was reported in the Belfast Telegraph yesterday that Mr. Conor Murphy has made changes to the wording of Department for Regional development strategy blueprint for growth.  The motives for the changes are clearly based upon Republican Ideology.  References to “Northern Ireland” have been changed to “the North” whilst references to “Londonderry” have been changed to “Derry”  

The Londonderry/Derry name dispute is an old chestnut.  It is not necessary to go into detail here because the history of the dispute and the legal position are set out on Wikepedia. 

As the law stands, the City is called “Londonderry” even though the local council bears the shorter name “Derry”.  Personally, I don’t have any real preference for either name.  I would be happy to have the city re-named “New Derry” or any other name, if that helped both communities to move on.  

The change of the wording from “Northern Ireland” to “the North” is much more serious.  This particular alteration is likely to lead anybody reading the document to confuse “the North” with somewhere like Londonderry/Derry or some other place in the North of Northern Ireland.   Mr. Murphy may wish to reflect upon the likelihood that people from anywhere in the world could be reading the blueprint on the Department for Regional Development website.  

Mr. Murphy and Sinn Fein must accept the original text.  If they do not, then Mr. Robinson would be right to take the matter to Court.  Mr. Murphy could also find himself on the receiving end of sanctions for breaching the Ministerial code.  Once again, we are reminded of Sinn Fein’s propensity for ideology to become a barrier in the way of sensible decision-making.

As long as there is silence there is still hope

The Conservatives and the Ulster Unionists are now locked in dialogue over what happens next with logo and colours for the new website.  As we wait for the outcome of those discussions, it is worth reminding ourselves what has brought us here and what we all want.

Normal politics has been our goal since long before agreement with the UUP was reached. It was also a UUP objective before the agreement. The UUP may not have done what was necessary to achieve that but it is worth reflecting upon the sacrifices that they have made.

The fact that we are presently talking about normal politics owes much to the fact that the Good Friday Agreement was negotiated and sealed the principle of consent. Much of credit has to go to Mr. Trimble and the UUP for taking the risks that they did for lasting peace. They were successful politically. Electorally they paid a very heavy price. David Cameron said “I salute you for that”. So indeed do I.

Those electoral losses were milestones on a long journey which will eventually end with normal politics and electoral success. I believe that will happen. There are positive signs that other changes are happening within the UUP that are necessary to bring about normal politics. For example, in a response to my last post, a blogger from the UUP has admitted that he was too far to the left to be a Conservative. That should not be viewed negatively. This is a painful but necessary side effect of the link-up. Before and during these negotiations began, all involved knew that the UUP would have to lose their left-leaning members. We also know that their numbers are very small.

Even if – as I have argued in the previous two posts – the UUP is not ready to make the changes necessary for normal politics now, somebody or some people in that party will pick up the ball and bring about the necessary progress.

The Conservative Party itself can not afford to make concessions which will result in intoxication of the new brand or indeed, the Conservative brand itself.  If it can not reach agreement over essential matters, then it is right that the agreement should be broken off for now.  In those circumstances, it would also be right to keep a seat warm for the UUP.

Meanwhile, the words left on the new website are the lonely untended wounds of the disagreement following the launch of the website last Friday. The words read:

“This is a site produced by the Conservative Party for Northern Ireland election campaigns. The site was used to coincide with the Conservatives and UUP media announcements last week but is now suspended.”

It is not now possible to resolve the differences on this issue without some individuals “eating humble pie”.  One can only hope that an agreement can be reached very quickly which the vast majority of members of both parties can buy into.

Sinn Fein plays tribal politics in the North and normal politics in the South

Sinn Fein held its Ard Fheis (party conference) on Saturday. In a candid display of weakness, its leader, Gerry Adams, appealed for partnership with the Irish Labour Party.

Sinn Fein seeks power on both sides of the border. Hitherto, it has been partially successful in Northern Ireland winning 26% of the overall vote at the 2007 assembly elections. In the Republic of Ireland, its poll rating has failed to move above its election position of 9% while other opposition parties have increased substantially in popularity. In making its appeal for co-operation with the Irish Labour Party, it flew the left-wing flag.

This follows unsuccessful electoral attempts by Sinn Fein to attract support away from the Irish Labour Party. It would seem that its call from pan left-wing unity will fall upon deaf ears.  Does this apparent arrest in Sinn Fein’s advance and their play on left wing politics in the South have any implications for Northern Ireland Politics?

I believe that there are for two reasons.  Firstly, it means they have failed to become a cross-border power.  That has implications for the survival of the SDLP.  At the last Republic of Ireland general election, it expected to win up to 12 seats in the Dáil Éireann (Irish House of Commons). Instead, it lost one and was reduced to four. Had they succeeded in their aims, they would have been knocking on the door for a place in a coalition government.  Being in Government on both sides of the border would have represented a milestone in its quest to achieve a United Ireland State.  If they had achieved a share of power of Government in the Republic as well as in the North, they would have “gianted” the SDLP with fatal consequences for the latter.  At the moment, it looks as though their chances of further advancement in the Republic are remote. 

Sinn Fein has never covered up the fact that it is a party of the left.  However, it has obfuscated when campaigning in Northern Ireland.  Whenever it campaigns in Northern Ireland, it is as a Republican party seeking a united Ireland and it consistently plays “equality” with a double meaning.   In the Republic, meanwhile, Sinn Fein has been raising its profile as a left-wing party in order to attract votes in the Republic.  Its appeal to the Irish Labour Party was yet another milestone on that continuum.

It makes no difference to voters in the Republic that Sinn Fein are republicans.  So are all the other parties.  The net result of this is that Sinn Fein is now playing “normal politics” in the South and “tribal politics” in the North.  This brings me to the second reason.  Can Sinn Fein really get away with a “horses for course” approach?

I don’t think so.   Sinn Fein’s opponents in Northern Ireland, particularly the Conservatives and UUP, will wish to increase the exposure on what they see as “two faced” politics.  Conservatives will not find it difficult to compare Sinn Fein to the UK Labour Party of the early eighties.  Perhaps opportunities really are opening up for normal politics.

Sinn Fein suffering defeats and feeling the heat

Trying to unravel what went on in the negotiations between Sinn Fein and the DUP leading to an end to the boycott by Sinn Fein of Executive meetings is still very much work in progress.

When the deadlock ended last November, little detail was revealed about what was agreed in relation to Police and Justice – We were told that there was a commitment by all sides to bring devolution to Police and Justice and that a series of processes had been agreed which would lead to it taking place.  We were further told that no precise date had been set for the devolution to take place.

We have not learnt much more since then except that DUP politicians have insisted that they still retained a complete veto as to when devolution would take place.  

On Thursday night on the BBC series Hearts and Minds, Gerry Adams MLA, Sinn Fein leader was interviewed by Noel Thompson.  A transcript of the relevant part of the interview can be found here on Slugger O’Toole.  The answers provided by Mr. Adams represent clear verification of the DUP’s position.

This is confirmation that on this issue at least, Sinn Fein came away from the negotiations “empty handed” in all but name.  

There is something very odd about that. A month or so before the deadlock ended, overtures had been made the Alliance Party was to be offered the Ministry.  We then heard that David Ford turned down the offer. At the time, it looked like an attempt to “shaft” the SDLP who were the next party due to take a ministry under the d’Hondt system.  On the face of it, Sinn Fein, were at the time, nearer to having the Police and Justice Department up and running than they appear to be now.

What, then, did the DUP concede to Sinn Fein in return?  On the face of it, they gave absolutely nothing. Previously, there had previously been some suspicion that concessions had been made on Education.  There was to be an Education Standards Authority created with its chief in place, Gavin Boyd, Chief Executive of the Education and Skills authority who as a known opponent of academic selection. It was suspected that the ESA would become a vehicle of mischief and eventually lead to the overturning of academic selection.  In fact, there was no provision in the bill to empower the abolition of academic selection.  The attempts by Caitriona Ruane eventually hit a wall when her proposals for legislation were rejected.

 What, then, was Sinn Fein’s motive for reaching agreement?  They seem to have “rowed back” very considerably from their earlier position. Was there a genuine concern that they were now vulnerable to losing their support in future elections?  

Consider the backdrop at the end of last October. By then, the Executive had not met for four months.  Sinn Fein was not getting what it wanted.  They had the opportunity to pull down the executive.  In fact, pulling the executive down would have taken away some of the flack from Caitriona Ruane. 

Both Sinn Fein and the DUP were indeed contemplating a complete break up. They had started to position themselves in a new “blame game”.   However, their political antennae must have been sharp enough to detect that both of them would lose considerably if the impasse continued.  Pressure and criticism were mounting.  Signs of dissident terrorism were beginning to emerge.  The Country was in a recession.  Two emergencies were looming.  One was the need to put something in place of the eleven plus (never resolved).  The other was the requirement to make available fuel poverty payments.  As we later found out, The Finance Bill, which came out in January included special powers measure and that attracted criticism that the OFM and ODFM were on a power-grab exercise.  In actual fact, the measures were put in place to mitigate the effects of the backlog of administration caused by the deadlock.

If there was return to direct rule, the DUP could say that they had stuck to their principles and not allowed Sinn Fein to have what they wanted.  Also, if they had backed down completely on Police and Justice, they would have lost face.  They were not in a great position to make concessions.

My conclusion is that the DUP had less to lose than Sinn Fein if there had been a return to direct rule but both would still have lost.  I also believe that having weighed up their positions both the DUP and Sinn Fein reached a view that it was in their interests to conclude a deal.  They saw the fuel poverty time bomb approaching.  Sinn Fein was in a much weaker position and that was reflected in their failure to secure a negotiated timetable on Policing and Justice.

Sinn Fein and the DUP have been used to the politics of negativity.  That has enabled them to become the mainstream nationalist and unionist parties respectively.  Being out of power has its advantages.  You can criticize and people will agree with you.  Now that they are in power they are more likely to attract the criticism.  They have responsibilities and people expect delivery.  What makes it harder is that they rely for success on their respective sectarian coalitions. Those stresses will yield changes.  It is only a matter of time.  More posts on that subject in due course.

Sinn Fein is finding being in power much hard to cope with.  In power, you need a sense of pragmatism.  That has deserted them in relation to Education and to a lesser extent, Agriculture.  Much of this has to do with the fact that they stick like glue to their ideology and this imprisons them in a political “glass cage”.  

Sinn Fein has taken a lot of flack.  It needs a boost right now.  They may get a “shot in the arm” if they top the European Poll in June.  Beyond that, it is hard to see what they have to look forward to.  All their political cards appear to have been played.

Today, at their party conference, Sinn Fein will present a well-managed united and triumphant position in front of the TV Cameras (they are good at that). Behind the scenes and in the back rooms, they will be considering their positions.  Things are gloomy for the party both North and South.  In the Republic of Ireland, they lost a seat at the last General Election and look likely to lose their ROI European seat.  There will be plenty of soul searching.  Would you not like to be a fly on the wall?

Equality has two meanings in Northern Ireland politics. Time to wake up

“Equality” is a word which you would think is very simple to understand.  Taken right next to its mathematical definition, it means that when you have equality, two or more sides, people or parts are the same or amount to the same.  That is where most of us would take the definition.  Over the centuries philosophers, scientists and politicians have played around with it but the word still retains its familiar singular meaning.

Fairness more or less means “just”.  Unlike equality, fairness is not a word of exactitude.  It means different things to different people.  In fact, the different concepts of fairness are at the heart of the various ideologies practised by the political parties today.

There is no creed within the Conservative movement which defines fairness exactly but there are threads in Conservative politics from which you can take core principles.  Those core principles which relate to fairness, I would loosely define them as follows:

•       that enterprise is rewarded and that people, as far as possible, are allowed to retain their wealth.

•       The weakest and most disadvantaged should be helped and protected.  Where possible help should be given to them enable them to gain independence

•       All our children should have the best possible start in life that can be achieved for them.

By applying those bullet points, you get a flavour for the Conservative view of fairness.  It can never apply exactly in practice.  For one thing, polices will change according to the wealth of a nation and the state of the economy.  However, there are clear examples of how Conservative views of fairness have been applied in practice.   In 1979, when the Conservatives came to power, the parties had very different notions of what was a fair tax.  The top rate of income tax then was 83% with an extra 15% added for investment income surcharge tax.  The Conservatives reduced the tax rate immediately on taking office to 60% and later to 40%.  Since then, that rate of tax has been accepted by the Labour party as being appropriate.

Why isn’t equality fair?  To some strands of politics, such as communism and extreme left wing socialism, it is.  In practice, that means re-distribution of wealth and control of the means of acquisition, production and supply.  We know from our history that the only way to make it work properly is to have a totalitarian government.  It does not work properly even then because the enforcement of the system results in oppression.  Oppression results in inhumanity, low productivity and impoverishment and eventually becomes unacceptable. 

Watered down equality in politics has also failed because it de-incentivises.  Going back to the situation in 1979, Labour never revived the old tax rates because they knew that we would lose our wealth creators abroad.  Today, the Labour party is not as left wing as it used to be but the burden of taxation has risen under their administration and they have spent all that they have raised in tax.   

Look now to the politics of Northern Ireland and there you have confusion.  Equality here means something else.  Before 1972, there were was oppression towards one section of the community, hence the civil rights campaign.  The Good Friday agreement cemented the principles of equality and parity of esteem.  Enshrined in Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act is the principle of equality to be applied throughout government administration and practice.

Abuses of civil rights have long since ceased to be a problem of politics in Northern Ireland.  If there are any problems, it is for clients and their lawyers, not politicians.  We have had Fair Employment Legislation and the Human Rights Act.

Most of Northern Ireland’s voters, particularly in the Catholic community, do not seem to have noticed that Sinn Fein is an extreme left wing party.  The SDLP are a socialist party which has recently drifted further to the left, in my opinion.  The word “equality” is now being over-egged in politics, particularly by those two nationalist parties.  Unfortunately, Catholics listening to the word “equality” are reminded of past oppression – yet Sinn Fein and the SDLP are now really shouting their own ideology.  Moreover, they have done nothing to clear this confusion.  Why would they?  That would not suit them.  They don’t want normal politics.

Equality should only have one meaning in politics.  Unfortunately, in Northern Ireland, it has two.   It is time for people in Northern Ireland to wake up to that fact.