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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“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.

Have the Conservatives made any political concessions to the DUP?

In my post yesterday, I published a transcript of the of part of the interview of David Cameron on the Politics Show on which Northern Ireland was discussed.  I resisted the temptation to write any analysis about it.  I needed a “head-scratching” sessioin.    

This morning, I still can not ignore the fact that David Cameron did not use the interview to deny that any political deal had been done with the DUP, particularly after Jon Sopel’s first question.  The Belfast Telegraph has also noticed this. Commenting on Lord Mandelson’s attack, they write:  

“His attack follows the disclosure that shadow Northern Ireland secretary Owen Paterson convened secret talks between the two main unionist parties at the country estate of the Marquis of Salisbury.  

The move has prompted speculation that the Tories are attempting to establish a pan-unionist front to restrict the number of seats the nationalist Sinn Fein and SDLP can win in the general election.”  

The particulars of that speculation are that the DUP will not contest seats in South Belfast and Fermanagh and South Tyrone.  This presumption has been further fuelled by the news that the DUP have suspended selection procedure for its parliamentary candidates.  It is possible (but unlikely) that the DUP have decided to unilaterally withdraw their candidates without any political concession from the Conservatives.   

In the interview with Jon Sopel, David Cameron insisted that the Conservatives would be even-handed (as between the Nationalist parties and the Unionist parties) in dealing with the peace process.   

If the DUP have been granted a concession of any sort, it will certainly affect the dynamic of the current negotiations on Policing and Justice and the DUP’s future political calculations.  David Cameron’s claim of even-handedness can only stand up if the Conservatives have not given any kind of political concession to the DUP.  

Last week, I invited Owen Paterson to clear the air for us and confirm categorically that no deal of any kind has been reached with the DUP.  It is in the interests of the Conservative Party and Northern Ireland that we receive that clarification.

Update:  Polling Analysis highlights how strong a motive the Conservatives would have had for making a deal with the DUP

Yesterday, Electoral Calculus updated its analysis and prediction on the state of the parties following the next general election.  It now predicts that there will be a hung parliament with the Conservatives just two short of an overall majority.  Northern Ireland is not included in its analysis.   On the basis of it, two seats from Northern Ireland would provide the Conservatives with an overall majority of one.

Lord Mandelson accuses Cameron of Playing politics with Northern Ireland

In the Politics Show today, Northern Ireland became part of the battleground between the Conservative and Labour Party.  I have transcribed below what was said in both interviews.  Firstly, Jon Sopel (“JS”) asked questions of David Cameron.

 JS       I want to talk about Northern Ireland as well which is an issue that has come up.  Why do you think it would be a good idea for your Northern Ireland spokesman to have…to have …been involved in a secret meeting. involved in …seem to be involved in setting up some pan-unionist front for the election?

DC      Well because what we want to do is to promote, particularly amongst the unionist parties the idea that the devolution of policing and justice is vitally important for completing devolution and for putting this on a stable footing and I think that’s actually a positive role that the Conservative Party can help to play and I think it is…you can see

JS       How can you be even-handed in dealing with all the parties in Northern Ireland, Sinn Fein, the SDLP when you’ve been sitting out trying to form a deal with the Unionist Parties?

DC      I don’t think that it’s a problem at all.  The Conservative Party has a relationship with the Official Ulster Unionist Party.  We’re going to put up joint candidates in Northern Ireland.  That’s been announced and is well known.  The Labour Party has a very close relationship with the SDLP members of Parliament.  They take the Labour Whip.  They sit with them in the House of Commons.  They vote and work together.  SO if your making accusations that I can’t be even-handed you8 have to make the same accusations against the Prime Minister that he can’t be even-handed.  Frankly, both accusations are wrong because the Prime Minister and I both support full scale devolution, including Policing and Justice.  We want that to happen.   There’s no difference between us on that.  When it comes to actually negotiating the Policing and Justice devolution where there is a very substantial potential bill for the British taxpayers the Conservative Party could not have been more helpful or more accommodating.  We’re one of the most supportive oppositions when it comes to Northern Ireland than we’ve had in our history.  I’m very proud of that because I want to see devolution happen.

JS       So what do you say to the charge that at best you’ve been naïve and at worst you’ve acted dangerously and jeopardised things.

DC      I think its just wrong.  I think everyone can see from the difficulty that’s taking place in these negotiations – that the difficulty is frankly between Sinn Fein on the one hand and the Democratic Unionist Party on the other – and they are having problems agreeing what is absolutely vital.  Now the question I ask myself is, “Is the Conservative Party playing a constructive role in encouraging – particularly the Unionist Parties, the ones we have frankly a closer relationship with in the House of Commons.  Are we playing a constructive role in encouraging devolution to take place?  Yes we are.  That’s a good thing

 Later in the programme, Jon Sopel interviewed Lord Mandelson who said this.

“They’re playing politics in Northern Ireland.  They’re seeking electoral advantage for the Conservative Party in Northern Ireland at the expense of the peace process and the devolved Government.  It’s very irresponsible and I suggest the all desist.

“They’re playing politics between the Unionist Parties and in doing that, they’re going to undermine the cohesion amongst unionists and thus undermine their confidence in making pretty tough decisions about where the peace process goes from here.  So I think they need to stand back – not seek party advantage and support the peace process.

UCUNF can expect more pounding in the media after Orange talks

Yesterday probably marked the lowest point for the Conservative / UUP pact since its inception 14 months ago but it could yet go lower to the point where the pact collapses.  

The Flare-up began on Thursday evening when it was revealed on Hearts and Minds that during December at Schomburg House, there had been a “confidential” meeting between the DUP and the UUP to discuss unionist unity, organised by the Orange Order. The meeting was attended by Sir Reg Empey and David McNarry of the DUP and by Peter Robinson and Nigel Dodds of the DUP.   

In the course of the programme, it was revealed that the discussions included candidacy at the Westminster Elections and the likelihood that Sinn Fein would hold the office of First Minister after the next Assembly elections.   

On Thursday night, Nigel Davenport continued to stir the pot on behalf of the BBC.  After taking soundings from Conservatives on their reaction to the Broadcast, he used rugby union analogy to describe how they had been let down by the UUP   

“More spooked I would say are the Conservatives who were blind sided by their partners the Ulster Unionists. Owen Paterson need not have gone to all that trouble booking Hatfield House if he had been aware that Bobby Saulters was already doing the job of bringing unionists together. The Conservative sources I spoke to tonight expressed some concern and dismay and said they would be looking for an explanation from Sir Reg Empey who attended the talks alongside Peter Robinson.”   

By Friday morning, all eyes were on Owen Paterson.  Writing for the BBC again, Michael Crick reported that Owen Paterson was seeking urgent clarification from Sir Reg Empey. He said  

“The Conservative Northern Ireland spokesman Owen Paterson is seeking an urgent meeting with the Ulster Unionist leader Sir Reg Empey today over the future of the Conservatives’ pact with the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP).”   

Owen Paterson’s objective in having that meeting was clearly damage limitation.  By 3.45 pm on Friday, Owen Paterson released the following statement:   

“In his capacity as Ulster Unionist leader, Sir Reg Empey regularly meets all strands of opinion throughout Northern Ireland. He referred ‘in passing’ to a meeting, requested in October and held in December, but I was not aware of the content or the participants.   

“As there was nothing of consequence arising from the meeting he did not mention it to me again. Sir Reg Empey has made clear to me that it has no bearing on our joint determination to stand together as ‘Conservatives and Unionists at the forthcoming Westminster elections to bring national, mainstream and non-sectarian politics to Northern Ireland.”   

By 5.00 pm, Sir Reg issued his response to the crisis (source Conservative Home)

 “The Ulster Unionist Party was invited in October 2009 by the Orange Order to a meeting with their Grand Master. On behalf of the UUP I accepted the invitation. Mr Saulters wanted a private and confidential meeting to discuss ‘ways and means of finding co-operation on the way forward.’ I have respected his request for confidentiality. Sadly this was not respected by others. Despite a conversation and discussion on the issues that Mr Saulters wished to raise, no agreements were reached.

 ”We are often asked to talk about Unionist cooperation where possible and about how best to provide stability for the future of Northern Ireland.  However the UUP is very much aware, given past history, that cooperation is not always achievable. Indeed it makes it much more difficult when a significant aim of one of the organisations you are dealing with is to destroy you. The Ulster Unionist Party will continue to have discussions with organisations on issues that are of benefit to the Union, but we will not be used as an escape route for others who have significant political difficulties.

“Let me also reaffirm my commitment to developing our relationship with the Conservative Party.  Along with our Conservative colleagues we will do all we can to promote, protect and preserve the Union and bring national politics unto the Northern Ireland agenda. The spectacle of recent days in our political journey at Hillsborough illustrates the need to get back as soon as possible to dealing with the issues that matter to people such as jobs, health and education.”

The question now is whether these press releases represent an an attempt to repair a hole in a sinking ship.  Before Crick’s update was posted, Jeffrey Peel and most of the commenters who contributed to his blog yesterday were of the view that the pact could not survive.  Meanwhile, on the Ulster Unionist side, Chekov published a scathing criticism of the conduct of the UUP leadership while Boballs insists that the UUP must clear up the mess.   In his last post, he has expressed his belief the pact can not survive.

This morning, the Belfast Telegraph reports that Sir Reg Empey is blaming the DUP for trying to destroy his party.  Is that news?  After all, why else would the DUP have negotiated at St. Andrews for the largest party to hold the first minister’s position?   Few are likely to be impressed with Sir Reg’s response to this crisis.  It  is unlikely to suppress rising anger within his party or more press speculation that the pact will unravel.  

This morning, David Gordon began the tomato throwing on behalf of the Belfast Telegraph.  Expect a pounding from other sections of the media over the next few days.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UPDATE

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

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

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

How the known unknowns could affect the General Election results in Northern Ireland

With 2010 around the corner, the General Election becomes ever more omnipresent. 

Voting outcomes in Northern Ireland at the General Election will be harder to predict than in any other region.  Since the Assembly Elections in 2007, so many new features have emerged (we will call them “known unknowns”) onto the political scene that the results of past elections can be viewed as nothing more than a starting point.  We may be in a new era of voting trends but until new patterns emerge, the old ones should not yet be ignored.

The tables below are the percentages achieved by the four main Northern Ireland political parties since 1992, excluding the Euro elections apart from 2004 and 2009 (because the votes for Ian Paisley and John Hume were personal votes). 

A = Assembly Elections.   C = District Council Elections   P = UK Parliamentary Elections  E = European Elections

	P 1992	C 1993	F 1996	P 1997	C 1997	A 1998	C 2001
DUP	13.10	17.00	18.80	13.60	16.00	18.14	21.40
UUP	34.50	29.00	24.17	32.70	28.00	21.25	22.90
SDLP	23.50	22.00	21.36	24.10	21.00	21.97	19.40
SF	10.00	12.00	15.47	16.10	17.00	17.63	20.70
Others	18.90	20.00	20.21	13.20	19.97	21.02	15.60

 

	P 2001	A 2003	C 2005	E 2004	P 2005	A  2007	E 2009
DUP	22.50	25.60	29.60	32.00	33.70	30.10	18.10
UUP	26.80	22.70	18.00	16.60	17.70	14.90	17.00
SDLP	21.00	17.00	17.40	15.90	17.50	15.20	16.10
SF	21.70	23.50	23.20	26.30	24.30	26.20	25.80
Others	8.70	11.20	11.80	9.10	6.70	13.20	22.00

The following graph below is a representation of these tables  (please click the graph to see it enlarged).

The graph shows that the voting strength declined for both the SDLP and the UUP before the Good Friday agreement.  The relationship between Sinn Fein’s level of support and that of the SDLP follows a much smoother trend than that of the Unionist parties.  This is due, in part, to the fact that the leading Unionist Party tended to attract a higher level of support at a General Election, where the first-past-the-post system of voting still exists, than at the Council and Assembly Elections.  However, averaging out these trends shows that between 1992 and 2007 the UUP has fallen from 35% to 17% (down 18%) In the same period, the DUP has advanced from 13% to 30% (up 17%).  In these 15 years, that would make a swing of 17.5%

The Sinn Fein advance would have began since it first entered elections in 1981.  After a brief relapse following the Enniskillen bomb in 1987, they reverted to their long term upward trend at the expense of the SDLP.  Between 1992 and 2007, Sinn Fein moved from 10% to 26% (up 16).  In the same period, the SDLP moved from 24% to 16% (down 8).  That represents a swing from SDLP to Sinn Fein of 12%.

The graph and the tables also indicate that the decline of the moderate parties seems to have been arrested at the latest European Election.  Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that Sinn Fein and the UUP are now at the head of Stormont.

The Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey has been an enigma in terms of the results of the Elections, for a number of years.   They show great inconsistency between the support of a party in terms of sympathy and allegiance and what happens at the polling booth.  In the 2007 survey, in response to the question “Which Northern Ireland political party do you feel closest to, even if you do not always vote for them?” respondents answered as follows:

	%
Democratic Unionist Party (DUP)	20
Sinn Féin	14
Ulster Unionist Party (UUP)	18
Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP)	20
Alliance	8
Other party (please specify)	2
None of these	15
Other answer	1
Don’t know	1

The results for 2008 show very little difference.

Democratic Unionist Party (DUP)	21
Sinn Féin	13
Ulster Unionist Party (UUP)	18
Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP)	19
Alliance Party	7
Other party	1
None of these	21
Other answer	0
Don’t know	1

At elections, a substantial number of voters opt for an extreme party.  The deviation from moderation seems to be greater on the Nationalist side.  Why is this? 

It is probably an instinct, in a sectarian voting system, that you vote for the party that you think will be strongest against the other (extreme) side.  Liam Clarke, writing in the Newsletter a couple of weeks ago, gave us this very insightful view.

Even the peace process was marked by an increase in support for the most extreme parties available, Sinn Fein and the DUP, who are now coming under pressure from yet harder line forces.

Part of the problem is that we human beings tend not to think of ourselves as extreme.

Our own views seem no more than common sense, the only response possible in the circumstances.

It is easier to spot extremism, blinkered views, perverse opinions and hypocrisy in those with whom we disagree.

And, having spotted these negative qualities, the next step is not to listen to the “self-serving nonsense” our opponents keep spouting.
We don’t have to hear them out to know they are wrong; it is easier to just stick to what we know to be right.

That leads me on to one reason why we often imagine that, as a society, we are really more moderate than the politicians we vote for in overwhelming numbers.

When Ian Paisley was still considered a hard liner, a party worker told me that many people voted for him but wouldn’t admit it to a journalist; they regarded it as a private matter like an insurance policy.

They counted on Paisley to raise the alarm if things were going wrong.
The same thing happened with Sinn Fein which for many years scored far lower in the polls than they did in elections – people didn’t like declaring themselves as Shinners, or even thinking of themselves as such, but they didn’t mind voting for them as a strong nationalist voice.

Clarke is probably right, subject to one modification. It probably does not matter if the strongest Unionist voice or the strongest Nationalist voice is extremist or moderate, so long as they are the strongest.   

This would suggest that the key to predicting the outcome of future elections lies in assessing who is the strongest party on a particular side of the sectarian divide.   However, that kind of voter mindset is liable to develop with a new set of circumstances.   It is still less than 3 years since all of the political parties accepted power sharing in Northern Ireland.   Could it be that voters will begin to assess the strength of a political party in more sophisticated ways than in the past?   Could it be that the ability of a party to negotiate, co-operate and govern in harmony with parties from the opposite designation will become a basis on which to judge a party’s strength? 

There are early signs that this may be starting to happen.  The Belfast Telegraph has began to take its own opinion polls.  In a follow up report, it published some but not all of its findings.  Its editor, Mike Gibson, made this comment:

This poll is a snapshot of course, but it is a very interesting snapshot.

“It suggests that we maybe moving into a different phase of political life here in which politicians are judged as much on their performance in the here and now as on their history.

“If so, that has to be seen as a positive step. If the message is that some people are recognising that politicians can begin the journey from conflict towards statesmanship it is to be welcomed.

“If the message is that our politicians must do more to leave their historical baggage at the door of the debating chamber that too is positive.”

This is a signal whifh neither Sinn Fein nor the DUP can afford to ignore, particularly in terms of how they handle the devlolution of policing and justice.  

The 2009 European Elections have already heralded a change in voting patterns on the Unionist side but none on the Nationalist side.  This suggests that up to June 2009, at least, the Northern Ireland electorate had not passed any judgment on the exercise of power sharing.  Rather, it was a neutral factor.

13.7% of the Northern Ireland electorate voted for Jim Allister of the TUV as a first preference vote at the Euro Elections.   Could it be that some former TUV voters are so disaffected by the fact that the DUP share power with Sinn Fein that they have decided never to vote for the DUP unless there is no unionist left? 

The fact that Nicholson was the first Unionist MEP to be elected on the 3^rd count, overtaking Diane Dodds of the DUP after the elimination of Jim Allister gives credence to that proposition.  Some of the TUV vote could also have been a personal vote for Allister or perhaps an ominous sign that amongst some of the Unionist voters, Jim Allister is now considered to be the strongest voice in Unionism.  In North Antrim, where Allister intends to stand at the General Election, he has a strong chance of establishing a new power base.

So far as the UUP are concerned, it is far too early to say whether the link-up with the Conservatives has benefited them electorally.  The Euro Elections came too quickly for the parties to put forward much more than a dull, but safe, campaign to secure the election of Jim Nicholson. 

One of the objects of the joint Conservative UUP pact is to bring an end to sectarian politics.  From the trend shown by the European Elections, I do not expect many more than token numbers of Catholics to switch their allegiance from one of the Nationalist parties at the next General Election. 

However, there are other factors which could benefit UCUNF.  The first assumes that amongst the Unionists, the TUV supporters will either vote for a TUV candidate or (if none) switch to a UCUNF candidate in an anti-DUP vote. 

What the Conservatives really want, as a first major step towards dominating politics in Northern Ireland, is to be seen, together with the UUP as the strongest voice in Unionism.  David Cameron is by far and away the most charismatic figure in the Unionist camp.  As to his likely impact and that of the Conservative campaign as a whole, we are in uncharted water.  It probably all boils down to the degree of interest taken by Northern Ireland voters in national politics.  If interest in National politics starts to take off properly in Northern Ireland, the Conservative campaign will make an impact. 

One other factor which would benefit UCUNF is if the Executive is brought down.  Such an event would almost certainly cause considerable damage to the DUP.  In that scenario, UCUNF would probably emerge as the largest unionist force.  This possibility is discussed further on.

On the Nationalist side, there will be a new SDLP leader by the time of the General Election.  It had previously been thought that Margaret Ritchie would win the leadership contest.  More recent insight suggests that the race is much closer with McDonald being seen as the “tougher” looking politician.  Toughness is something which the SDLP needs in its leadership.  Perhaps the long leadership election campaign will help both of these candidates to develop as tougher leaders.

Within the media, the question rages as to the extent of the damage to Gerry Adams’ reputation over his handling of his brother’s position as a Sinn Fein worker.  Within Northern Ireland at least, Sinn Fein has Martin McGuinness as a second political talisman.  A recent opinion poll has suggested that Martin McGuinness is the most popular of all ministers.  The Adams family scandal has a long way to run but so long as McGuinness is not implicated over the decision to ignore Liam Adams’ abuse of his daughter, I would expect little damage to Sinn Fein at the General Election.  Over a longer period, the scandal is much more likely to cause it much more damage as the drip feed of constant media exposure wears down the resistance of its supporters.

There is one more “But.”  Would Sinn Fein be damaged at the General Election if it brought down the Executive over Police and Justice? 

This is probably the one issue at Stormont which could influence the General Election.  If the Executive is brought down, the combined effect of this event and the Adams family scandal could be a lethal cocktail for Sinn Fein leading to a violent swing away from their core vote.  In that scenario, 3 seats could be lost (Fermanagh / S. Tyrone to UCUNF, West Tyrone to the SDLP and Newry Armagh to the SDLP).

That is a very big “if”.  It is hard to believe that Sinn Fein will have any stomach for bringing down the Executive but they will now need the DUP (who also have an interest in keeping the present administration alive) to find them a way out of the P & J crisis without losing face. 

As we move into the New Year, we wait in eager anticipation as these known unknowns to developing and possibly alter the political map of Northern Ireland. 

My prediction for the 18 Northern Ireland seats at the General Election (which assumes that the DUP and SF reach an understanding over P & J).

DUP  6   (down 3)

SF     5    (no change)

SDLP 3   (no change)

UCUNF  3  (up 2)

TUV  1 (up 1)

Finally, a very Happy New Year to all readers of this Blog.

Adams abuse scandal lessens the risk of the Executive collapsing

Over the weekend, the scandal broke out relating to Gerry Adams and his family.  Adam’s niece was sexually abused by Adam’s brother Liam Adams.  Gerry Adams was told of the abuse by his niece in 1987.  He says that he believed her and confronted his brother.  Subsequently, Liam Adams has been allowed to continue as an activist within Sinn Fein.  In particular, he was a youth project worker.   At one time, he sought the nomination for a seat in the Dáil. 

Presumably, Liam Adams would have had access to young people in the course of his appointment as youth project worker.  It is very unlikely that Liam Adams could have pursued his party activities without the knowledge of his brother.

Regardless of the actual truth of Gerry Adams’ complicity in his brother’s political activities, Northern Ireland politicians will now be trying to work out what the political fallout will be.

Gerry Adams is unlikely to survive the scandal.  For all the admiration held within the Republican movement by his followers, once it becomes accepted that Sinn Fein is in danger of the political equivalent of Armageddon, he will be persuaded to step down as President at the earliest opportunity.

There is no obvious successor to Gerry Adams at the moment.  Mary Lou McDonald, it appears, was being groomed for that role.  She lost her MEP seat at the last Euro election.  It may be that the succession is not Sinn Fein’s immediate problem.

The scandal is bound to affect the dynamic between Sinn Fein and the DUP over policing and Justice.   Sinn Fein will now certainly not want to face an assembly election.  The DUP will know that.  Peter Robinson may now feel that he can afford to call Martin McGuiness’s bluff.   A fudged compromise that will allow the Executive to continue without Peter Robinson giving ground is now likely.

Update

The BBC has published a chronology on what is known so far. As the facts of the story crystalise, the questions appear.   The most difficult questions for Adams relate to the period between 1997 and 2003. When his brother became a youth worker in West Belfast in 1998, Adams says that he informed the authorities at Clonard (presumably social services) who say they have no record.  Adams may also be asked what the authorities said in response to the disclosure.   One would imagine that such a disclosure would be unlikely to be forgotten, given the prominence of this family.  Adams may also be asked why he did not query the actions of the authorities after knowing that his brother continued in employment as a youth worker.

Bringing down the Executive

With Sinn Fein threatening to bring down the executive, some interesting articles have appeared in blogs and newspapers. 

Writing for the BBC, Mark Davenport contemplates the collapse of the executive and tries to assess the thinking from within the Sinn Fein camp.  He concludes that their best option (Plan A) is to get Police and Justice devolved within the current Executive’s administration.  He hedges over whether Sinn Fein’s threat is just that or whether they are actually prepared to carry it out. 

Writing for the Sunday Times, Liam Clarke, disagrees with an assessment by an earlier article in the Irish Times that Sinn Fein Could benefit from pulling out of Government.   He concludes that there would be no winners if Sinn Fein were to carry out its threat.  He also believes that Sinn Fein is likely to come out worse than the DUP if Sinn Fein pull down the current Executive.

Clarke acknowledges that it is possible that Sinn Fein could end up as the largest party in Stormont after a quick Assembly election.  He then puts two obstacles in the way of Martin McGuinness becoming First Minister.  The first is that Unionist MLAs constitute themselves into a larger voting block than Sinn Fein. He says this

“Unionist parties could, some lawyers believe, constitute themselves into an assembly voting bloc larger than Sinn Fein.”

The crucial word in that statement is “some.”  I would find it very hard to believe that the majority of constitutional lawyers would accept that.   Section 16A(4) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (as amended states)

“The nominating officer of the largest political party of the largest political designation shall nominate a member of the Assembly to be the First Minister.”

With respect, I can not see how this provision can be circumvented.   It is possible, however, that some Unionist MLAs could defect from one party to another in order to Stop McGuinness’s appointment as FM.   Is it likely that this issue is so important to some MLAs that he or she will leave their party to achieve that?

Stranger things have happened.   This is a particularly dangerous problem for both the UUP and the DUP whether the elections are in 2010 or 2011.   In my work of fiction on the previous post, I have included defections from the DUP to the UUP as a possibility. 

The second point that Clarke makes about Sinn Fein’s prospects is that the DUP would refuse to nominate.  If that happens, it will indeed plunge Northern Ireland into another political crisis.  I agree that in that scenario, there are considerable risks for Sinn Fein.   However, I do not agree that it is certain that the DUP will refuse to nominate.   It is entirely possible that another form of compromise could emerge.  What would be the DUP’s position if Sinn Fein offered that a Sinn Fein MLA with no association with the IRA (such as Michelle Gildernew) was to become FM?

Just as Mark Davenport perceives Sinn Fein’s threat to pull down the Executive to be a potential bluff, the threat not to nominate could be a counter-bluff by the DUP.  

Clarke alludes to a scenario that it could end in tragedy for both the DUP and Sinn Fein.   I agree, although I am still inclined to believe that the DUP would suffer the greater damage.  For every loser, there is a winner.  It is possible that the UUP could become the largest party in the Assembly, if not the largest Unionist party.  That is more likely to happen if (as I have already stated) if there is a policy agreement with the Conservatives and the Assembly election happens on the same date as a General Election. 

If McGuinness does resign as deputy FM, it alters the political and voting dynamic of the General Election in Northern Ireland.  The Assembly and the General Elections could now be so closely linked in the public mind that it will be extremely difficult for UCUNF candidates to engage with voters on just National issues on the campaign trail.  That is why I believe it is very important that an attempt is made by both parties to reach some agreement on difficult policy issues that might otherwise be reserved purely for the Assembly.  If that can be achieved, it will benefit Conservative and Unionist candidates in both elections.

All of that said, it is still most likely scenario is that Sinn Fein will row back from the precipice.   Sean Woodward thinks so too.  He might know something crucial that the rest of us do not but it is becoming increasingly obvious that the DUP and Sinn Fein actually need each other.

For Peter Robinson, conceding on parades might be the lesser of two evils

Imagine a passenger aeroplane which is in deep trouble.  Three out of its four engines have ceased to function.  The fourth is badly damaged and could also malfunction soon.  The plane was originally on its way to a different airport but had to be diverted because of a bad winter storm but it might never reach its diverted destination.  Weather conditions are still very bad and the storm is threatening again.  At the moment, visibility is poor.  The pilot can not even see the ground.  Things are rather desperate.  If they can not land soon, they risk losing that last engine followed by disaster and tragedy.

Now let’s call that Aeroplane “the DUP”.  Had it flown to its original flight path, it would have topped the poll in the Euro Election and landed safely at its originally planned destination airport.  As it was, a storm broke out which we call “the TUV.”  As well as preventing the plane from landing, the storm caused the damage to  the plane’s four engines after it was diverted.   The pilot wishes desparately to land.  There is only one airfield nearby.  The airfield is called “police and justice.”  If they can land there, get time to refuel and fix the plane, they could all survive.  But there is just one other problem.  The airport has been taken over by a group of gangsters called Sinn Fein.  Sinn Fein want the DUP to land at their airport but they will only allow them supplies and time to fix their plane if they agree to certain conditions. 

All right, I am not the most talented story-teller when it comes to inventing make-believe and drama description.  However, this analogy does highlight a number of real political incidents that are happening to the DUP.  The certainties in this drama are that the DUP has been damaged but not yet finished.  It still holds out a slim hope of a recovery and being able to weather the TUV storm.  Much of that hope is now dependent on getting Policing and Justice devolved in a way which satisfies the majority of hard-line unionists.

A month ago, Liam Clarke wrote an article in the Sunday Times entitled “First Minister has played his cards right.  If you read it, you would think “hey presto, Peter’s done a blinder and can look forward to the spoils.”  However, within a week of that article, it was obvious that it was flawed as well as written prematurely.  Consider particularly these comments:

“The DUP is now in a position to push for a series of side deals under the guise of measures to build confidence among unionists. These include the abolition of the Parades Commission, the retention of the PSNI full-time reserve, a more relaxed regime on the issuing of personal protection weapons to retired members of the security forces, and a gratuity package for members of the RUC’s former part-time reserve.”

Well, we now know that the full-time reserve will not remain and that Jeffrey Donaldson is still snarling.  We also know that Parades Commission is still a huge sticking point.  In fact, it is looking increasingly as though the lack of agreement on parades could be the sole reason that this crisis is not resolved.    

Why mention Liam Clarke’s article at all then?  Clarke should have waited until there was a formal announcement that the negotiations had concluded.  However, in many respects, Clarke’s article was right.  Peter Robinson had indeed played a ‘blinder’ on almost all aspects of the negotiations up to that point.  Even now, if he can put together a package which satisfies most of the unionists (including most hard-line unionists) he could well survive to see off the threat from the TUV. 

Unfortunately for Peter Robinson, the old proverb “a miss is as good as a mile” applies appropriately to his good work on Police and Justice.  If he fails on this, his failure will be absolute.  

His prospects of success do not look good.  The issue of parades seems to be one which the parties will not be able to resolve between them.  In the larger scheme of things, the DUP’s demands are unreasonable at the present time.  A lot of good and difficult work has been carried out by the Parades Commission.  Many streets and communities are safer and many parades are now peaceful because of its existence.  In an earlier post on this subject, I argued that Policing and Justice could be devolved without parades and that the latter could be devolved at a later time to give the best chance for public confidence in the new ministry to build.  Perhaps that is a concession that Sinn Fein could agree to.

That is not how Peter Robinson sees it, and with good reason.  Much of the support that was lost to the TUV in the European elections would be of Unionist voters who regard the Parades Commission with contempt.  Therefore its abolition would certainly be a feather in Robinson’s cap in his competition with Jim Allister.

Abolition of the parades commission is also too much of a concession for Sinn Fein to make.  Speaking to the BBC a few days ago, Martin McGuinness repeated Sinn Fein’s position

“it was “absolutely preposterous” to make a demand on behalf of the Orange Order for the abolition of the Parades Commission”

From its own political perspective, Sinn Fein can not afford to concede to the DUP on parades.  It has even rejected, out of hand, the recommendations contained in the interim report on the strategic review of parading headed by Lord Ashdown.   Taking these two positions together, it seems unlikely that we will see the devolution of Police and Justice during this Assembly – or is it?

Martin McGuinness is now blackmailing the travellers on that DUP aeroplane.  He has given the DUP until Christmas to set an actual time for the devolution of Police and Justice.  It is the equivalent of saying “If you don’t land on our terms within this time limit, you will not be able to repair your plane and you will have no supplies.”  It is still foggy and now a snow storm and blizzards are affecting the runway.  So what does Robinson do?

He really has no choice but to land that plane.   To him, it may be the lesser of two evils.  If he does not, Martin McGuinness will probably carry out his threat to bring down the Executive and force fresh elections.  Robinson could be ousted as first minister within weeks.  It would leave the DUP in complete disarray.

Is Sinn Fein bluffing?  I dont think it is this time.  With the SDLP not knowing who its new leader will be until February, the timing of the ultimatum is perfect.

As we cast our minds back to just over a year ago, we remember Sinn Feins’s boycott of the Executive over the issue.  They were forced to give up their boycott without apparently having extracted any clear commitment from the DUP on the timing of P & J devolution.   They gave up their boycott after calculating that they would suffer electoral damage if they did not get down to the business of government.  So what has changed to embolden Martin McGuinness? 

The answer appears to be the change of the political landscape brought about by the TUV.   Sinn Fein now see a vulnerablility in the DUP which was lacking a year ago.  If the Executive is brought down, that brings fresh elections followed by Sinn Fein becoming the largest party at Stormont with McGuinness as First Minister.  If the Unionist Parties refuse to go into government with a Sinn Fein First minister, who gets the flack?  It would be the Unionists for being intransigent.  Sinn Fein then comes out “whiter than white” within the nationalist community having also gained an electoral mandate to push through P & J.

Peter Robinson is in a perilous position.  Perhaps his best option is to fudge the parades issue by asking Sinn Fein to commit to “considering” the final Ashdown report when it is made.  In practice, it would be no concession at all but it might save Robinson from complete humiliation.  Following that, he would then close his eyes and hope that his party can hold onto most of its existing parliamentary seats at the forthcoming General Election.  That might just give him enough time to get that plane repaired.  However, he still has to negotiate that storm and land it without crashing it!