SDLP leadership election very important for Northern Ireland’s future

The SDLP leadership election is an exceptionally important one from the point of view of the future direction of Northern Ireland Politics

Liam Clarke’s article in today’s Sunday Times sets out the background and the backdrop.  Few would disagree that since John Hume handed over the leadership of the party to Mark Durkan, the latter has been able to prevent the Sinn Fein “cuckoo” from starving the SDLP of voters who would normally be expected to vote for them.   

As well as being ‘cuckooed’ the SDLP, has have been out-spent, out-organised, out-marketed and out-rhetoricised by Sinn Fein in all of the elections from 2001 to 2007.  Supporters of the SDLP had hoped that following a term in office, where Sinn Fein’s political shortcomings were laid bare for all to see, that they would see a revival in their fortunes.  That did not happen in the 2009 euro elections.  The only ‘crumb’ you could give to the SDLP is that the decline in their vote share may have been arrested.   

I say ‘may’ because I am not sure about that at all.  During the Euro elections, Sinn Fein were not ‘firing on all cylinders’ knowing that Barbara de Brun’s election as a Euro MP was a banker and concentrating their resources on trying to get an MEP elected in a ROI constituency.  The SDLP put up an able and respected candidate in Alban McGuinness.  Alas, all they were able to achieve was an increase of 0.3% of their share of the vote.   

I have said previously on this blog site that Catholic voters who by their nature share core Conservative values are the target of future Conservative election campaigns in Northern Ireland.  Almost certainly, most of those voters habitually support the SDLP.  Earlier this year, Mark Durkan alienated some of those supporters over his remarks on academic selection. 

However much commentators will today ridicule any notion that the Conservatives in Alliance with the UUP can win the support of Catholic voters, make no mistake about one thing.  Those voters are on the Conservative menu.  The trouble is, with the exception of those few with a lot of political foresight, it is probably too early to expect members of the SDLP to see the Conservatives as a threat.  That is unfortunate because it does mean that the SDLP are more likely to continue looking at Sinn Fein to see if there is a way they can win back previous support.

I do not believe the SDLP can ever ‘out-nationalist’ Sinn Fein.  There are signs that the SDLP have been thrashing around looking for ways to achieve this.  For example, they produced their own draft Irish Language Act.  It was an extremely Nationalist document which went way beyond what was likely to have been negotiated at St. Andrews.  Another ploy the SDLP have tried over many years is to ‘out-moralise’ Sinn Fein by reminding the electorate that they do not carry the baggage of violence that is so closely associated with Sinn Fein’s past.  It may be that the supporters they have left will never vote for Sinn Fein for that very reason.  However, as a populist trick to win back previous voters, it will never work.

Most commentators, including Liam Clarke, have pointed out that of the two candidates on offer, neither of them have the charisma to “light bonfires” in the minds of the voters.  So where does the SDLP go from here?

In his interview with the BBC, former leader Seamus Mallon talks about the need for ideology.  I believe that he is talking about non-nationalist ideology, particularly since he expressed the need for all Northern Ireland parties to do something similar.

In my opinion, there is only one direction in which the SDLP can go to avoid medium term political extinction.  I have already summarised this in a comment on Slugger at this thread comment No. 35.  I repeat what I have said here:

“Firstly, the SDLP should make social democracy its dominant working ideology and “park” its Nationalist ideology.  In other words, it would only need to draw on its Nationalist ideology if there was a referendum on a united Ireland.  In a sense, that is a mirror image of what the Conservatives want to do with the UUP – to make Conservativism the dominant ideology and “park” unionism.

Keeping Unionism and Nationalism out of election politics can be done with the overwhelming majority of day-to-day political issues.  There are some political issues that are not.  That brings me to the second strand of the proposed solution.  …..  It is that those parties who want to take sectarianism from politics come together and set up a joint committee. The task of that committee would be to negotiate a way forward on the basis of consensus.  Each party involved in these talks would have to agree to certain ethics.  Those might be (a) to vigorously look for solutions which are in the best interest of NI as a whole and not just one section of it (b) that no any elected member of any political party involved makes a public statement of their personal point of view (c) That no public statements are made about the work of that committee except jointly agreed statements. An agreement of this kind would require parties to discipline their members when making public statements on certain topics such as parades.

Most of the kind of issues that I am talking about here are likely to be cultural issues.  For example, I think it is entirely possible for such a joint committee to agree a way forward for the Irish Language.

The task of breaking the sectarian mould for either UCUNF or the SDLP does not end there. The parties still have to develop trust with those voters that they are asking to cross the sectarian divide. That leads me to the third strand.

An open Alliance with the UK Labour Party running along similar lines to the UCU-NF pact would not just give all NI voters the opportunity to vote Labour on Westminster issues.  That would swing the door wide open to would be protestant labour voters.

What would hold the SDLP back from such a course?  I think it is something to do with the view they take of Sinn Fein as their competition.  If they did pursue the path I have suggested, who is to say that they will not do Sinn Fein a lot of damage”

As readers will observe from this comment, there is a recognition from this proposal that a joint or multilateral party effort to take sectarianism out of Northern Ireland politics is more likely to succeed than if only one party is trying to achieve it.  Furthermore, I believe that a similar initiative will happen.  It is a question of  ‘when’, rather than ‘if’. 

I understand that this election is not likely to happen until their party conference in February.  In all sincerity, I hope that that SDLP membership ‘graspes the nettle’ and uses the time to develop this theme for its sake and for the sake of Northern Ireland.

Should Parades be devolved with Police and Justice?

Yesterday, I was kicking myself.

On Slugger O’Toole yesterday, there appeared two posts relating to the consequences about decisions relating to Parades. I was kicking myself because I had not thought about the impact of evolution of Police and Justice on decisions made relating to parades.

The Powers of the parades commission arise out of the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998. That Act sets out the powers of the Parades Commission and the Supervisory and Complementary Powers of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

It is not difficult to foresee a future Police and Justice Minister coming under attack and flack.  If, following devolution on parades,  a decision by the Commission or the new Minister goes against an interested party, it has the potential to undermine the building of confidence in the new Ministry.  I foresee the Minister being lobbied and pilloried in a stream of attacks at Minister’s question time by MLAs representing either the Orange Order or Resident’s Associations and making sectarian political mischief.

I am not saying that the Assembly is not the appropriate place to air political discord.  It does that already. Indeed, it has the ability to soak up sectarian issues and sometimes clear the air.

My fear is that a transfer of responsibility relating to parades is too much in one go.  It will need a minister of exceptional skill and ability to diffuse difficult issues without the added problems of parades.  I would like to see powers relating to parades being devolved sometime later in the future to enable public confidence in the new ministry to set in. 

Perhaps that proposal is no longer feasible.  Perhaps that would unravel the deal which has been made between the DUP and Sinn Fein to transfer these powers. Perhaps this is another reason why the Government should have included all the parties in the negotiations.

My wish now? – That my fears are unfounded.

There is nothing British about this lot

I was not able to watch Question time on the BBC live last week.  However, I did listen to it on the radio in my car. 

Nick Griffin

There have been a number of issues raised about the BNP.  Should they be allowed air time?  One of the parallels I can think of is the during the late 1980s when the Conservative Government under Margaret Thatcher made it illegal for the television and radio media to broadcast the voices of members of Sinn Fein.  Mrs. Thatcher is famously remembered for this quote

“starve the terrorist and the hijacker of the oxygen of publicity on which they depend.”

Unfortunately, the attempt to block out Sinn Fein was ineffective.  Broadcasters were still allowed to show members of Sinn Fein being interviewed.  What they could not do was broadcast their voices.  Broadcasters got around this, firstly, by introducing subtitles.  Later, broadcasters switched to dubbing.  Sinn Fein members’ voices were replaced with those of actors.  The whole clampdown ended in farce.

Of course, the Government could have taken further measures to prevent imitation broadcasting of terrorists.  They did not. 

Fast forward to 2009.  Peter Hain and others have criticised the BBC for allowing Nick Griffin a platform on Question time.  Let us forget the 1980s and suppose that refusal of access to air time on radio and TV was actually effective in limiting the BNP’s political interests.  Would it have been right?

The BNP has 2  class=”hiddenSpellError” pre=”2 “>MEPs and 56 councillors.  Whether we like it or not, the BNP represent a certain section of the electorate.  However, it can also be argued that by the time they were proscribed, Sinn Fein also had elected representatives. 

The BNP may be a group of thugs and fascists but they are not the political wing of a terrorist organisation.  There is no provable link between what they say over broadcast media and terrorism.  Peter Hain is perhaps still emotionally driven by the anti-fascist and anti racist passion of his youth.  During the late 1960s, he (then as leader of the Young Liberals) led protests against sports links with South Africa.  However, he is an experienced politician and a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.  He should, at this stage of his career, have a more mature and rounded view about the balance of the Public Interest. 

On the programme itself, Griffin was made to look ridiculous.  Two incidents stand out.  One was his attempt to justify his change of opinion about the Holocaust.  The other was his attempt to be an apologist for the Ku Klux Clan.  I don’t believe the broadcast will have advanced the interests of the BNP at all.  If anything, I think it will diminish them.  The BBC is to be congratulated for taking its difficult and controversial decision.

The overwhelming majority of decent people abhor everything the BNP stand for.  Perhaps one of the worst aspects of their existence is their name.  Lets be absolutely clear.  There is nothing British about this lot.

Victim’s lawsuits against Adams and McGuinness could make legal history

Yesterday, it was reported in the Belfast Telegraph that victims of IRA violence during the 1970s were to sue Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness.

The action, if it goes to a trial will be almost as interesting from a legal point of view as it will be from a political view.  The following is my partially informed view of the case, wearing my lawyer’s hat.

The first obstacle to be faced by the victims is the laws on limitation of actions, which prevent claims being brought if the incidents giving rise to the claim happened more than a certain length of time before a legal action is launched.  These laws, as they apply to Northern Ireland, are set out in the Limitation (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (“the Order”). 

The action brought by the victims will be in Tort for Assault.  Most actions in Tort are subject to Article 6.  Where Article 6 applies, the time limit for bringing an action is 6 years from when the cause of action accrued (i.e. when the incident happened).  Where a personal injury occurs, Article 7  applies and the time limit is 3 years from when the cause of action accrued or the PLaintiff’s (victim’s) date of knowledge, whichever is the later.  

An initial look at the law suggests that the victims are more than 20 years late from bringing an action but their claim can still succeed if they can use one of the exceptions set out in the Order. 

One of those exceptions relates to the Plaintiff’s “date of knowledge”  referred to in Article 7(4)(b)  of the Order.  Another is the Court’s discretion to allow an action to be brought out of time under Article 50 of the Order.   The provisions relating to “date of knowledge” and the Court’s discretion under Article 50 are connected in the sense that they only apply to personal injury cases. 

Before last year, it was thought that neither the “date of knowledge” provision, nor the Court’s discretion under Article 50 could be used where a claim arose out of non-accidental injury.   Putting it another way, it was thought that if the personal injury arose as a result of an an assault, the limitation period was 6 years under article 6 but if it was a negligence claim, the limitation period was 3 years from the Plaintiff’s date of knowledge which could be a very long time after the event.  In the case of Stubbings –v-Webb [1993] AC 498 which was about child sexual abuse,  the House of Lords held that term “negligence, nuisance or breach of duty” under Article 7(1) only referred to non-intentional torts such as negligence. 

Last year, in the case of A –v- Hoare [2008] UKHL 6, the House of Lords overruled its earlier decision in Stubbings v Webb.   Now, the term “breach of duty” does apply to personal injury resulting from assault. 

From my reading of the Belfast Telegraph report, the victims may be able to say that they did not have the requisite knowledge to bring a claim because they did not have knowledge of the evidence linking the attacks to Messrs.  McGuinness and Adams.   Part of the victim’s case could well be that until papers were released  from the Foreign Office to the Public Records Office they did not have the knowledge which would have caused the 3 year period to begin running.    

There is one other exception under the Order which the victims might rely upon.  That is in respect of concealment.  Article 71 of the Order can apply if any fact relevant to the plaintiff’s right of action has been deliberately concealed from him by the defendant.  If there has been deliberate concealment, time (the 3 – year period) does not start to run until the concealment has been discovered or if it could have been discovered with reasonable diligence. 

Of course, without knowledge of everything which is in the victims’ solicitors file, it is not possible to know exactly which of those exceptions in the Limitation Order they will rely upon.  One thing is for certain.  The Limitation law will be very carefully considered by both sides.

Those interesting legal aspects do not necessarily end there.   Lawyers will be familiar with the term “vicarious liability.”  This is liability which can be fixed against a defendant because of an association which exists in law linking the person who carried out the act with the Defendant.   The doctrine requires the Defendant to have some sort of responsibility or control over the third party who committed the wrong.  Normally, vicarious liability is associated with Employers and Business Partners but what about being an official in an organisation which is responsible for the Act?  The victims might be able to prove conclusively that the attacks were carried out by the IRA but may not have any evidence to link them either to Adams or McGuinness.  If they can prove, however, that McGuinness and Adams were members of the IRA (perhaps this will be no problem in relation to McGuinness but trickier in relation to Adams) they may then be able to ask the Court to invoke the doctrine of vicarious liability.  It is not as easy a point as it looks.  In normal kinds of vicarious liability, the relationship between third party and defendant is a legal one. 

One thing is for certain.  These lawsuits will make news like few others.

How Sinn Fein uses anti-sectarianism to sustain sectarianism

Yesterday, I discussed remarks made by Gerry Adams which purported to support ending sectarianism in Northern Ireland politics. 

Sinn Fein depends for its existence as a political force in Northern Ireland for people to continue to vote along sectarian lines.  You will not hear Sinn Fein making remarks about the religious beliefs of Protestants.  They do, however, contribute to the continuation of sectarianism by being anti-sectarian. 

Over the weekend, Martin Maginness made a “plea” to Orangemen to avoid parades through Catholic areas.  He said

“It means a declaration from the Orange Order that, in future, it will no longer seek to force parades through Catholic areas and risk bringing violence on to our streets.”

I am not going to debate here, whether Orangemen should or should not march through one particular area or another or to what extent the Orange Order is a sectarian organisation.  Let us leave it for now that most Catholics in Northern Ireland perceive it to be a sectarian organisation. 

The real problem is that by making his statement, Maguinness achieves two things.  Firstly, the statement increases the risk of violence because it encourages thugs from the Catholic Community looking for an excuse to attack.  Secondly, it provokes outrage amongst Orangemen and their supporters.  Positions become even more entrenched and feelings run higher all around.

In this particular example, the counter-criticism came from Peter Robinson of the DUP and Mr. Harbinson of the TUV.  I am glad to say that the UUP did not make similar comments.  My purpose in commenting is to expose Sinn Fein’s gambit. 

I have previously highlighted an example of how Sinn Fein continually demonises the Orange Order. 

In the book entitled “Moving Beyond Sectarianism,” [Liechty and Clegg 2000] the authors explain, scientifically, how anti-sectarianism can end up becoming sectarian aggression.

“..much of what passes for anti-sectarianism is actually a mirror image of sectarianism; in fact, we could go further and say that anti-sectarianism can easily become a form of sectarianism.  The process works like this.  When sectarianism encounters difference, that encounter often runs in sequence to something like this: Encounter – judge –condemn – reject – separation / antagonism  This sequence would be one way of naming the dynamics of sectarianism.  But note what can all too easily happen when liberalism encounters what it regards as sectarian.  The content of the judgment is different, but the process often looks much the same:  Encounter – judge – condemn – reject – demonise – separation / antagonism.  In other words, the dynamics of supposedly rejecting sectarianism can be identical to the dynamics of sectarianism, although the person rejecting sectarianism is likely to be totally unaware of this. This is one source of what we call liberal sectarianism.”

 There is no doubt that every time a Sinn Fein politician opens its mouth about the Orange Order, it re-inforces sectarianism.  Do Sinn Fein politicians understand this?

If you believe what Gerry Adams has said, you have also got to believe that he does not understand the point I have just made.  I would suggest that Sinn Fein know exactly what they are doing.  Their leaders are too seasoned in the game of Northern Ireland’s troubles not to have leaned that.

Liberal sectarianism or what I would call anti-sectarianism sectarianism, is one evil which is not easy to combat.  It is like trying to treat a disease caused by the failed cure of another disease.

If Sinn Fein’s conduct is not read properly, it could easily be interpreted as being morally right.  Martin McGuiness has disguised his anti-sectarianism sectarianism by linking (very unfairly) the Orange marches with the recent racist attacks against 100 Romanians in Belfast.  As one blogger has pointed out, he may have won a propaganda victory in the media.

Does Sinn Fein really want sectarianism to end?

Readers may choke over their coffee when they read this.   Gerry Adams made a comment which I agree with.  Now it is obvious to anybody who knows Gerry Adams that he would not say anything true unless it was in the interest of his party for that to be said. 

Adams was speaking to the Belfast Telegraph about sectarianism.

Mr. Adams discussed recent Unionist overtures about ending power sharing.  My view on the present power-sharing structure is that we should not dismantle it until sectarian voting patterns fundementally change.  Since that is not going to happen in the short term, I leave that subject for now and move onto the wider point that Adams makes about sectarianism.

The following is what Adams says in the rest of the interview.  The comments are so moderate that they could have been said by Naomi Long or any of her colleagues in the Alliance Party.

Mr. Adams called for cross-party support for a new future, with united opposition to sectarianism and racism.He said sectarianism had kept Catholic and Protestant communities apart in the past and it was time for politicians to embrace a shared future.”The truth is if the new political dispensation is to deliver for everyone then it will do so because all political parties have entered into the spirit as well as the letter of power sharing,” he said. “Any suggestion that the compulsory nature of the power sharing arrangements can be changed is dishonest and misleading. Those who argue for this position know that it is unattainable.” All politicians have a duty to set their faces against sectarianism.” The recent spate of shameful racist attacks shows another unacceptable aspect of our society. “Racism and sectarianism are two sides of the one coin. “If there is any tolerance for sectarianism, and in my view there is, it is little wonder that racism thrives. It also needs to be confronted.”

Let’s be fair to Adams.  He probably dislikes both racisim and sectarianism.   He is certainly not religiously bigoted and, it should also be noted, the some of the most famous nationalist and republican people in from Irish History were protestant. 

Should we welcome what Adams has said?

Perhaps – even if his words do not sound genuine – to at least flush him out.   As I see it, Adam’s apparent desire to end systematic sectarianism is utterly disingenuous.  

Adams and Sinn Fein need sectarianism to sustain their party’s support.   If they want any credibility on this particular aspect of Northern Ireland politics, they need to earn it.   They could make start by avoiding anti-sectarianism.  

In my next post, I will explain anti-sectarianism, how anti-sectarianism feeds the sectarian system and how Sinn Fein achieves this by continually criticising the Orange Order.

CUs must not be distracted by prospect of a Sinn Fein First Minister

Peter Robinson said that it would be a disaster if Sinn Fein topped the poll in Northern Ireland for the European Election. As the implications of the new order of politics in Northern Ireland unfold, another consequence of Robinson’s outburst has now become apparent.

In his post on Slugger, Michael Shilliday, chairman of the Young Ulster Unionists, highlighted the fact that under the Northern Ireland (St. Andrews Agreement) Act 2006, the Northern Ireland Act 1998 has been amended so that right to the appointment of First Minister belongs to the party with the largest number of MLAs. Previously, that right belonged to the party with the largest number of MLAs within a designation. The precise wording of the new section 16C(6) is as follows

“(6) If at any time the party which is the largest political party of the largest political designation is not the largest political party—

 (a)  any nomination to be made at that time under section 16A(4) or 16B(4) shall instead be made by the nominating officer of the largest political party; and
(b)  any nomination to be made at that time under section 16A(5) or 16B(5) shall instead be made by the nominating officer of the largest political party of the largest political designation”

Had the legislation not been amended then in two years time,  the First Minister would still be a Unionist even if the TUV was successful in getting a sizeable proportion of unionists elected to the Assembly.  In all likelihood, the next first Minister will now be from Sinn Fein.

Clearly, we now know what Peter Robinson meant by a “disaster.” I cannot say that I like the idea of Martin McGuinness becoming First Minister. At the same time, I would not mind seeing it happen so that political advantage can be gained from it in the longer run. From all that I have observed, I do not believe that McGuinness has what it takes to be a successful administrator in high political office.

It is important that the CUs do not use this situation to try and score political points against the DUP by continuously highlighting it.  To do otherwise would send the wrong signal to the Northern Ireland electorate.  It would impair their ability to project their progressive message and leave an impression that they are still wedded to the era of sectarian politics. 

There will be plenty of others, including Jim Alllister and the media, who will be highlighting section 16C(6). It is also possible that the DUP will try their “topping the poll” tactic just one last time.   Some arrogance from the CUs would not go amiss.   If the message coming out of their camp is that St. Andrews does not matter because the CUs are set to become the largest party, this might become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

What the CUs must do is concentrate on promoting their own political agenda. If they can get that strategy right, they will give themselves every chance of taking large chunks out of the DUP vote in two years time. Indeed, if they only retake two thirds of the vote that they lost to the DUP since 2001, they will become the largest party at Stormont.

Nicholson is No. 1. This is how I have decided upon my No. 2 vote

Tomorrow is polling day.  It is decision time for Northern Ireland people, including me.  My mind was made up, a long time ago, to vote for Jim Nicholson No. 1. What about second and further preference votes? 

At the outset, I want to make it clear that I am not interested in a party’s constitutional preference for Northern Ireland.  As a Conservative, I preach normal politics.  As far as I possibly can, I want to practice it too.   

When looking at a party’s policy, it is worth bearing in mind that what they say on certain things, has got nothing to do with the job of the euro MP.  For example, keeping the pound is a matter for the Westminster Government.  So also is whether or not to have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.  When our MP is elected, they will all be expected to bat for Northern Ireland.  In practice and in most respects, that is what our existing three MPs have done.  Most of the policies which are concerned with looking after Northern Ireland’s interest are similar across all the parties.  That said, heads of policy are worth looking at to get a sense of the political direction of those parties.   

It is also worth bearing in mind that in terms of influencing politics in Europe, individual parties do not get seats on committees.  It is voting blocks which do.  The conservatives are cutting themselves off from the centre-right group (the EPP) after many years.  The reason for this is simple and it has to do with history.  The UK has no memory of being invaded.  Nearly all of the rest of Europe has.  Those countries are therefore emotionally driven towards greater union.  That is why the Conservatives are keen to form a new block – to act as a counterweight against federalism.    

The two parties with the nearest policies to the Conservatives are the DUP and the TUV.  The DUP say “Oppose the Lisbon Treaty, keep the pound.”  Similar things are said by Jim Allister, which I totally agree with.  As parties of the centre right, the DUP and the TUV would join the new group being formed by the Conservatives.    

The other parties are much further away from the Conservatives.  The starting point of both Sinn Fein and the SDLP is that they are both socialist with left-leaning politics.  The SDLP support the Lisbon treaty.  Sinn Fein, for reasons which I will not discuss here, opposes it.  Both of those parties would like to see the UK give up sterling for the euro.  So also would the Alliance Party.    

I have looked at the Green Party manifesto.  There are a couple of “whacky” things in their manifesto such as lowering the voting age.  I would also be concerned about some of the cost aspects in their policies but overall, their manifesto is reasonably pleasant and not inconsistent with many conservative policies.  The Northern Ireland Green manifesto says nothing about the Lisbon treaty.  I have looked at the manifesto of their British Counterparts and they do oppose the current Lisbon treaty.  They are silent on the question of sterling.    

The Alliance parties and the Green party preach vociferously against sectarianism.  That is obvious both from their manifestoes and what their candidates have said.   

The DUP, the TUV and Sinn Fein all fall down heavily in relation to sectarianism.  The DUP and Sinn Fein thrive upon the “sectarian headcount.”  Neither of these parties show a desire to tackle sectarianism.  The TUV and DUP differ over the St. Andrews agreement but are no different in nature from each other.  During the campaign, I have noticed from the remarks made both Jim Allister and Diane Dodds that their sectarian mindset is obvious and gross.    

The SDLP’s website pays “lip service” to being a party which is against sectarianism.  If you go back to some of the things John Hume used to say about Northern Ireland, he passionately wanted the two communities to be brought together.  When I have listened to other SDLP leaders like Mallon and Durkan I could not hear this being said from the heart.  During the campaign, Alban Maginnis has said that he wants to bring the two communities together.  It is hard for me to explain this but I felt that he did say it from the heart.   He said enough to convince me that he regards tackling sectarianism as more important than a united Ireland.    

Of the other candidates seeking election as Northern Ireland’s Euro MPs, only the DUP, TUV, Sinn Fein and the SDLP have any chance of being elected.  With respect to the Greens and the Alliance, their potential to attract No. 1 votes is not great enough this time around to influence me into giving them my second preference vote.  I will look at these parties again in future PR elections.   

That leaves me with a choice of 4 candidates for my No. 2 vote.  Sinn Fein has nothing to offer, as far as I am concerned.  I am therefore left with a choice between two sectarian candidates who are conservatives and a socialist candidate who is not.   

On the matter of sectarianism, I wish to say this.  It is Northern Ireland’s biggest political and social problem.  It is such a big problem that if you asked me what my choice would be – keep Northern Ireland in the union or eliminate sectarianism from Northern Ireland, I would chose the latter.  Unless politicians start making effective efforts to tackle sectarianism, it will be a perpetual curse on our society. 

Given all the circumstances, Alban McGinnis gets my No. 2 vote.

Prepare for a possible shock. De Brun might not win a Euro seat

I thought that this was possibly going to be a watershed election on the Unionist side but only the unionist side with Alban Maginnis having only a sniff if something unusual happened, such as a disproportionate turnout to give him an outside chance of winning.    

On further examination, we could be in for an upset of a different kind.  Sinn Fein appear to have taken a gamble.  They have assumed that de Brun is safe and diverted a substantial proportion of their party’s resources towards the the Irish Republic.   They may feel that their seat is safe in Northern Ireland.  I do not believe that at all.   

In 2004, Barbara de Brun won 26.3% of the vote against 15.9% for the SDLP candidate (Morgan).  This represented a 10.9% swing away from the SDLP to Sinn Fein.  Admittedly, much of John Hume’s vote was personal.  The SDLP will not get back all of their lost votes. However, there is an outside chance that they could win a seat without having to beat Jim Nicholson.  Consider the following.    

In order to get elected on the first round, a candidate needs 25% or more of the unspoiled vote.  I can not imagine that Sinn Fein prospers very much from transferable votes.  Assuming that the votes from the minor parties to the Nationalists split 90% SDLP and 10% Sinn Fein, then de Brun is in very serious trouble if there is a swing from Sinn Fein to the SDLP of more than 2%.  Is that possible?    

I think it is more than possible.  I think it is a very significant possibility.  I personally know people who say they are switching their vote from Sinn Fein to the SDLP.  We have had no indication, by way of opinion poll, to give us any clue as to whether Sinn Fein has suffered loss of support resulting from its conduct as the leading Nationalist party at Stormont.  What is interesting is that the SDLP have mounted a stronger campaign than previously.  They have also done their homework, pushing out the message on Sinn Fein’s record in Education.   

The Conservatives and Unionists have signalled their intention to target the SDLP supporters as part of their drive to rid Northern Ireland of sectarian politics but I suspect that this election is one or two elections too early for that impact to be felt.   

In that case, Sinn Fein looks much more vulnerable than the established media and bookmakers are giving credit for.  There are no odds given as to whether or not Maginnis will win a seat but they are giving 11-2 on for de Brun to top the poll and 25-1 for Maginnis.  I don’t consider those odds to be in line with real likelihood.

Northern Ireland MPs could be back in the limelight over expenses

With yesterday’s announcement by David Cameron of his initiative to purge the excessive claims of MPs, he has certainly demonstrated leadership and an ability to handle a crisis.   

Whether those intending to vote conservative are sufficiently impressed by Cameron’s actions, we shall have to wait and see.  The next round of opinion polls will be very interesting.   

With Cameron having done all he can and with both Gordon Brown and the Lib Dems having announced their initiatives, the local spotlight will probably now turn back towards the parties in Northern Ireland.   

The Sunday Telegraph this weekend highlighted the expense claims of Sinn Fein MPs.  History makes it unlikely that they will be damaged by it politically. For example, they never lost support after the raid on the Northern Bank.   

What about the DUP?  Last week, Peter Robinson was on the backfoot over an email sent to one of his constituents.   Previously, he displayed anger over the “Swish Family Robinson” news headlines.  He did try to gag the Belfast Telegraph over another matter.  He certainly won’t be able to do that with the Daily Telegraph.