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.

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.

Why spoil a good Christmas party?

Last week, I attended a Christmas drinks party hosted by the Conservatives. The party was well attended by prominent conservatives and Ulster Unionists, including Chris Grayling MP, Shadow Home Secretary, Owen Paterson MP shadow secretary of State for Northern Ireland and Sir Reg Empey MLA, Minister for Employment and Learning and leader of the UUP. Both sides of the Joint Committee were also well represented.

I did not get time to circulate with all of those present but I did detect a silver stream of optimism regarding the prospects of UCUNF candidates in the forthcoming general election. This confidence was underlined in Chris Grayling’s speech.

In less than a month, the UCUNF parliamentary candidates will be announced.  We are hearing that some members of the UUP who are presently MLAs may be standing as parliamentary candidates.  Under the terms of the agreement between the Conservatives and the UUP, any MLA who is elected to Parliament will be obliged to resign his/her Assembly seat. That seems fair enough.  However, it is now becoming increasingly likely that the Assembly elections and the General Election will occur on the same date.  If that happens, any MLA who intended to stand for Parliament would be obliged to withdraw his/her candidacy from one of those elections.  Given that scenario, I am wondering if the Joint Committee has discussed or will be discussing possible stand-in candidates for those constituencies?

As I thought of putting that question to one of the joint committee, I was standing very close to Mark Cosgrove.  Then he faced another direction.   I then let the thought pass. Why spoil a good Christmas party!

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.

The UUP must put an end to speculation on “vote splitting” deals once and for all

Yesterday, I published a post in which I criticised Tom Elliot.

I did not expect to receive favourable comments from many Ulster Unionists.  Quite clearly, there are many who either agree with Mr. Elliot or perhaps disagree but do not consider his remarks to have been particularly damaging. 

Mr. Elliot was not the first Ulster Unionist to pay lip service to the possibility of a deal with the DUP.  He does represent a certain section of the Ulster Unionist Party who would like to see that happen.  Nevertheless, he is a dissenter from the official line of the Ulster Unionist party. 

In this post, which is aimed particularly at those from the UUP who are not convinced that Tom Elliot is wrong, I discuss the core principles underlying the agreement between the UUP and the Conservatives and provide an angle on one of the DUP’s key stratagems.

On 20^th November 2008, the UUP and the Conservatives concluded an agreement known as the Memorandum of Understanding.  Part of that document was published on the Old Northern Ireland Conservative Website.  It is worth looking at the recital to that document again.  The recital contains a statement of joint core beliefs and aspirations by the two parties for Northern Ireland politics.  The recital states as follows:

“1         Both parties believe that a strong and stable Union of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom offers the best future for all its citizens.

2          Both parties believe that Northern Ireland has been isolated for too long from the politics of the United Kingdom.

3          Both parties believe that all the citizens of the United Kingdom should have the opportunity to vote for, and potentially participate in, their national government.

4          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.”

The third limb of that recital is quite explicit.  There has to be a candidate in every constituency representing the Conservative party in Parliament.  The other three limbs of the recital underpin that. 

There is no doubt that the UUP would be putting obstacles in the way of developing non-sectarian politics if it made or talked about a deal with the DUP or the TUV on the carve-up of Parliamentary seats.  Mick Fealty, director of Slugger O’Toole writing for the Telegraph explained this extremely well in one of his posts last year.  On the subject of attracting the Catholic vote, he said this: 

“Can he attract Catholics into what still remains (despite the shift of emphasis) a unionist party? Well, yes they are there already. But in token numbers. One thing that may dislodge a few more is failing to fulfil another of his promises and refusing to engage in sectarian carve-ups.

The most famous of these have taken place regularly in areas where splitting the Unionist vote with two candidates to let a nationalist in. And there are two out of the 18 constituencies where such a pact would guarantee returns for both the new party and the DUP in the next election.

Sticking to his guns on this could allow one and maybe two Nationalist incumbents to retain their seat(s). That will no doubt prove: one, he means what he says; and two that party activists on the ground will have bought the message that the sectarian deals of the past are over.”

Very soon after the agreement was made, the criticism emerged from the DUP about vote splitting.  Just after the UUP party conference, the DUP criticism was put to Sir Reg on the Politics show on 7^th December 2008.  Sir Reg. said that the DUP was being “disingenuous” and he gave an example about how the DUP conducted itself in 2001 when James Cooper lost the Fermanagh and Tyrone Parliamentary seat by a handful of votes as a result of the DUP’s support of Jim Dixon.

Sir Reg’s comments were a criticism of the DUP – yes – but he did not respond to the question by making reference to the principles behind the new agreement.  Time and again, the DUP taunted the UUP about vote splitting and I noted how the UUP rose to the bait.  Naturally, I was concerned that no reference was being made to the new agreement and particularly, about sectarianism.  I wrote a piece indicating how I believed the UUP should respond. 

It is now quite obvious to me that the DUP have adopted a stratagem of continuously taunting the UUP over vote splitting agreements knowing that it will cause emotional upset and perhaps hoping that it will cause people from the UUP to question the agreement with the Conservatives.  The latest of these came in the speech from Peter Robinson at the DUP party conference last week and now most recently from Jeffrey Donaldson.

There are those within the UUP who would say that they have to appease their own supporters by not being seen to be a unionist “vote splitter” which allows Sinn Fein to obtain a seat they should not have.  But think about it! 

Most Unionists should by now be aware that the agreement to field 18 candidates is a set agreement.  It can not be re-negotiated and nor should it.  It is an expression of the agreement’s fundamental principles. 

So what kind of a signal does talk by Tom Elliot (or any other senior member of the UUP) of a possible deal with the DUP send to thinking Unionists?  There are two likely possibilities.  Mr. Elliot might have come across as a politician who was too foolish to understand that he would not be able to negotiate a deal on seats.  On the other hand, he might have looked simply dishonest. 

Some people listening might have interpreted from his words that he merely wanted to talk – not make a deal on seats but what would be the point of that?  The DUP invitations are specifically about doing a deal on seats.  Was he making his remarks in order to hoodwink a certain section of his support?   Maybe he wanted some more gullible unionists to think that an agreement on seats might be in the offing even though he knew that was not possible.  If that is what he was up to, he was being totally dishonest.

So how does Tom Elliot view his own remarks in terms of damaging the integrity of the Alliance and its core principles?  I leave this question hanging because I used the word “treacherous” in my previous blog. 

Mr. Elliot would indeed have been acting treacherously if he made his remarks knowing that they would damage the integrity of UCUNF.  I suggest that had he not known that they would be damaging, he would have been rather naïve.  Could he have been naïve? 

That is extremely unlikely.  As one of the UUP’s senior politicians, he should have read and understood the Memorandum of Understanding.  He also would have been surrounded by party colleagues who would have discussed the agreement in detail with him and understood it.   

After he made his remarks to the Fermanagh Herald, I expected that somebody senior within the UUP would have given Tom Elliot some sort of “wrap over the knuckles.”  Indeed, that was also the view of Horseman on his blog. 

“Expect a swift slap-down from UUP headquarters and a ‘clarification’ from Elliott very soon.”

Similar criticism also came from O’Neill.

Not only was his remarks reported in the Fermanagh Herald but also in other newspapers, including the News Letter on 30^th October and the Ballymena Times on the same date.  Undoubtedly, this newspaper coverage played a part in the BBC’s invitation to Mr. Elliot to appear with Mr. Donaldson on ‘Hearts and Minds’.

It would be very hard to imagine that no words of caution were given to Mr. Elliot by somebody within his party following the Newspaper publications.   

Given all the circumstances, Mr. Elliot’s position as a prospective parliamentary candidate is, in my opinion, untenable. 

As far as the UUP is concerned, the problem of speculation about deals with the DUP is damaging in itself.  This so called “vote splitting” issue needs to be ‘nailed’ once and for all.

Very soon, Sir Reg.’s thinking time in the shower might not be enough

If you are a businessman or just somebody who works very hard who is taking his holiday break, you are likely to spend the first few days getting over your tiredness. 

During the next phase of your holiday, you feel fantastic and feel on a high.  It is in that second phase that your mind could look back on your work or business.  You might identify the things you could do better.  You might think of ways of being more productive.   You might think about new ways of marketing the business or the interests of your employers.  Ideas might come to you which would probably not have done when you were working hard keeping the wheels of the business or workplace turning.  Is that you?

The limitations of mental endurance apply to politicians just as they do to everybody who works hard.  The leader of a political party that has just won a General Election, after being in Opposition, will have found time to plan strategically for their term in Government.  Yes, the Leader of the opposition works very hard but he or she has more time on his hands than the Prime Minister to plan strategically about future of his Country. 

Gordon Brown has to work exceptionally hard just to cover his administrative duties as Prime Minister.  The summer is really the only time that the Prime Minister has to have a proper break and do some creative thinking.  I am not suggesting that Gordon Brown would be doing any creative thinking.  It is very difficult when the policy theme which glided your political faction into power has run out of steam and I suggest that the New Labour ideal has indeed run out of steam. 

Coming back to the main point, I have been concerned for some time about the position of Sir Reg Empey.  Sir Reg. has done a wonderful job steering his party towards accepting the alliance with the Conservative Party.  He has also done a sterling job as a Minister in charge of Employment and Learning. 

There is still much work for Sir Reg to do as party leader.  When the General Election is over, his leadership will be needed, as never before.  He will have two big strands of planning to contend with.  The first is to plan strategically for administration following the next assembly elections.  The second is to negotiate an extension of the Alliance with the Conservatives and the policies which will shape the agenda of the next Assembly administration.  By the time that the next election is over, the Conservatives will be in power.  In a sense, the Conservatives will depend upon the UUP to lead the creative planning for the next assembly.

A lot of time is going to be taken up with all of these matters.  Furthermore, Peter Robinson and Martin McGuiness could call the Assembly Elections before the full four year term has expired.  With that in mind, I would like to see Sir Reg. stepping down from the Ministry of Employment and Learning and appointing another UUP MLA to the post.  Who should be appointed?  That is, of course another matter.

Very soon, Sir Reg.’s thinking time in the shower might not be enough.

The Battle of North Down

The BBC are hyping up the selection process of Conservative / UUP selection of candidates for Parliament. 

All right, maybe it is not hype.  Jim Fitzpatrick is not a journalist who lights bonfires.  I say this with the greatest respect.  He does know his stuff but he is too much of a gentleman when he interviews politicians.  He is young and developing.  He may yet become Northern Ireland’s Robin Day, but not for the moment. 

He has picked this issue for tomorrow’s politics show.  Is it such a big deal?  The Conservatives and the Unionists have now selected their candidates to go before the joint committee.  Is it really so unreasonable to expect Conservatives and Unionists to get right behind whichever joint candidate is selected?  In 17 of the 18 seats, I would suggest that this really is a non issue.

There is perhaps one exception.  I say “perhaps” because certain individuals are keeping their cards close to their chests – most notably, Lady Sylvia Hermon.

Now those of you reading this blog will know that I have criticised Lady Hermon on previous occasions.  I have some sympathy with her about the fact that she does not accept the direction that her party has taken.  What about the UUP’s position?

Sir Reg. Empey has made it clear that he will not interfere with Lady Hermon’s right to represent the UUP during the present Parliament.  That explains his relative quietness over the issue.  It is extremely difficult for the Ulster Unionists to come out publicly against her whilst she still holds a UUP tenure. 

I do not know what UUP association is up to in North Down but Jim Fitzpatrick has said this in his blog

“Lady Sylvia Hermon has yet to declare her intentions, but moves are believed to be under way by some in her constituency association to select an alternative Ulster Unionist candidate”

I am naturally delighted to hear that an alternative Ulster Unionist candidate is being selected.  If that news is correct, does it not kill off  half of the controversy in your blog Jim?

All right, so what if Lady Hermon stands as an independent.  She may or may not win back the North Down seat but she knows that her influence will wane rapidly once she leaves the Ulster Unionist party. 

As for the Conservatives and Ulster Unionists, the important thing is that they will be sticking to their agreement.  The North Down Conservatives have selected Ian Parsley as their nominee.  That is a bold selection and perhaps worthy of a wee bit of additional comment.

I have not yet met Ian Parsley.  I have only seen him briefly on Television during the Euro Election campaign.  I do know many members of the North Down Conservative Association very well.  Before Mr. Parsley’s defection, North Down did have another candidate available for selection who had already passed the PAB procedure.  There can be no doubt that Ian Parsley’s selection is some sort of statement. 

North Down Conservatives will have taken into account the electoral history of their constituency and the views of North Down constituents, as well as the calibre of Mr. Parsley as a prospective candidate.  Conservative officials will by now have got to know him very well.  Having talked to some of these officials, the impression I am getting is that he has considerable talent. 

I hope that Ian Parsley does go on to represent North Down at the General Election.  He represents moderation.  Now I come to the other half of Jim Fitz’s controversy.  How the Alliance Party would react to his candidature.  For the sake of argument, I will also conjecture that Parsley wins the joint nomination.

In the North Down constituency at the last General Election, the Alliance candidate polled 2,451 (7.6%).  In the Assembly elections in 2007, their candidate Stephen Farry polled 3,131 (12.15%) of the first preference votes.  Quite clearly, the Alliance Party has some investment in North Down.

But the Alliance Party have a dilemma.  If they oppose Parsley and support Hermon as is suggested, that approach could backfire.  I would suggest that such a campaign would simply be drawing attention to Parsley and increase his chance of winning.  Opposing Parsley would also create baggage for them in the future.  Lady Hermon is on the left of the political spectrum.  Thus far, the Alliance has avoided being tagged as left wing (unlike its Lib Dem friends).  The Conservatives are playing a long game in Northern Ireland politics. 

As their resources and grass roots strength in Northern Ireland inevitably increase, you can be sure that they would not ignore a gift like that.

How the UUP should deal with DUP taunts over “splitting the unionist vote”

Many Conservatives are bewildered by the fact that continually, references are made to the constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone in terms of “splitting the unionist vote”

Regrettably, it cropped up again, yesterday after the UUP rose to Arlene Foster’s bate.  In yesterday’s edition of The Newsletter, Mrs Foster criticised the Conservatives and Unionists for their decision to field 18 candidates at the General Election.

The UUP’s response was to hark back to what happened in Fermanagh and South Tyrone in 2001.  In that election, Sinn Fein took the seat with a majority over the UUP candidate, James Cooper, of only 53 votes.    James Cooper was opposed in that election by an independent unionist candidate, Jim Dixon who polled more than 6,000 votes.  Dixon was endorsed by the DUP.    This is not the first time that the UUP have retaliated to taunts by the DUP of splitting the vote by making a reference to Fermanagh and South Tyrone.  Sir Reg Empey referred to it on the Politics show on 7th December.  I saw another reference to it on a previous post on the UUP website.

Whenever the UUP retaliate in this way, they expose themselves in a very negative light.  The clear subliminal message is that they would be in favour of deals over vote splitting if the DUP had not acted in bad faith.    It also makes the UUP look as if it is getting sucked back in to sectarian politics.  That is entirely the wrong message to give to the electorate.

The UUP’s proper response to this kind of taunt should be to make it clear that we are presenting the electorate with a choice which is different from the DUP.  We are presenting a brand of unionism which is entirely different to the UUP.  We are not a party which is wedded to sectarianism.   We are a party of tolerance.  We are progressive.

If anybody wishes to emphasise the DUP’s sectarian credentials, here is a quote of Sammy Wilson at the beginning of December 2008 reacting to comments by David Cameron and the announcement of the Conservative/UUP link.

“The comments made by David Cameron that he would never side with one part of the community over the other raises questions for Reg Empey. In Northern Ireland, like all societies in the world, there are occasions when a side has to be picked, when people have to stand up and be counted for what they believe in. In Northern Ireland there are times when someone has to decide whether they are on the Unionist side of the debate or the Nationalist side of it.”

I rest my case

The UUP have helped to create a monster. Now they will have terrible trouble destroying it

The European election seems to have gone very well for Jim Allister and the TUV. It has gone so well that as of now, he holds prospects of retaining his seat in the European Parliament.

Even if he does not, the consensus on Slugger and elsewhere is that so much damage has been done that the TUV is now likely to replace the DUP as the champions of “Shinnerphobia.” 

Jim Allister has had some luck. Luck does play its part in politics. The Expenses scandal was a godsend. Without it, I suspect that his campaign would not have been as effective. He may still have damaged Dodds and the DUP but nothing like enough to become a significant force in Northern Ireland politics. Nevertheless, Allister has played the cards he was dealt with very well. One of those cards was an ace handed to him by the Ulster Unionist Party. 

It goes back to September 2008. At the time, Sir Reg Empey was still in negotiations with the Conservatives to create a new political force. Then, something happened which very nearly scuppered the negotiations with the Conservatives. Sir Reg was negotiating an anti-DUP pact with Jim Allister. For me, as a conservative, this was horrifying. The one thing we wanted for the new alliance was an opportunity to break away from the tribal headcount. 

After the agreement was made between the UUP and the Conservatives, I was still concerned that the “deal” between Sir Reg and the TUV still held. I did not broadcast my suspicions. I did notice was a lack of any attacks from the UUP against the TUV and vice versa. Indeed, the UUP’s attacks on the DUP were actually mirroring what the TUV were saying. This included repeating promises made by the DUP that they would never go into government with Sinn Fein. 

Once Peter Robinson announced the end to double jobbing, I could see that they knew their campaign was going badly wrong. Liam Clarke of the Sunday Times also picked this up. Even then, I did not think even that was leaving Allister in such a strong position. What seems to have compounded the DUP’s disaster was the appearance of Diane Dodds and Jim Allister on the Politics Show. It was only at that point that I foresaw another earthquake under Stormont and realised that Allister would not be stopped. UUP officials, meanwhile, continued to work for him. They were hailing to their supporters to vote “2 & 3” for another unionist candidate. By that stage, they did not need to say vote No 2 for Allister. It was implicit in their statements.  

I had been assured by senior members of my own party that Jim Nicholson would not be telling people where to put their No. 2 vote.  Jim Nicholson, in fairness, may have kept his promise. As readers will imagine, the UUP’s public call in relation to transferable votes did upset Conservatives.  The UUP had fallen back into “little Ulsterism” again.  In the future, the UUP will not be allowed to tell their supporters that they should give their No. 2 vote to another unionist. Allister, meanwhile, will keep this campaign up his sleave. In the future, the UUP and the Conservatives will have to face Allister as a political enemy. Allister will enjoy calling on the UUP to do another deal with him for the sake of unionism. The UUP will find it very difficult to wash the dirt off their hands. 

The DUP may now be irrevocably damaged. Is this such a good thing? A monster has now been created to replace it and the UUP will know that it helped to create it. In the short term, provided Nicholson retains his seat, most UUP activists will be pleased. I will not be. The TUV may now prove much harder to destroy than the DUP would have been going into the Assembly elections.