Have the Conservatives sold their soul for one constituency in one election?

The part played by the Conservative Party in the agreement of Rodney Connor as a compromise unionist candidate in Fermanagh and South Tyrone is by far the most controversial step that the Conservatives have taken since the announcement of the pact with the UUP. 

The central question, which I attempt to answer here, is whether it is a step forward or a step backwards in terms of the longer-term Conservative political objectives in Northern ireland.  Firstly, what does the deal amount to in practice? 

Fermanagh and South Tyrone is a constituency where the Unionist and Nationalist vote is near parity but where Nationalists are in a majority.  In the 2005 General Election, the ratio of Nationalists to Unionists was about 53:47 on a turnout of 72.6%.  At that election, Sinn Fein polled 18,638 votes with the SDLP polling 7,230 votes.  On the Unionist side, the DUP polled 14,056 with the UUP polling 8,869.  Projecting current demographic trends, the Unionists are now down to about 45%.  A single Unionist candidate could expect to poll in the region of 22,000.  For Sinn Fein to win the seat, they would need a swing against the SDLP of approximately 5.5%.  The trend of the SDLP losing votes to Sinn Fein appears to have been arrested in the 2009 Euro election.  They have also been given a further boost with a fresh candidate in Fergal McKinney.  It is therefore highly unlikely that Sinn Fein would win the seat.  I would expect a majority for a single Unionist candidate in the region of 2,700.

Rodney Connor is almost certain to win the seat.  However, Fermanagh and South Tyrone is just one constituency out of 650.  On its own, it would be very unlikely to make any significant difference, even in a hung parliament.  This is particularly so when you consider that Sinn Fein, who hold the seat at present, do not take up their seats in Parliament.  Is it symbolically important to the Conservatives?

After the European Election, the Conservatives boasted that they had an MEP in every part of the United Kingdom.  They would certainly like to be able to claim that on May 7^th.  Rodney Connor, if elected, will take the Conservative whip.  It is, however, only “half a loaf”  because Connor will not be campaigning under the Conservative and Unionist banner. 

There is little in it, then, from the National perspective.  What about the credibility of the Conservatives in terms of their longer term aims Northern Ireland?

Bringing normal politics to Northern Ireland involves setting examples.  One thing that the Conservatives always wanted to avoid was a sectarian “carve – up”   By avoiding a sectarian carve – up, a message would be sent to the Catholic community that they really were interested in the pursuit of Catholic votes on the basis of shared values, rather than on future constitutional aspiration. 

In defence of the arrangement, Conservative and Unionist spin doctors are describing the arrangement as “not ideal” and pointing out that Rodney Connor has genuine cross-community credentials.   Unfortunately, that kind of propaganda looks like a fig-leaf to try and cover what is a sectarian carve-up.   The almost pathological hatred of Sinn Fein by a very large proportion of the unionist electorate practically guarantees Mr. Connor a free ride.  It really is hard to see the deal in any other way. 

Mr. Connor is not a UCUNF candidate.  He may say that he will take the Conservative whip but he is Independent and can change his mind.  He is not strictly bound by party obligation.  It would therefore be quite wrong for the Conservatives to be able to claim that the people in Fermanagh and South Tyrone genuinely have the opportunity to vote for the next Government.

For many in the Northern Ireland Conservative party, particularly Jeffrey Peel, the Conservatives have sold their soul and the integrity of the UCUNF project for the price of one constituency in one election.  Whatever future efforts are made to bring about normal politics in Northern Ireland, it is not hard to imagine well-intentioned Conservative activists having this deal thrown back in their faces whenever they canvass on a Catholic doorstep.  This one is going to be milked for years to come.  Disaffected conservatives, like Jeffrey Peel, will lose the will to work for the party in Northern Ireland and it will now be much harder to recruit Catholic members to the party.

I believe that the deal was a huge mistake on the part of the Conservative leadership and one which they will eventually regret.  Rodney Connor will get my vote but I will not be casting it with the same excitement and anticipation that I might have done if we had a genuine UCUNF candidate. 

My own disappointment with the deal will linger for a while.  Eventually, it will pass.  I will pick myself up again but I will never attempt to justify what has happened.

The debate on the proposed Irish Language Act – Part I

Some weeks ago, I pledged that I would write a post about whether we should have an Irish Language Act.  It is, actually, a much more interesting topic than appears at first sight.

As a Conservative who wants to pull down the sectarian wall which exists in our society, I regard this subject as one of utmost importance. However, the case has not been made either for or against an Irish Language Act by any of the politicians in Northern Ireland.  This is because the Irish Language itself has become a political football. The more that the Nationalists and Republicans try to push for an Irish Language Act, the more likely they are to entrench the position of Unionists, who are against it. 

The Nationalists and Republicans are guilty of alienating many people in Northern Ireland from the idea of learning Irish, or wanting Irish to be taught in non-Catholic schools.  In part, this is because they portray it as a nationalist (rather than an Irish) Identity symbol. 

On both sides of the argument, there is considerable bigotry.  There are Unionists who think that the Irish Language is something that “does not belong in Northern Ireland.”  Eighteen months or so ago, David McNarry, MLA of the UUP put forward a motion that Irish should be banned from being spoken in the Assembly.  His invection did not go unnoticed.

“What was striking about David McNarry’s demeanour when proposing his motion asking that Irish should be banned from within the assembly was the visceral hatred that the UUP member felt toward the language,” said Robert McNillen of the Irish News.

Part of Sinn Fein’s strategy for preserving the sectarian wall is to demonise the Orange Order. The reason for this is perfectly simple.  At the moment, it is mostly Orangemen that control the positions of power within the unionist parties. Maintain antipathy towards Orangemen and they maintain antipathy towards unionism.  The prejudices against Orangemen exist within the Catholic community as a result of past history.  All that Sinn Fein has to do in order to maintain that prejudice is to voice a little story here and there.  In the days of Drumcree, that was an easy task for them.  Now, they have to watch and listen to the Orangemen from behind the bushes, as they did at the 12^th July celebrations last year.  The example that I have selected is a piece from last year in An phoblach.  How triumphant that piece is.  They caught the Orangemen attacking the Irish Language.  Because the nature of Orange criticism of Irish is so vituperative, it enables Sinn Fein to sound ever so reasonable and even handed when they make their counter-attack.

“Exercising the right to learn and speak Irish has nothing to do with “the intended application of cultural apartheid” or “an Irish-language onslaught to strangle” Orangemen’s “sense of Britishness,” said Laura Friel of Sinn Fein. 

Sinn Fein carries on as though it owns the Irish Language.  That is part of the problem.  They are the wrong political party to champion the promotion of Irish and all other aspects of Irish culture.  Their continued existence in politics is a constant reminder of the violence of the past.  I would go as far as to say that Sinn Fein’s continued existence on the political scene in Northern Ireland contributes to a sustained reluctance of many Protestants in Northern Ireland to admit that they are Irish. 

Debate about the Irish Language requires cool tolerant heads. Perhaps it will take a cross-community political party like the Conservatives to provide a detached analysis and opinion on this issue, which will gain the trust and respect of both communities.  

The next post in this series sets out the history of the Irish language up to the 20th century.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A saint that straddles the sectarian divide

Firstly, if you are visiting this site on 17^th March may I wish you, very warmly, a happy St. Patrick’s day.

Most Irish people are familiar with the story about how St. Patrick brought Christianity to the people of ancient Ireland.  His legacy though is much more special and multi-dimensional than that.  It is not merely the fact that, unlike other patron saints of other nations, he has an historical connection with this country.

Part of St. Patrick’s uniqueness in a sectarian-ridden country like Northern Ireland is that his legacy is shared by churches of all religions in Ireland.  He is a non-sectarian symbol and that makes him extra special.  In case you are not already aware, promoting normal politics in Northern Ireland is a subject very close to my heart.  That is why I decided to adapt the flag of St. Patrick as part of my logo for this Blog site.

It is my hope that we as a party can help to break the shackles of institutional sectarianism in politics.  One thing we can do to help the process is to break toxic political symbols and replace them with those that can represent both communities like St. Patrick does.  How about using St. Patrick’s cross to represent Northern Ireland?

I believe that Northern Ireland would benefit from a new flag.  The existing flag has unfortunately come to be regarded as loyalist flag.  I do believe that Northern Ireland would benefit from a new flag which all communities can share their identity with.  I am not actually the first person to suggest that St. Patrick’s cross should be incorporated into a new flag.  Some useful research has already been carried out by the Alliance Party.  The document “the Case for a new flag for Northern Ireland” is definitely worth a read.