The future is bright but it certainly isn’t Orange

The Orange Order is back in the news again, following the announcement that it has a new Grand Master, Mr. Edward Stevenson. A typical Nationalist reaction to such news was “there goes the new head-honcho bigot”

We all need to be careful about our choice of words. All of us are imprinted with varying degrees of bigotry as we grow up. If your place of birth is Northern Ireland, the chances are that you have more religious bigotry to deal with than in most regions of Europe. Conquering one’s own bigotry, in relation to all forms of prejudice and intolerance, is just as much about developing an open mind as it is of being tolerant of the bigotry of others.

I do not have a problem with religious bigotry which is confined to doctrine or dogma. It follows that I don’t mind being told that I will “not be saved” or that I am following a “hellish path” if I abide by the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. It is all the sort of stuff which Protestants generally believe about Catholicism, whether or not they are members of the Orange Order. Where bigotry hurts is when it leads to inhumane behaviour such as avoidance, shunning, unkindness, intolerance, discrimination and, at the worst extreme, religious hatred.

On paper, at least, the Orange Order tells its people to show kindness and neighbourliness to Roman Catholics. Some Orangemen do just that and I am privileged to know some of them as my friends.

Unfortunately, these people do not represent the majority in that organisation. The majority of Orangemen are law-abiding citizens. They are also generally polite to Catholics and happy to do business with them. However, in their minds, Catholics are still “themuns." In their hearts they still can not go as far as completely trusting them.  They also find it very difficult to think non-communally. Real neighbourliness, which falls short of public duty, is hard to come by. This kind of thinking leads to discrimination and isolationism. It is not conducive to a shared future.

So far as Northern Irish politics is concerned, the Orange Order continues to dabble in politics, refuses to endorse political or religious pluralism and refuses to take responsibility for its role in past oppression of Catholics. At present, most UUP MLAs and most of its membership are still either members of the Orange order or very supportive of Orangism. The combined effects of these circumstances represent huge obstacles to progress for those Ulster Unionists who wish to move their party towards a more liberal position.

Tom Elliot has gone on record as saying that he wants the Orange Order to stay out of politics. Perhaps this is a recognition that an increasing number of Protestants are being turned off by the Orange Order and what it represents. Nonetheless, the appointment of a new Orange leader did not stop him from making a political gesture of ingratiation.

Meanwhile, the new leader of the Orange Order, Mr. Stevenson, did not disappoint his brethren when it came to stirring the pot. Outside Ballykelly hall, Mr. Stevenson announced that he would not be talking to Sinn Fein or the Parades Commission or attending GAA matches. There was nothing new in that. This was a leader of an intolerant organisation practising what it preaches.

The Conservative Party, if it has any ambition left in Northern Ireland politics, should avoid any association with Orangism. Unfortunately, the present link up with the UUP puts in jeopardy the Conservative Party’s non-sectarian credentials (more about that in a future post).

Meanwhile, the Orange Order’s declining membership roll can only be a good thing for Northern Ireland politics. The future is bright but it certainly is not Orange.

Last minute change in plan by CCHQ devastating to local Conservatives

In the last couple of days, the Chairman of the Northern Ireland regional Conservatives, Irwin Armstrong, has resigned from his office following a decision by CCHQ to renew links with the UUP. The decision has meant that Conservatives will not be allowed to field candidates in the forthcoming Assembly elections. However, Conservatives will be allowed to field candidates in the council elections.

Until a few days ago, it seemed that the Northern Ireland Conservatives were about to be given the “green light” to pursue a long term campaign to build the party in Northern Ireland. In a remarkable last minute “u” turn, CCHQ has acted upon an utterly desperate plea from the UUP.

CCHQ had already calculated that a Conservative election campaign would severely damage the UUP’s prospects without much chance of short term electoral success for the local Conservatives. Factored into that calculation was the near certainty that a substantial number of defections by UUP members from its liberal wing would have occurred once the Conservatives had decided to contest assembly elections. So what exactly has brought about this change of mind?

The interests of CCHQ and the Northern Ireland Conservatives were never exactly the same. At the heart of CCHQ thinking is the knowledge that David Cameron only has a limited amount of time within which to benefit from any possible political changes in Northern Ireland. If the UUP are capable of winning seats at the 2015 Parliamentary elections, only then have they something to offer the main Conservative Party.

The abandoned plan, which Irwin Armstrong had been working towards, was about to have been endorsed by CCHQ on the assumption that the UUP had no chance of securing an elected MP at Westminster. The UUP is now suggesting that it has “turned the corner” and is rebuilding its membership and popularity. Less than a week ago, the UUP held is annual party Conference. The Conference was upbeat, leaving the clear impression of a perception of a change in fortune.

Unfortunately, there is not yet any available independent evidence to back this up. This “whimsical” decision by CCHQ comes at a very high price. It has resulted in hurt and betrayal felt by many Northern Ireland Conservatives. Furthermore, even if CCHQ eventually throws its weight behind the regional party, the task of building it will have been made much harder by this decision.

The UUP are not satisfied with CCHQ’s decision either. They still believe that the Conservatives will damage them by allowing them to contest Council elections. Tom Elliott has now called for the full disbanding of the Northern Ireland regional Conservative Party.

Mark Devonport warned about the likelihood of a fudge. He was absolutely right. CCHQ are stuck on the horns of their own dilemma. They have managed to severely damage their relationship with the Northern Ireland Conservatives whilst hardly giving the UUP what it wants. Only Peter Robinson and his colleagues can benefit from this whole sorry saga.

Tom gets his pint across

 

According to a UUP source, the Fermanagh Unionist Association in Enniskillen runs a drinking club.  It is understood to be the only one of its kind in Northern Ireland.  The drinking club has apparently played a crucial role  in the recruitment of the abnormally larger number of members within the UUP who are from the Fermanagh and South Tyrone  Constituency. 

Perhaps there is something for other parties to learn from the Fermanagh Unionists about membership recruitment.  Cheers Tom!

It appears that ”the Devil’s milk” and party discipline do not go hand in hand.  I have it on good authority that the perpetrator of the assault at the first UUP executive meeting was under the influence of alcohol at the time.

David Cameron offered merger with UUP during party conference

Northern Ireland Conservatives have been wondering, throughout the summer, why there has been no proper direction from the Party leadership about the direction in which they want to take the party.

In this week’s Impartial Reporter, it has been revealed that David Cameron offered to Tom Elliot that the Conservative Party merge with the UUP.   According to the Impartial, Elliott “angrily” rejected the offer.

I do not believe that David Cameron thought there was any chance that Elliott would agree.  Nearly 2 years ago, the Conservative Party tried to negotiate a merger with the UUP.  The proposal was rejected back then.  I believe that there was a large element of jest in the offer made by Cameron.  Had it not been anything other than an offer of jest, it would have represented a clear belief by Cameron that he regarded the UUP as having no other option, except to face political oblivion.

So where does this leave the Northern Ireland Conservatives?  Are they now free to fight the UUP full opponents and contest elections in the Assembly?

There has to be a reason why David Cameron made a jestful offer.  Apart from the likelihood that it indicates an element of contempt for the UUP, I am not yet fully reading the game being played by David Cameron.   Any insightful comments or information on this interesting subject would be welcome.

Has Basil McCrea started to set out a new stall?

Spare a thought for Basil McCrea.  Having been defeated heavily in the UUP leadership election, the immediate fallout was that his allies in the UUP were unlikely to secure candidacy for representation at Stormont.  This has already happened to Paula Bradshaw.  More of his allies look set to fail selection procedure and Trevor Ringland has now left the party.  So what are his options?

He will surely be right to lie low and “appear” loyal to Tom Elliott until the elections next May.  But it would not surprise me if he sent a flow of coded signals about where he wants to take his followers in the future.  The first post on his website since his election was in connection with the Policing Board’s approach to Gay, Lesbian and Transgender rights.  Is his post just incidental or is he sending a signal of his determination to keep the flag flying for civic and pluralist unionism within the UUP?

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.

Is Tom Elliot fit to represent UCUNF?

Last night, Tom Elliot appeared on “Hearts and Minds” with Jeffrey Donaldson. 

The discussion was about whether the DUP and the UUP would make an agreement with each other over South Belfast and Fermanagh and South Tyrone so that a single unionist candidate would appear in each constituency at the forthcoming General Election.

Noel Thompson quite rightly put it to Tom Elliot that the Conservatives had made it clear that there would be a Conservative candidate in all 18 constituencies. 

Instead of affirming the established UCUNF position, he kept repeating that he would he “open to discussions.” Towards the end of the interview, he said “lets see what agreement we can work out.” 

This is not the first time that Tom Elliot has been (at best) equivocal about our position. In an interview with Local Fermanagh Herald a few weeks ago, he took a similar line.

I can not restrain myself any further from making an open criticism of the person likely to represent me at the next General Election.  In my opinion, Tom Elliot has acted treacherously.  He knew exactly what he was doing.  In my personal opinion, he is not fit to represent UCUNF.

Last night was a public relations disaster for the Conservatives and the UUP.  One of the central aims of our political project in Northern Ireland is to break the mould of sectarian politics.  Tom Elliot has set back that project.  The only way that the integrity of the project can be maintained is if the joint committee do not endorse Tom Elliot.  It may be that such a response would cause ruptures within the UUP in Fermanagh and South Tyrone where Tom Elliot is effectively the regional UUP Earl.  

If not endorsing Elliot that means that Arlene Foster gets more Unionist votes, so be it.  Our project is far too important to allow people like Tom Elliot to get in our way.

DUP played crucial part in recommendation by Eames-Bradley to pay compensation to terrorist families

Much criticism has been made of the recommendation in the Eames-Bradley report to pay £12,000 compensation to victims of terrorists.  Amongst those to criticise the recommendation were DUP politicians.  Yet they have failed to admit or apologise for the part they played in that recommendation.

It was confirmed by Dr. Eames that the definition of a “victim and survivor” for the purpose of recommending compensation was taken from the Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006.  

The DUP were sponsors of the Victims and Survivors ( Northern Ireland) Bill before it became enacted.  They were in a position to make amendments to the draft bill to exclude terrorists and their families from the definition.   Members of their own party criticised the draft definition as it stood.

An attempt was made by the Ulster Unionist Party to amend the bill.   On April 2nd 2008, Tom Elliot and Danny Kennedy MLAs of the Ulster Unionist Party tabled amendments to the Bill which specifically excluded a person who was

“physically or psychologically injured as a result of or in consequence of their undertaking a criminal act in a conflict-related incident“

as well as their carers and their families.

The UUP tried, unsuccessfully to get their amendment in at the consideration stage of the bill.  The bill was therefore passed.

What is not clear is what deal or agreement was made between the DUP and Sinn Fein in the circumstances of the passing of this bill.  Tom Elliot, MLA has said

“The DUP and Sinn Fein agreed to keep the definition of “victim” as set out in the Bill, so it strikes us as an act of orchestrated hypocrisy for the DUP to now pretend to be outraged”

The DUP certainly has a case to answer and ought to explain its position