One giant leap for Conservativism in North Antrim?

It may be one small step for the man from Ballymena but it could yet turn out to be a giant leap for Conservatism in North Antrim, the seat held for almost 40 years by Revd. Ian Paisley.

Irwin Armstrong

As Chekov reports, the campaign of Irwin Armstrong in North Antrim has got off to a flying start with the prospect of knocking Jim Allister into third place and giving Ian Paisley jnr. a serious run for his money.  Having met Irwin, I am not totally surprised that he is proving to be a very strong candidate. 

 TorystoryNI wishes Irwin the best of success for next week.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The results for 2008 show very little difference.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DUP  6   (down 3)

SF     5    (no change)

SDLP 3   (no change)

UCUNF  3  (up 2)

TUV  1 (up 1)

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

Bringing down the Executive

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Peter and Jeffrey Show

Does “P & J” only stand for Police and Justice?  Or could it mean something else?  Could it be the “Punch and Judy” show? 

For those of you not familiar with Punch and Judy, this is a traditional English puppet show dating back centuries in which the two main puppet characters, Punch and Judy continuously squabble with each other. 

PUnch and Judy

Northern Ireland now has its own version of Punch and Judy.  It is called “Peter and Jeffrey” 

OK, this is all a bit of tongue in cheek.  The serious point is that there are strains in the relationship between Peter Robinson and Jeffrey Donaldson which could have profound implications for the political fortunes of the DUP. 

 The story broke out approximately 10 days ago when it became apparent that Mr. Robinson was prepared to accept the recommendation of the Chief constable of the PSNI that the full-time police reserve could be disbanded but on the basis that it could be harnessed in a civilian capacity.  Mr. Donaldson’s position was that the maintenance of a full-time police reserve was not only necessary to maintain acceptable levels of security.  He boxed himself into a corner after declaring that this position was a “deal breaker.”  Not surprisingly, Jim Allister, the TUV leader, milked the rift for all it is worth.

On 12^th November, Donaldson appeared on the BBC’s “Hearts and Minds” show, interviewed by Noel Thompson.  He tried to argue that there was no difference in his position and that of Peter Robinson.  It was like listening to a politician try to argue that black equals red.  When he appeared in the Politics show last week (15^th) Donaldson was unable to hide the strain after a mauling from Jim Fitzpatrick.

Just when one thought that Donaldson might be on the road to political obscurity, it has been observed that Peter Robinson is in a position of significant weakness.  Last week, Brian Feeney of the Irish News pointedly observed

“Whatever he would like, his weakness in face of Donaldson’s indiscipline last week has shown he’s a paper tiger.

At the very minimum he should have removed the whip from Donaldson, a Johnny-come-lately who’s well down the pecking order in the DUP.

The fact that Donaldson got away with his impertinence flags up a danger signal for Robinson which he ignores at his peril.

If he doesn’t deal with Donaldson at this early stage Donaldson will split the DUP.

He’s got form.”

On Friday, the DUP met for its annual conference.  The issue between Robinson and Donaldson did not surface in the news.  Indeed, relations between Robinson and Donaldson were polite and jovial (sorry – another P & J pun).  However, the issue of Police and Justice was conspicuous by the absence of any direct reference to it in Mr. Robinson’s keynote speech.

Jeffrey Donaldson, meanwhile, is in a position of humiliation and things could get worse.  A general election looms in which he will have to fight “tooth and nail” to hold on to his seat (possibly against our Sheila Davidson).  Mr. Donaldson will be hoping desperately that no deal is reached on P & J before the election.

Paisley’s praise for McGuinness – Is this a response to Jim Allister?

Last night, I received an interesting comment from Horseman on the post entitled “Allister sets a nasty trap for Peter Robinson“

He has identified a possible scenario where the DUP does indeed lose 9 more MLAs than McGuinness and suggests that some UUP MLAs could defect to the DUP in order to keep them as the largest political party. 

The last  UUP MLAs to defect  to the DUP were Jeffrey Donaldson, Arlene Foster and Nora Beare just after the Assembly elections in November 2003.   Much water has passed under the bridge since then.  The UUP’s decline was arrested during the Euro Elections.  However, any kind of disaffection can drive a politician to defect.   For example, there is no telling whether some left-wing Ulster Unionists, who are already upset about the electoral pact with the Conservatives, might be tempted to go that way.  

I think it is unlikely that any UUP MLA would defect for that reason.   Most UUP supporters see the DUP as having peaked and begin a long-term decline into obscurity.   The loss of 9 or more MLAs will add credence to that – the more so if the UUP then becomes the largest party at Stormont.   It is also possible that DUP MLAs could defect to the UUP to make them the largest party in protest at Peter Robinson failing to nominate the deputy FM.  Perhaps we should not get too carried away.   Politicians do have a responsibility to re-assure the voters that they will play by the rules and not seek to de-stabilise the Assembly, the Good Friday agreement and the St. Andrews Agreement for sectarian motives.   

Meanwhile, this morning, supporters of Jim Allister’s TUV could be choking in the corn flakes as they read the report in the Belfast Telegraph entitled “Ian Paisley praises Sinn Fein over Northern Ireland power sharing”

Or will they not be delighted?  Maybe they will think ‘We were right to form our own movement. This man really has lost it’

Politicians rarely make remarks which they know will upset and annoy some of their own followers without making some sort of political calculation.  So is there anything significant about Paisley’s remarks?

For many years, we have listened to “smash Sinn Fein” rhetoric from Mr. Paisley and his disciples.  This rhetoric did not stop when the DUP finally went into power sharing with Sinn Fein following the St. Andrews Agreement.  Only a few months ago, it still formed part of Diane Dodd’s European Election campaign.

Could it be that the DUP have finally recognised that the contradiction is working against them and that a new approach is needed?  Mr. Paisley could easily have said that his hard-line has been the reason why Sinn Fein have “danced to the DUP tune”  in Government.  However, actually praising Sinn Fein goes one step beyond that. 

Could it be that the DUP have seen Allister’s trap and have began to pave the way towards accepting Martin McGuinness as First Minister in 2011?

Jim Allister sets a nasty trap for Peter Robinson

In his post yesterday, Horseman has set out to put flesh on the bones of Jim Allister’s article on his website in which he sets out his plans to wreck the mechanism of power sharing in its present form.  

Horseman rightly highlights the amendment to the Good Friday Agreement brought about under the St. Andrews Agreement whereby the party with the largest number of MLAs gets to nominate the First Minister.  

According to Horseman, Allister’s plan depends for its success on

(a) The DUP losing 9 more seats than Sinn Fein

(b) Sinn Fein having the largest number of MLAs at Stormont

(c) the DUP refusing to nominate for Deputy First Minister.  

Is (c) really likely to happen?  The reality is that the offices of First Minister and Deputy First Minister hold equal power.  The Assumption seems to be that the DUP leadership is incapable of swallowing its own pride.   

There is one further possible scenario.  That is that the UUP becomes the largest party.  Would Sir Reg refuse to nominate the Deputy First Minister?  I don’t think so.   

Peter Robinson has to be asked what his party would do, given that scenario.  The voters of Northern Ireland (particularly those who currently support the DUP) have the right to know that.  Robinson would then be in rather a dilemma.  

If he says he would not nominate for DFM, he leaves his party is open to accusations of (a) reneging on a constitutional arrangement which his own party negotiated (b) failing on their own promise to “control” Sinn Fein through power sharing.   If he says that he will nominate, he will upset a large section of his own supporters who would find that too difficult to stomach and more likely vote for the TUV.

Jim Allister has set a nasty trap for Peter Robinson.  He and the DUP will have great difficulty avoiding it.

The DUP’s North Antrim dilemma

On the day that he lost his European seat, Jim Allister announced that he would contest Ian Paisley’s North Antrim Parliamentary seat at the next General Election.    

This is the ultimate throwing down of the gauntlet.  The people of North Antrim who supported Ian Paisley in 2004 are now being given the opportunity to have their say on the St. Andrews Agreement.   

It was a bold move.  Ian Paisley announced in 2007 that he would stand at the next general election.  He defends a majority of 17,965.  On the face of it, it is one of the safest seats in the UK.   

In spite of that, Allister could prove to be Paisley’s nemisis.  Much of Allister’s support in the European election came from North Antrim.  There is a substantial group in that constituency who feel genuinely “betrayed” by the DUP’s change of policy towards power sharing.   

Ian Paisley has another problem.  His age.  At the age of 83, he is the oldest member the Westminster Parliament.   

The DUP have a massive dilemma.  They know that Paisley could “see off” Allister.  On the other hand, there would be a terrible cost to them if he loses.   With their founding father having lost, they will look like a party which has come to the end of its useful life and could suffer collateral damage in the next assembly elections.  Allister certainly does have a significant chance of winning.  How will the DUP respond?   

They could retire Paisley and thus protect his legacy.  Perhaps illness or the recent announcement by the DUP to end double jobbing will enable the DUP to bring this about without losing face.   

There was speculation that Ian Paisley junior was set to take over the seat from his father.  Paisley junior is already tainted by a Land Deal scandal.  The DUP will not like that prospect.  If Paisley senior is withdrawn from the contest, Allister will almost certainly have been handed the seat “on a plate”.    

Since Allister made his announcement, Ian Paisley has risen to the bait and is sounding as colourful as ever.  Commenting on the Euro election result, Paisley said  

“He stole the seat from me, Jim Allister had no political breath except for what he took from me”

This is Paisley being his old vain self.  The DUP will contemplate their position.  Meanwhile, the fight seems to be on.  It looks set to be an enthralling and fascinating contest.

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.

Conservatives and Unionists celebrate two firsts

This afternoon, as Jim Nicholson reached the quota during the third round of counting, as the first unionist MEP to be elected in the 2009 Northern Ireland election, it finally became clear that this was an historic moment for the Conservatives. 

Triumphant Nicholson on BBC

He is now one of 26 conservatiive MEPs who will carry forward the Conservative mandate in Europe.

For the first time in the Conservative Party’s history, David Cameron can now boast that there are Conservative MEPs in every part of the United Kingdom.

Furthermore, the Conservatives topped the poll in Wales.  That was an unexpected achievement.  The repercussions of that will be felt deeply in that part of Britain.

Today, we congratulate all of our elected MEPs, particularly Jim Nicholson.