CCHQ continue to leave Northern Ireland Conservatives out in the cold

Firstly, I would like to wish everybody who follows this blog a warm and happy new year.

I have noticed that political bloggers, from time to time, write posts about sport without there being any political context. I am a lover of cricket so I’m going to have a one-off crow. I have been hooked on the Ashes cricket series down under between England and Australia. To see Australia being so comprehensively beaten, in a sport which they have dominated since the late 1980s, is a joy to behold. The enjoyment of it has kept me warm during this appalling period of freezing weather, burst pipes and water shortages.

For the Conservatives in Northern Ireland, there is still a freeze in their relationship with CCHQ. From what I have been told by Conservatives, much of the blame for the situation rests with Jonathan Caine, a former advisor to the Conservative Party on Northern Ireland and now a special advisor to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Mr. Caine has a reputation, within the Conservative Party, as a person with very considerable experience of Northern Ireland political affairs. He is well read on the politics and history of Northern Ireland, as you would expect. I respect his reputation as a learned man.

Mr. Caine has also been portrayed as somebody who has lost his sense of independent judgment because of his close sympathy towards the UUP. I am told that he still does not understand Northern Ireland because he does not live here.

I don’t know, exactly, to what extent, Mr. Caine was pivotal in the decision to prevent Northern Ireland Conservatives from fielding candidates at Assembly Elections. For the moment, I make two observations.

Firstly, the recent decision by CCHQ to continue their support for the UUP, at the expense of Northern Ireland Conservatives is misconceived in its entirety. The UUP have nothing to offer the Conservative Party, in the short or medium-term future, in terms of winning Northern Ireland Parliamentary seats.

Secondly, I agree with the contention that you can not know Northern Ireland unless you have lived here. I have lived in Northern Ireland for 12 years. Before that, I had lived in England and the Republic of Ireland. For all the Newspapers, political and history books that I have studied and read about Ireland, nothing was as educational as living amongst Northern Irish people.

A sense betrayal has festered amongst Northern Ireland Conservatives for the last month. CCHQ, if it is making a decision that NI Conservatives do not like, should be going out of their way to keep their membership on board. Instead, they have been completely insensitive and left them isolated. That is no way to run a political party. To borrow an old English metaphor, ‘it just isn’t cricket’.

NI Centre Right Campaign strengthened by events of the last week

Child abuse comes in many forms. Nearly all child abuse falls into one of three categories: neglect, physical harm and emotional abuse. All forms of abuse by a parent or carer involve some form of emotional abuse.

Not all child abuse by Parents is driven by wickedness or selfishness. Sometimes, the root cause of child abuse is illness by the parents or parents simply not being able to cope.

If the abuse is severe enough, it falls into the category of ‘significant harm.’ If a child is suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm, the child protection authorities are obliged to intervene. In the worst of these cases, if the parents show no sign of wanting or being capable of providing a suitable upbringing for the child, the child will go into care. In exceptional cases, more likely with infants, the authorities will place the child for adoption. Metaphorically speaking, “child abuse” has occurred in the Conservative and Unionist family.

The Conservative Party is more than 300 years old. The Orange Order is more than 200 years old. In the earlier years of Orangism, these two organisations did not like each other. Relations were at their lowest ebb when, in 1829, legislation for Catholic Emancipation was passed under a Tory Government. However, they had one thing in common. They were unionists. The rise of the Parnellites brought them into a relationship.

In 1905, the Ulster Unionist Party (the UUP) was born. The UUP was a bastard child of the Conservative Party. The Other parent was the Orange Order. From the time of that birth, the Conservative Party were content to leave the care and upbringing of the UUP to the Orange Order whilst continuing to acknowledge it as its child.

The Orange Order was a bad parent. It engendered an attitude of antipathy and mistrust towards Catholics. The UUP became papaphobic, just like its Orange mother. Its Conservative father neglected it by not being involved in its upbringing. The UUP became a bully but its Conservative father, proud to acknowledge it when they met in the UK Parliament, could not see that it was doing anything wrong.

The UUP then got into trouble. When the civil rights riots broke out, the Conservatives were obliged to take some responsibility. When the Conservative father asked the UUP to accept some Sunningdale treatment, its mother objected. For a short period, the UUP was torn between the wishes of its mother and its father. Papaphobia was still a dominating influence. Inevitably, the UUP rejected Sunningdale. Like a sulking teenager, the UUP stopped talking to its father. The father attempted to talk sense with its son but to no avail. The combined effect of the political power vacuum and the deteriorating security situation led the father to signing the Anglo Irish Agreement. This caused so much anger that the UUP cut off all remaining ties with its father.

Shortly afterwards, the Conservative Party fathered another child. This child was a legitimate non-sectarian daughter. The Northern Ireland Conservatives had been born. For a short time in its early life, this child was encouraged to survive and thrive but soon suffered from neglect. It was hungry and undernourished. Because it achieved nothing, it was ignored by its father. Nonetheless, the daughter was dutiful and did what it was told by its father.

The UUP’s mother started to become frail and weak, suffering from a debilitating long-term illness which will eventually lead to its death – secularism. With the mother’s influence declining, the UUP drifted slowly towards moderation and signed the Belfast Agreement. When the Northern Ireland Conservatives saw that its father approved this development, it became jealous. In a desperate attempt to get its father’s attention, it opposed it. Still the Conservative Party ignored its daughter.

The UUP, having been badly beaten by an ever strengthening DUP, sought to get back on terms with its father. Reconciliation then occurred. However, the father wanted the UUP to be locked permanently into the family. The UUP was asked to enter into a marriage with the Northern Ireland Conservatives. The marriage proposal was rejected. Instead, an agreement was made that they live together. The result of this relationship was the birth of UCUNF.

The relationship between the UUP and the Northern Ireland Conservatives did not work out and the UCUNF child was abused by the UUP when it decided to equivocate over possible candidate deals with the DUP and internal wrangles over candidate selection resulting in crucial delay. Going into the 2010 General election, a sole unionist candidate was selected for Fermanagh and South Tyrone. Northern Ireland Conservatives were traumatised. The UCUNF child, already unhealthy going into the 2010 General Election, had been severely abused by its father and grandfather.

The UCUNF infant later died. The UUP walked away from its relationship with the NI Conservatives and told its father that it wanted the NI Conservatives out of the house.   The Northern Ireland Conservatives did not want the relationship to continue either.   The UUP’s rejection of a continuation of the link, or any future election pact, gave rise to confidence of Northern Ireland Conservatives that it would, at last, receive the support it deserved from its father.  The father had to choose between one of its children to decide who would represent National policy in Northern Ireland. In the end, a parent’s selfishness played a crucial part in the decision.

This brings me to the end of this sorry mythical tale. I apologise for the very few historical distortions which have appeared. It is sometimes appropriate to use a little bit of artistic licence to illustrate an important point.

The Northern Ireland Conservatives have been rejected, in my opinion, to a point where it is not possible for them to continue as a regional branch of the main Conservative Party. The position of trust and confidence is not something that is capable of being restored.

Alex Kane likens this position to something akin to inevitable political infanticide. I completely agree. That being the case, there is only one way for the Northern Ireland Conservatives to go. It should become an independent party. An independent party needs a political niche. That niche is a centre-right party which would take no position if there was a referendum on the future of Northern Ireland. Admittedly, there may still be a battle of persuasion ahead in relation to that last point.

As a lifelong Conservative supporter, I deeply regret what has happened. However, every cloud has a silver lining. The civilised campaign that I was conducting was always likely to be difficult, so long as there was such a strong attachment between local conservatives and the main party. With the severe weakening of that attachment, there is no doubt that the Northern Ireland Centre-Right campaign has been strengthened.

In time, as Northern Ireland Conservatives lick their wounds, they may well conclude that the events of the last few days were all for the best.

Democracy, Constitution and Government: Part 1

Within the next 19 months, there is likely to be a UK – wide referendum on replacing the First Past the Post (FPTP) system with Alternative voting (AV).  The First Past the post system has served us well for a long time but our history also shows us that our democracy does reform itself where necessary.  Is this the time to change first past the post?  Summarising the history from the founding of the first Parliament to the AV referendum, this post considers what questions we might ask ourselves when it comes to casting our vote.   

Although democracy of some sort emerged in the classical world more than 2000 years ago, the story of modern world democracy begins in England.

Simon de Montfort

In 1265, Simon de Montfort founded an elected Parliament. It was the first elected parliament of any in the medieval world comprising of representatives from each county in the Land. A few months later, De Montfort, who had been England’s de facto ruler, was killed at the battle of Evesham by the King’s forces headed by crown prince Edward (later known as “Longshanks”). Longshanks was later to become one of England’s greatest ever rulers.

In 1294, the French went to war with England in order to try and seize the Dukedom of Gascony (South West France) from the possession of the English King.

Edward I (Longshanks) presides over Parliament c. 1300

In 1295, then as King Edward 1st, Longshanks re-founded Parliament. The original purpose of this Parliament was to make it easier way to raise taxes, using elected representatives to broaden the King’s support and assist in the levy of the revenue. This Parliament was to evolve into what it has become the House of Commons today.

The principle of a single representative for each particular area has endured for centuries. Complete democracy (one man or woman – one vote for all adult citizens) did not become part of election law in Britain until 1928. However, it is also fair to say that between the middle-ages and the 19^th Century, the political system of England (and later Britain) produced arguably the most advanced form of any democracy in the world.

The English and British Parliaments were not without their difficulties. In the 17th Century, they endured and survived war and revolution. The constitutional monarchy, that eventually evolved, came about through good fortune. Following the death, in 1714, of Queen Anne, the last protestant monarch of the Stuart line, George 1st of Hanover, Germany, ascended to the throne of Great Britain. He was also unable to speak English. From that point onwards, British executive power was effectively exercised by the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. Sir Robert Walpole was the first of a long line of British political leaders and holding the office of Prime Minister. That milestone meant that the great British “ship of state” did not depend upon the health of the Monarch. Indeed, King George III became so mentally ill that he was incapable of exercising his powers as the head of State. The King’s functions and powers transferred to his son, George, acting as Regent and the business of Government continued more or less unaffected.

The British Empire is no more. Most of Ireland has been severed from the United Kingdom. However, the map of the world has been shaped, in part, by Britain’s view of democracy as a cherished institution for the Government of Nations. Had Britain been a governed by a totalitarian regime, Ireland would not have become independent and Britain would not have de-colonized as quickly as it did after World War II. De-colonization was not always a success story. Nonetheless, today, many nations around the World, which were formally British colonies, retain their democracy as a legacy from Britain.

During the dark days of World War II, the Allies, mostly democratic Nations, fought for the democratic rights which the European Nations enjoy today.

Today, Britain is still a major player in World politics. That position is owed, in no small part, to its ability to regularly form a strong government through the retention of the first past the post (FPTP). Strong government does not necessarily equate to good government but it does provide the ruling party with more scope to make unpopular policy decisions, which are in the National interest. 

Today, with the exception of China, every major nation in the world has its governance directly empowered by democracy of some kind. Democracy, as an outlet for giving people a say in the way they are governed, appears to have triumphed in most of the World.

The debate about democracy does not end simply with a conclusion that it is the right model for Government power of any nation. Depending on the structure of the main organs of state and the mode of electing a representative, democracy comes in a variety of different packages. Northern Ireland regional Government has its own peculiar system which is set up to cater for sectarian division. Constitutions around the world produce different kinds of Government. Not all democracies, including Britain, have an elected head of state.

The system of voting can shape the Government in a number of different ways.   For example, if the system of voting used to elect a sovereign parliament is through proportional representation, that is more likely to result a coalition Government.  Unless a Nation is in a great crisis, such as being in a war or in a great economic depression, a coalition Government is usually much weaker and more populist than a one-party Government.

A crucial feature of a democracy is that it results in a Parliament with substantial power being elected and that Parliament either produces an executive directly or an elected President appoints the Executive.   The quality of democracy depends on a person’s point of view.  The following questions, going to the issue of quality, occur.

• Is the quality of democracy better because the voting system is fairer? 
• Is proportional representation fairer than first past the post just because the system is more likely to result in the number of votes per party being represented in the number of seats won by that party? 
• Is the likelihood of strong Government a greater priority than a system which is fairer, if indeed PR is perceived as being fairer? 
• How important is it for a constitution to restrict an elected Government’s ability to exercise its power? (a question which will be discussed more fully in Part II)?

Within the next 19 months, there is likely to be a UK – wide referendum on replacing the FPTP system with Alternative voting (AV).  Some of these questions are likely to be uppermost in the minds of the voters.

Although FPTP has survived in Britain, it does not necessarily follow that it is the best or the right system of electing an MP. Under FPTP, the candidate with the highest number of votes becomes the constituency MP. Under AV, the first candidate to achieve 50% of the votes, either on the first count or on later counts, after the less successful candidates have been eliminated and had their votes transferred, is entitled to represent the constituency.

Can it really be said that an elected MP, who did not win the first count, should be the rightful representative of a constituency? Of course, it may be argued that a candidate, who does achieve more than 50%, has more legitimacy. It depends upon which way you look at it. AV would certainly reduce the number of safe seats. It would certainly alter the political dynamic to a very fundamental degree. 

Writing on Conservative Home, Lord Norton has set out the case for retaining FPTP.   Most Conservatives favour retaining FPTP. Rene Kinzett, author of “Think Politics” is one of those who do not.  He argues that fewer safe seats and the fact that a winning MP has to build a broader coalition is a good thing. 

When the referendum on AV arrives, I will be voting to retain FPTP for two reasons. Firstly, I believe that AV gives too much power to tactical voters or the “anti-incumbent” vote. Secondly, I believe that AV will lead to more populism and much weaker policy making.   In fact, that is looking at Kinzett’s coalition – broadening argument in a different light.  It is a recipe for an MP being all things to all men at the expense of consistency and integrity and it is fair to say that in the Republic of Ireland, TDs are not as quick to take responsibility for difficult decision-making precisely because they are under much greater pressure to be popular.

Populism is one of the worst features of modern democracy. The big problem with populism is that it is driven by short-term political pressure at the expense of longer-term good political planning.   With or without AV, a certain degree of populism will continue to exist. Unfortunately, far too often, the need for parties to win elections takes precedence over the National interest.

In the next post on this topic, I will discuss the scourge of populism in more detail and constitutional locking mechanisms which might eliminate its worst excesses.

Conservatives on the verge of long term coalition with Lib Dems

Yesterday, following Gordon Brown’s resignation as Labour leader, the Conservatives took a calculated risk with their future by offering the Liberal Democrats a referendum on Alternative Voting (“AV”).  It was a move which was designed to prevent giving Labour anything concrete to offer the Liberal Democrats.  In a post written by me before the General Election, I indicated that the Conservatives should be prepared to make that offer.

Mathematically, it is possible for Labour to obtain a working majority with the Liberal Democrats by adding the Scottish and Welsh Nationalists.    That would take them to 324 MPs.  Bearing in mind that Sinn Fein do not take up their seats, that would be enough.  Certainly, there has been talk of Labour offering the Liberal Democrats a referendum on full proportional representation.  However, that would be a very different offer.  AV was in Labour’s manifesto.  PR was not.  The two voting systems are entirely different and there are many Labour MPs who will never accept PR.   The Conservative offer has effectively killed any chance that Labour had of remaining in power. 

The Liberal Democrats will know there are risks with entering into a coalition with the Conservatives.  Then again, there are political risks for them whatever they do.   A coalition with Labour would be without the legitimacy of an elected Prime Minister.   It would also be highly unstable and very unlikely to survive long.  That is why I am now confident that the Liberal Democrats will decide that their best position is in Government with the Conservatives.

There are those in the Conservative Party who believe that David Cameron has offered the Liberal Democrats too much.  I don’t think he has, not just for the reasons outlined above.  The Conservative objective remains to provide stable government for a minimum fixed term.  I now fully expect that term to be four years.  I also expect to see the Liberals in coalition.  That is what the majority of the Nation wants.  That is also what the Nation needs.

David Cameron has played a blinder to get to this position

At the General Election, the Conservatives registered a count of 307 seats.   Throughout 2009, it looked as though we would win an overall majority.   Having noted the performance of UKIP, I am now convinced that what cost the Conservatives that overall majority was in large part connected with the withdrawal of the proposal to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.  UKIP had always said that they would have supported the Conservatives at the General Election if they had maintained the policy.

There are some Conservatives (Lord Tebbit was one of them) who wanted the Conservatives to continue with the policy on holding a referendum.  They may have won an election outright but they would have been taking a much bigger risk with the National Interest and the party’s interest further down the line.  A referendum on the Lisbon treaty post ratification would have been a referendum on membership of the Euro.  The ultimate scenario could have spelt disaster.   Britain might have voted itself out of Europe and the Conservative Party might have fatally torn itself apart.

Looking at Conservative Policy and politics over the last four years, it is quite obvious that in appreciating the scale of the task for getting back to power, the Conservatives were planning the scenario of a hung parliament, just as they were looking at every alternative to avoid it.  Competing aggressively for the centre ground of politics was one part of the strategy.  Their green policy was not just an ethical consideration of the Environment.  Their libertarian approach to politics was not merely shaped by philosophy.  Much of the drive behind these policies was a determination to fight the ground of the Liberal Democrats.  In large part, this strategy succeeded.  There was little opportunity for the Lib Dems to advance until the TV debate during the election campaign. 

Consider also the Conservative strategy for Scotland.  The Conservatives did not win any new seats in Scotland.  However, they did buy political kudos from the Scottish Nationalists by agreeing to allow them to govern at the Scottish Assembly.  The Scottish Nationalists have six MPs.  They could, passively or actively, play a crucial part in the negotiations for a new Government in the next few days. 

Consider also the Conservative approach to Northern Ireland.  The Conservatives had hoped that the link up with the UUP would have delivered them extra seats.  Alas, by the beginning of the year, once it became obvious that the link up with the UUP was not going to deliver, the Conservatives got their hands dirty with the DUP, hence the Hatfield House talks and the Fermanagh South Tyrone deal.  The latter gamble did not pay off.  Whilst I did not agree with the deal, it was understandable.  We can at least say that it was out of Character for our leadership to agree that.  The hung parliament spectre was the driving force behind it.  In a future post, I will be setting out my proposal as to how the Conservatives in Northern Ireland should respond to the problem left behind by that deal.

Recently, it was reported that the Conservatives were promising an extra £200 million following further talks with the DUP.  That is entirely consistent with a stratagem to deal with the hung Parliament problem.  Unlike deals on representation and candidates, I do not consider that kind of deal to be pernicious.  The Government has to do what is best for the Country as a whole.  However, there are others who will criticise such a deal as pandering to sectarianism.  Indeed, Lord Ashdown yesterday was asking the question as to whether David Cameron was going to do a deal with “the Orangemen.”  

Lord Ashdown’s comments betray a fear within the Liberal Democrat camp that their hand might not quite be strong enough to push for for an unconditional committment to their holy grail of proportional representation in Parliamentary Elections. 

With the option of governing on the basis of a minority government, the Conservatives, just as they threw away the referendum policy on Europe, have to consider the National interest in their approach to forming a Government.  The Country has a debt mountain to deal with.  We have a war in Afghanistan.  The Country needs the strongest possible Government.  It is absolutely right that the Conservatives should give priority to trying to make a deal with the Liberal Democrats.  

Yesterday, David Cameron set out the Conservative position.  He made a momentous speech setting out bullet point terms for the Lib Dems joining in partnership.  He outlined the issues on which there would not be negotiation, such as the policy on immigration.  In proposing an all party committee on electoral reform, with a promise to implement legislation on the basis of its recommendations, David Cameron has effectively made it almost impossible for the Lib Dems to become involved in a grand coalition with Gordon Brown.  Indeed, I proposed in one of my recent posts that David Cameron should make some sort of offer on elections for precisely that reason.  David Cameron has now shot Gordon Brown’s Fox. 

Taking together everything that has happened, David Cameron has played a blinder for the Conservatives since the moment he became our leader.  Yes, he makes mistakes but he always manages to adjust very quickly.  It is hard not to look at his performance with a certain amount of awe.  He may yet turn out to be one of Britain’s greatest ever politicians.

Alliance advance could be the start of a trend away from sectarian politics

As I write, there is a recount going on in my constituency, Fermanagh and South Tyrone. On the second count, Gildernew won by two votes after Connor won the first count.

I voted SDLP, as planned. So also did my wife and daughter. My eldest son, who is at University, was not able to come home to vote. Still, it is incredible to think that my household could have changed the result in this constituency, if indeed it turns out that Gildernew wins by one or two votes.

Would I have voted differently if I had expected this result? Certainly not. In fact, the idea of ensuring that a sectarian unionist candidate fails is very satisfying.  If Connor fails to win the seat, then Unionists will know that they will never win the seat again as sectarian unionists because the demographic trends are towards Catholics increasing as a proportion of the overall population. I would hope that unionists would then start using their heads and get behind a proper campaign to defeat the likes of Sinn Fein on the basis of their policy, not their identity or their past association with the IRA.

As for the Conservatives, they need to seriously consider their position vis a vis the Ulster Unionists. It is quite clear that the pact failed and failed badly. Some will point to strategic errors which contributed to this. In a sense, may be a good thing that happened. The Ulster Unionists have demonstrated that they are not capable of moving away from sectarian thinking, let alone sectarian political acts.

There will undoubtedly be a change of leadership in the UUP. Jeffrey Peel believes UCUNF is dead. At the very least, it needs a life-saving act. Whilst I will not, at this stage, turn my thumb to the ground, I would need to be convinced that there had been seismic shift in the core power and control of the UUP. Only after that happened, would I entertain any thought that there should be a new pact.

For all of that, a powerful ray of light shone on the anti-sectarians last night.  Naomi Long achieved an incredible result in unseating Peter Robinson. The Alliance Deputy leader’s triumph did not just occur in East Belfast. That party’s share of the vote increased all around Northern Ireland.

It has been a good year so far for the Alliance Party. David Ford’s elevation to Minister for Policing and Justice will raise the profile of the Alliance Party. Who now knows what Long’s success will lead to next? This Alliance advance could be the start of a trend away from sectarian politics.

If it were not for the fact that the Alliance Party is opposed to retaining the grammar school system, I would now be seriously thinking of joining that party. Despite this policy difference, should they ultimately turn out to be the only party capable of breaking the mould of sectarian politics, then I will be right behind them.

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.

Gordon Brown offers a juicy bone to the Lib Dems

Yesterday, the Labour Party formally announced its plans on consitutional reform to be included in its manifesto.  One of the proposals is a change the system of voting at Parliamentary Elections.  

The first-past-the-post system of voting has survived as the means by which representatives are elected to Parliament since the formation of Parliament itself in the middle ages.  I am personally in favour of retaining the system because I want the Government, whoever the winner is, to be as strong as possible.

PR  has served the UK well, over the centuries, because it has minimised the risk of coalition government.  It has made it more likely that the winning party forms a strong government.  By contrast, alternative voting systems, such as PR are more likely to produce a weaker government with the inevitable result that a Government is less likely to make unpopular decisions which are otherwise beneficial to the Country.

The first past the post system now faces its greatest threat, from the cynical political maneuverings of Gordon Brown.  

A few months ago, the Conservatives looked set to win the General Election with an overall majority of seats in Parliament. When I wrote my post on December 27th, the worst opinion poll recorded in 2009 was a 6% lead for the Conservatives. When that 6% lead was published, it looked like a rogue poll. In a string of 6 consecutive opinion polls between 22nd and 25th March, the Conservative lead averaged 4.5%. One of those polls (You Guv on 24th march) put the Conservative lead as low as 2%. Those six opinion polls that I have just referred to would, on a uniform swing, result in Labour being the Largest party in a hung parliament.

I still believe that the Conservatives will win with the largest number of seats and they still have a good chance of winning an overall majority.  However, first-past-the-post is under threat and there is now a danger that the Lib Dems could yet decide to go into government with Labour in a hung parliament, even if the Conservatives are the largest party.   

Gordon Brown is the ultimate unprincipled political calculator.   He is desperate to remain as PM – so much so that he will renege on Labour’s previous principles in order to achieve that.   That is why he has thrown a juicy bone to the Lib Dems.

For many years, the Liberals have coveted proportional representation as the means through which MPs should be elected. Of course, you would expect such a policy from a party which has been out of power since 1922 when Lloyd George stepped down as Prime Minister.   In this election, the Liberals have their chance to be in the strongest position they have ever been since then and I include February 1974 when Ted Heath of the Conservative Party made an offer of a coalition government to the Liberals.  The Liberals, under Jeremy Thorpe turned down the offer.

Last February, Gordon Brown announced plans for constitutional reform.  He proposed a referendum on the first past the post system to ask voters to change it to AV – not quite PR but certainly a stepping stone because with one further change (a switch to multiple – MP constituencies) PR is effectively what you end up with.  Labour are used to cheating (remember the European constitution) and that formula could yet end up on in the referendum after some coalition haggling.

Nick Clegg, the Lib Dem Leader, has stated that the largest party has the mandate to govern.  Does he mean that if the Conservatives have the largest number of seats, he will refuse a coalition with Labour?   He said that before Gordon Brown made his proposals.   Brown’s new policy is like a bone being thrown to a starving dog.  If there is a hung Parliament on May 7th, I don’t think the Lib Dems would be able to resist the temptation.

Gordon Brown has opened up the debate on changing the voting system.  The arguments for retaining it are strong and need to be robustly articulated by the Conservatives. On the other hand, Labour’s selfish two-faced approach ought to be exposed for precisely what it is – naked cynical political opportunism.

The Project to bring about normal politics will go on, whatever the election result

Some 10 months ago, I argued on this blog that the Conservatives and Unionists should extend their pact to regional elections in order to promote a more stable alliance.   

That suggestion now looks very much like an understatement.  In truth, the Conservative/UUP pact is probably so unstable that without an extended agreement, it was likely to come apart at the seams very quickly.  As the P & J crisis reached its climax, the cracks started to appear along the fault lines in the pact.   Those fault lines tend to run along unresolved cultural political issues.  Parades, which became a component of the P & J crisis is one of them.  The Irish Language may well turn out to be another. 

As Conservatives and Ulster Unionists lick their wounds over their disagreements on Policing and Justice, the membership of each party will be looking to its leaders for direction on where to go from here.  The General Election is only a few weeks away.  It is all very well to say that the UCUNF candidates will follow the National Conservative manifesto and we can deal with regional politics after the election.  That will not wash with Northern Ireland voters.  They will want to know what contribution the parties have to make together at regional level.  With the disagreements recently emerging over P & J, it will be very easy for the Northern Ireland voter to conclude “not very much.”

This morning, in his piece in the Sunday Times, Liam Clarke has written very much “below the belt” and put the boot in to UCUNF, happily exposing disagreements within the Conservative Party about the pact.  He has included the views of Sir Patrick Cormack, who is due to retire as an MP at the General Election.  Of course, Clarke has never had an optimistic word to say about our project since its inception. 

Whilst I would agree, painfully and reluctantly, with most of what Clarke says, there is one comment which I can cheerfully disagree with. He says this:

“If Empey’s party gets no seats, Cameron will drop it like a hot potato and the DUP will revert to its old policy of crushing it into the ground.”

Clarke has read Cameron quite wrongly in this regard.  The idea that he would want to throw away two years of hard work just because of a poor showing in Northern Ireland at the General Election is totally inconsistent with all that I know about David Cameron and his commitment to Northern Ireland.  In the event that UCUNF win no seats, there will undoubtedly be internal enquiry and debate but the two parties (who both want normal politics) will conduct it together and try to reach a consensus on the lessons to be learned and the way forward. 

Whatever the outcome of the General Election, the effort to bring about normal politics will continue and David Cameron’s weight will be behind it.

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.