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’.

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.

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.

Cameron’s Wizardry set to produce a long spell which banishes the dark Lord forever

As I watched TV yesterday, one scene hit me between the eyes.  It was the look on Peter Mandelson’s face as he got into the car after leaving 10 Downing Street.  That look spoke more than everything that he said in broadcast interviews during the day.  What was it that he was so upset about?

Was it the fact that Gordon Brown was resigning as Prime Minister?  I don’t think so.    Mandelson is not a friend of Gordon Brown, whatever he may say in front of the TV cameras.  No, he was upset that Labour lost a big round in the political power game. 

Last night, when Gordon Brown resigned as Party leader, all was set for negotiations with the Lib Dems.  By Mandelson’s estimation, Labour would push through a new AV referendum which would yield a “yes.”   October 2010 would then see in the much more appealing face of David Milliband as Labour Party Leader.   Milliband then goes to the Country within a 6 months (before the nasty effect of the spending cuts kick in) but whilst the recovery continues to make us all feel artificially better.  With a combination of a much more electable leader and a new voting system which amplifies tactical voting, ‘hey presto’, Labour gain enough seats from the Conservatives to propel them back into power.

The trouble is, the plan did not work.  The Conservatives played their negotiating hand too well. 

Now the Conservatives and Lib Dems have power, control and time.  New political reforms will be brought in which will see new constituencies with boundaries that reflect, as near as possible, population size.  Worse still for Labour, a full term of office gives the Conservatives and Lib Dems more than an even chance being popular by the time of the next election in 2015. 

The coalition will have led to a new electoral dynamic in British Politics with the result that there could be masses of Lib Dem voters voting No. 2 for the Conservatives in Labour/Con marginals and masses of Conservatives voting No. 2 for the Lib Dems in Labour/Lib Dem marginals.  In fact, the next election could be so catastrophic for Labour that they could end up becoming supplanted by the Lib Dems as the mainstream centre-left party.

Was that what Mandelson was thinking of?  It would not surprise me.  Maybe Cameron’s wizardry is set to produce a long spell in office and banish the Dark Lord from mainstream politics for ever.

The future for Northern Ireland Conservatives

Jeffrey Peel has said that UCUNF is dead.  He may well be right.  In his last post before the General Election, Chekov suggested that it could not survive a bad result.

The General Election has left the United Kingdom with a hung parliament.  This could mean that instead of waiting for four years before the next general election, we may only be waiting for less than a year.  In addition, we have Assembly elections to think about next year.  If we are going to offer something attractive to the Northern Ireland electorate before these elections, important decisions need to be made now.

The UCUNF project offered something new to the Northern Ireland electorate.  It offered a chance for voters to participate in National Politics and select the next Government of the United Kingdom.  It was a worthy and noble project.  It was not the fault of the Northern Irish electorate that they did not take up that opportunity.  The handling of the project was a shambles.  Furthermore, once a deal was made for a single unionist candidate in Fermanagh and South Tyrone, the project became compromised. 

The Alliance Party and the Liberal Democrats achieved something that should have been an achievement of UCUNF.  Just before polling day, Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democrats publicly took ownership of the Alliance Party’s election campaign.  The appeal by Nick Clegg to support Naomi Long, amplified by the report in the Belfast Telegraph, will go down in Northern Ireland’s political history as the first successful piece of campaigning in living memory by a National political party for a candidate contesting a Northern Ireland Parliamentary seat.   

The Ulster Unionist Party looks set to tear itself apart.  In one camp, there are those that want to draw the party towards a shared Unionist home with the DUP.  They will seek to influence uncertain members by telling them that the DUP has moved away from its “no compromise” days.  In another camp, there are those who would like to lead the party in the direction of a more progressive type of unionism.  There are people in first camp who will blame the UCUNF project for the party’s present position.  The reality is that those same people – some of them very senior UUP members – sabotaged the UCUNF project. 

I would like to think that the progressive camp would gain enough influence on the rank and file membership to seize control of the party.  Sadly, that is unlikely to happen.   However, even if, hypothetically, the progressive camp did seize control, there are so many senior figures in the other camp that the result would be extreme instability. A highly unstable UUP is not fit for a project like UCUNF.  This election has borne that out very clearly.  In conclusion, I can see no future for the UCUNF project on the basis of an alliance between the two parties.

Had there been some measure of success for UCUNF, I believe that eventually, it would have merged with the Northern Ireland Conservatives as part of a federal structure where the new party enjoyed autonomy over its local policies and candidate selection but still remained affiliated to the main Conservative Party.    

Northern Ireland Conservatives will appreciate that since David Cameron became our leader, our branch of the party has ceased to be neglected, as we previously were, like a forgotten outpost at the edge of the frontier.  At grass roots level, the party has benefited and membership has grown considerably in the last four years.  That is appreciated and it is hoped and expected that this support will continue.  Last year, I was very encouraged to hear that David Cameron’s commitment to bringing conservativism in Northern Ireland was a long-term one and would not be coming to an end if there were significant disappointments along the way.  I am confident that commitment will continue.

The deal over Fermanagh and South Tyrone has altered our position as a cross-community party.  The road to achieving normal politics in Northern Ireland now looks longer and harder.  If the decision to field a compromise candidate in that constituency had been left to Northern Ireland Conservatives, it would not have happened.  The fact that it did is in no small part due to the pressure on the main Conservative Party to win as many seats as possible when a hung parliament became likely.  It was a classic conflict of interest situation and it underpins a powerful argument for changing the constitution of the Northern Ireland Conservative Party.

Today, we find ourselves damaged by the UCUNF project to the extent that Conservatives are now tainted, by association, with sectarianism.   We need something radical to change very quickly, if we are to get back on course towards our long term political aims in Northern Ireland.

The conflict of interest point, which I have outlined above and the need to build up our credibility with Catholics, in particular, both form part of a case for more power and control to be given to Northern Ireland Conservatives over matters which include regional policy, candidate selection and the development of a new brand.  Effectively, I am advocating independence for Northern Ireland Conservatives on all crucial decisions except in relation to National policymaking and funding. 

Underpinning that proposal, a more autonomously independent Northern Ireland Conservative Party would have a much greater chance of recognition as a cross-community party by entrenching certain rules within its constitution.  One such rule should be that there are no sectarian deals on seats or candidates with other unionist parties. 

I believe this is the right model for Northern Ireland Conservatives going forward.  I also believe it is right for the main Conservative Party too.

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.

The future will be brighter in Northern Ireland under a Conservative Government

As we reach the final stages of the election campaign, the polls suggest that the Conservatives are going to gain the largest number of seats but will be just short of an overall majority.  The situation is still, of course, highly volatile but with the likelihood of a hung parliament, the importance of how Northern Irish voters make their decision in a General Election has never been greater. 

The backdrop for Northern Ireland voters is that with the UK in so much debt and the Republic of Ireland economy in so much trouble, there are very tough times ahead, whatever the outcome of the election.  However, I maintain that the outcome of the election, whatever your tradition, will be as important to you as it will be to any citizen in Britain.  What I say here is directed to anybody who is a voter in a Northern Ireland constituency, with the exception of Fermanagh and South Tyrone.  I have expressed my view on the circumstances of that constituency here and here.

All of the political parties that are represented in Northern Ireland have now produced their manifestoes. 

Sinn Fein was the last party to produce their manifesto.  Their policies are as vacuous as ever.  They do not take up their seats in Parliament.  Taken together, they have absolutely nothing to offer the electorate.  All that a Sinn Fein MP achieves by election is the title “MP” and a salary with expenses.  When the Conservatives are elected, they will pass legislation so that neither Sinn Fein MPs, nor any other MPs that do not take up their seats, will be able to draw upon expenses.

The SDLP, by identity, is an Irish Nationalist party but for the purpose of the General Election, I am not interested in their Nationalism. Historically, they line up with the Labour Party in the Westminster Parliament on matters which don’t specifically concern Northern Ireland.  What is most important, for the purposes of this election, is that SDLP MPs support the Labour Government.  If you watched the Northern Ireland leader’s debate last week, you would have heard Margaret Ritchie explaining that. 

If you habitually vote for the SDLP or you are thinking of voting for them, I ask you to think of them as the Labour Party.  If your constituency is North Down, it is also reasonable to treat Lady Sylvia Hermon, who is now supported by the SDLP, as a representative of Labour. 

NI voters need not concern themselves with Labour’s policies for Education or the Health service.  Those are matters for the Assembly.  However, I would urge NI voters to think in terms of which party is best suited to run the Economy and deal with other non-devolved matters such as Immigration.  If you have decided on the answer to that question, then I respect your voting choice if the Labour Party is still your preferred party of Government.

If you feel that Britain and Northern Ireland need a change of Government and you are broadly in agreement with Conservative economic policy, I urge you to put aside any notion of what has gone on before and vote for one of the 17 Parliamentary Conservative and Unionist candidates who are campaigning on behalf of the Conservative Party.

The Democratic Unionist Party currently has 9 MPs.  Their core policy for the UK Parliament is simple and clear.  They are telling unionists that they will use a hung Parliament in order to extract or defend funding for Northern Ireland.  If you are a Unionist and you are taking that prospect seriously, then I urge you further to take into account the following points.

It has been suggested that during the Labour administration, the DUP extracted concessions from the Government.  Peter Robinson has alluded to concessions given when they supported them over the 42 bill.  Do not be fooled by that or by anything else the DUP tell you.  There was, in reality, no funding for Northern Ireland as a result of that vote. 

The DUP may also point to Policing and Justice, where extra funding was obtained to support devolution.  There are two things to say about that.  Firstly, it was the last piece of the Devolution jigsaw puzzle.  The supportive funding was a one-off.  Secondly, the Government made those funding concessions to support devolution, not the DUP specifically. 

The reality is that Gordon Brown has not bribed Peter Robinson at all.  If Brown was into that game, the outcome of the Presbyterian Mutual Society problem might have been different.  Incidentally, savers with the PMS have every reason to hope for a different result when the Conservatives take office.  When in office, they will look at the affair afresh and consider taking a different approach.

If DUP MPs start looking for special favours from the Conservatives to keep them in power, the Conservatives will, firstly, appeal to Northern Ireland MPs to put the nation’s interests first, particularly in these difficult times.  However, they will not be making any concessions to the DUP.  Memories still linger of the “bribe” negotiations between Labour and Ulster Unionist MPs in 1978 and 1979.  Promises made by the Callaghan Government on the eve of no confidence motions erupted into national scandal.  The Conservatives would be taking a very bad gamble if they went down that route.

Voting for the DUP on the basis of potential leverage will not benefit Northern Ireland because it will not benefit the UK as a whole.  A strong Government with a working majority represents the best prospect for the UK during these difficult times.  

The broad way to differentiate between the Conservatives and Labour is in terms of their attitude towards state and economy.  The conservative approach is economy-centred.  Labour’s is state-centred.  Labour has never been able to break free from its “Robin Hood” approach to the economy.  Another description which sums up Labour’s approach is the “Nanny State.”  Whenever Labour has finished a spell in power, it has left the State sector larger, as a proportion of the overall economy, making it much harder for it to thrive in the future.

For people in Northern Ireland, the benefit of the Conservatives being interested in this region is that the Conservatives are committed to enabling Northern Ireland to break away from its dependance on the State.   The Conservative leadership has made its overtures on this subject.   This election represents an opportunity for voters in Northern Ireland to take ownership of that commitment by showing solidarity with the Conservatives and giving them the power that we all need them to have.

Unfortunately, because of the present state of the UK economy, Northern Ireland, like everywhere in Britain, is going to suffer from spending cuts during the first part of a Conservative administration.  That cannot be avoided.   In the medium and longer term, the Conservative Party is committed to reducing the dependency of the state sector and regenerating Northern Ireland’s private sector economy.  One measure for Northern Ireland, already promised to be implemented, is the is the reduction in the rate of Corporation tax so that it is consistent with the low levels of equivalent tax in the Republic of Ireland.  Further fiscal measures will be unveiled after the Conservatives have taken office while others, such as a review of Business rates, will be discussed with Northern Ireland politicians.  In conclusion, there is some short term economic pain ahead for Northern Ireland.  Further along, the future will be much brighter under the Conservatives.

Gambling first-past-the-post may be the best way to save it

David Milliband - Britain's next Prime Minister?

The prospect of a hung parliament has already started to bring out the worst in our politicians.  In particular, we are seeing how politicians are prepared to breach political ethics in order to advance personal or party self-interest.  Of course, they will argue, at the end of the day that their self-interest and the interest of the nation are inseparable.  

Just to give examples, we have already had our own local one in Fermanagh and South Tyrone.  David Cameron has effectively torn up the Memorandum of Understanding, reached with the UUP.  I don’t think that would have happened if the deteriorating position of Conservative electoral prospects had not loomed so large in the background.    

A few weeks ago, I highlighted the policy of the Labour Party to hold a referendum on a change of the system of voting.  It is a policy which Labour would never have concocted when it was in the ascendancy.   There are many Labour politicians who still believe, like the Conservatives, that the first past the post system is the one which is most likely to lead to strong elected Government.  Alas, the thinking behind the policy has little to do with the National interest.  It is Gordon Brown’s pure self ambition to remain as Prime Minister. 

If I was a novel writer, I would now be weaving a conspiracy theory into the facts.  It is February 2010.  Gordon Brown has just launched Labour’s green paper on changing the voting system.  The Conservative position is weakening.  Opportunities are knocking and two men, hungry for power, meet in the middle of the night at a secret location.  One of them is Nick Clegg.  The other is David Milliband. 

Back to the facts.  The Conservatives have declared, rightly, that they will not compromise on the first past the post system.  Unfortunately, it is not likely that the system will survive.  It is the one issue which shortens the odds of a Liberal – Labour coalition, rather than a Conservative – Liberal one. 

Nick Clegg - Probably Britain's next "King maker"

Nick Clegg appears to have put obstacles in the way of a Lib/Lab coalition.   He has said that the party with the Largest number of votes is the one which should have the primary right to be in power.  

So, assuming that the Conservatives have the largest number of votes, he will be talking, firstly, with David Cameron.  His next pre-condition, a change in the electoral system, has already been ruled out by the Conservatives, appearing to make a Con/Lib coalition inconceivable. 

The other pre-condition that Nick Clegg has laid down is the demise of Gordon Brown as Prime Minister.  How does he expect to achieve that?   As a conspiracy theorist, I might have suggested that the path to power had already been mapped out for him.  

Actually, my desire for a conspiracy is probably a back-door way of trying to underrate Nick Clegg.  I will admit here that I did underrate him.   A few weeks ago, it looked as though he would be a leader in charge of a party that lost a third of its seats to the Conservatives.  Now he is on the verge of having some power.   There are parallels between his position and the Earl of Warwick (“the King Maker”) during the Wars of the Roses.  

It is possible for Clegg to generate a coup within Labour simply by positioning himself in the way he has just done.  This could turn out to be one of the most brilliant political gambits of modern times.   Once there is a hung parliament, the electorate will expect the Liberals to reach some sort of a deal and compromise.  The Liberals will not get total PR from Labour but they will see the referendum as an opportunity to advance their policy.  However, they will need to extract something from Labour to remain credible.  Gordon Brown’s head on a platter will become the compromise. 

There will be resistance to that scenario.  Supporters of Gordon Brown will complain that they would be dancing to the tune of Nick Clegg.   

However, there is much attraction in this scenario for Labour.  They will have had renewal of their leadership without losing power.  The acceptable and much more electable face of David Milliband will appear as Prime Minister.  He will open the Olympic Games.  The memory will be etched in the Public mind.  By the time of the next election, the economy will have strengthened and the bad times will be well and truly over. 

There are two apparent problems with that but I think they would be ignored.  David Cameron has made the point that if there is an unelected Prime Minister, there has to be another General Election within 6 months.   He can say that but there is really no precedent for this situation.  Perhaps a more difficult problem for Labour is their internal rules.  Gordon Brown will have to co-operate with the coup, to a certain extent.  He would have to remain party leader for a couple of months until the new Prime Minister is officially elected.  I believe, however, that Gordon Brown could be persuaded to go.  There is something in it for him too.  He can proudly proclaim himself as the man who led Labour and the country through the worst recession since the War.  He would have his own legacy.  As he sails off into the sunset, he might even manage a real smile. 

Can Cameron do anything to stop this?  He can win the election, of course but I am assuming that the Conservatives will not have enough seats to form a Government without a coalition.  

David Cameron - Gambling first past the post may be the best way to try and save it

Perhaps there is one way that he can make it very awkward for Clegg.  He can offer a referendum changing the voting system to AV, just as Labour has done.  This is a risk with the system which he may have to take as being the lesser of two evils.  

Some Conservatives would find this very difficult to swallow.  It is not in their manifesto and they might balk at having to explain this apparent “u” turn to the public.  However, Cameron has the communication skills to deal with that. 

If they did such a deal, the Conservatives would be in a stronger position to campaign against the change while in power.  Furthermore, Labour MPs in opposition, particularly those who were reluctant will not feel so bound by their own policy and be more likely to campaign against it.

 We have never had so much uncertainty in British Politics.  It is now looking increasingly certain, firstly, that Nick Clegg will be the “Kingmaker” and secondly, that we will still not know Britain’s next Prime Minister by May 7^th.

Why I will be voting SDLP in this election

David Cameron is under a lot of pressure at the moment.  Understandably, he needs and wants all the seats he can get.  He has his own problem on how to burst the Lib Dem bubble.  I hope that he does well in the 649 seats that the Conservatives are contesting.

Meanwhile, back in the unrepresented constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, yours truly is still smarting from the decision to support a sectarian deal. 

I have considered casting my vote for Mr. Rodney Connor.  I do not doubt that he will take the Conservative whip, if elected.  I also do not doubt what is said about him that he is a “genuine cross-community man”.  However, it was a matter for him that he accepted the nomination as a compromise candidate in the circumstances that he did.

He is an independent.  The fact is that there is no Conservative candidate in this constituency.  In this election, I am at liberty to state publicly who I intend to vote for.

It has not been easy for me to decide on how to prioritise my vote.  Voting for Mr. Connor does help the Conservative Party.  On the other hand, a vote for him is a vote of support for the sustenance of political sectarianism.

As long as I remain a conservative, I will not tolerate the endorsement of a sectarian carve up.  The Conservatives must never get involved in a similar deal again, in this constituency, or any other. 

I believe it is right that I give expression to my disapproval of what has happened in the ballot box.   Accordingly, I will not be voting for Mr. Connor.  Instead, my vote, in this election, will go to Fearghal McKinney of the SDLP.