Jan
10

Repairing the UK

After my mini-rant last month on what I see as a fundamentally broken approach to UK modus operandi it seems logical to follow up on how this wrong should be righted. In fact Cameron has quite admirably sought to bring this ‘limbo’ to a decisive end with his legally binding independence vote. It’s a tactic that has previously been mooted by unionists here in NI. And in Scotland with a large percentage of the public wishing just to get on with some semblance of governance, it should strike a cord past all the usual English/Tory/Overlord rubbish.

While tactically there is little doubt this is an astute move by the PM, and while hopefully it succeeds within it’s 18 month timespan, there is still no strategic debate much less consensus on how intra-UK relationships should be governed in the long term.
At present there is a communications gulf between the various democratic fiefdoms. What is the official formal method of working together? At the moment it appears that each leader/executive resides in their ivory tower with little in the form of strategic thought given to piecemeal enactments.  Enactments that have obvious implications for what we could call the ‘balance’ of the Kingdom – especially in regions unfortunate enough to have to suffer the dual layers of administration.
This isolation encourages participants to engage in the most unproductive of communication styles – that of rhetoric – with the resulting ugly grandstanding tending to suit a certain type of populist personality best. Thus we have the common case of those in power still behaving as if they are on the opposition benches.
None of what is currently happening is in anyone’s best interests. The sooner the collection of political houses here begin to work together rather than as competing powermongers the better for a country not enamoured by politics for the sake of it. To that end it would be sensible for institutions to create a joint committee preferably made up of senior political figures from each to run the rule over what is being proposed during each new parliament and the potential fallout for the rest of us.
In my head this is the job the House of Lords should be doing, in reality it would probably have to be copper-fastened with the presence of elected representatives and should be given some form of secretariat or leveraging of existing government office. Such an office would be capable of reaching credible conclusions, and ultimately should be given the power to block dangerously lop-sided legislation that negatively interferes with the demographic balance of our society.
Much like the European-imposed inability to ‘discriminate’ against other Europeans, this body should be powerful enough to get similar safeguards enshrined in UK law.
Would Ruane have been allowed to drop the 11+ without first having in place a credible alternative? Would the Scots have given everyone in the EU bar England, NI & Wales cheaper tertiary education?
To counteract the nat-tinged guldering that passes for intra-UK political discussion at this time, cooler heads should be looking at how introducing bold new steps can create a new and revitalised domestic outlook.
This article is by “St Etienne” who can normally be found blogging here.

Dec
22

The Dream Lives On: The Conservatives in Northern Ireland

Since David Cameron became Conservative leader in 2005, he’s done a lot of backtracking. Yet one project he’s stuck with through thick and thin: breaking the Conservatives into Northern Irish politics. From employing full-time party staff to negotiating a fragile alliance with the Ulster Unionists, the party has put a lot of work into a project that has not yet returned a single MP, MLA or local councillor. Why do they persist, and do they have any hope of success?

It is a strange twist of British politics that despite being a predominantly English party, the Conservatives have always been the staunchest defenders of the Union between the four home nations of the UK. This is strange enough in Wales and Scotland, where the party enjoys or at least has enjoyed electoral success.

But Northern Ireland hasn’t returned any MPs with links to the mainland since 1970. So why do the Conservatives show such an interest in this often isolated, conflicted part of the United Kingdom?

The Tories and Ulster – A History

The unionist tradition in the Conservative party dates back to the end of the 19th Century, when it was at the forefront of the opposition to Irish independence. In alliance with the anti-independence Liberal Unionists they were able to block Home Rule and delay independence for decades.

Once it became inevitable that most of Ireland would leave the Union, the Conservatives strongly supported the right of northern, largely Protestant unionists to stay within the UK, and played an important role in the creation of Northern Ireland.

Sir Edward Carson, MP for Trinity College Dublin, ran for leadership of the Conservatives and then went on to found the Ulster Unionist Party.

Tory leader Bonar Law even took the salute of armed loyalists threatening to rebel against any attempt to force Ulster into independence.

In modern times, the relationship between the Tories and Northern Ireland was defined by the Troubles. The Bloody Sunday massacre of 1972 happened under Conservative Prime Minister Edward Heath. Until 1974 the Ulster Unionists took the Tory whip.

In many ways the Eighties continue to define the relationship between the Tories and Northern Ireland, from Bobby Sands and the Hunger Strikes to the infamous attempt by the IRA to assassinate then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in 1984.

Although she was lucky enough to survive, Lady Thatcher’s time in office was bookended by the murder of two of her favourite Conservative MPs, Airey Nieve and Ian Gow, who both had very strong Irish connections.

Breaking In – 1989-2005

Until 1974, the Conservatives were represented in Northern Ireland by the UUP. After they rejected the Tory whip no mainland parties were represented in the province. This began to change under John Major.

Not everybody in Northern Ireland liked this isolation, and the Campaign for Equal Citizenship (CEC) was founded. This campaigned argued for a policy of integration – a permanent end to devolution and for mainland parties to contest Northern Irish elections.

Noted political writer and unionist politician David Vance used to be Deputy Leader of the United Kingdom Unionist Party (UKUP). He said: “The point of CEC was to broaden the political choice available to the Northern Ireland electorate by encouraging all the major UK parties to organise and stand for election in Northern Ireland.

“By engaging the electorate on broader UK wide issues there was a chance to move politics beyond the parochial and onto the national stage.”

It was this campaign that led to the re-creation of the Northern Irish Conservatives in 1989 after sustained lobbying from pro-Conservative CEC members, led by Dr Laurence Kennedy, in the affluent constituency of North Down.

In the build-up to the 1992 general election opposition to devolution in Scotland and Wales was at the front of John Major’s campaign, so the concept of anti-devolutionary ‘equal citizenship’ found plenty of support from the rank and file.

The North Down Conservative Association enjoyed some successes. In 1989 six local councillors were elected to North Down Borough Council. In the 1992 election Dr Kennedy came second in the North Down constituency with 32% of the vote and over 14,000 votes – the closest a Conservative had come to holding the seat since 1885. The party took a total of 44,608 votes across the province.

However, after 1992 the collapse of the Conservatives across the country hit Northern Ireland too. In the 1995 by-election in North Down the Conservatives suffered their worst by-election result since 1918 and their vote collapsed to just 2.1%.

Northern Ireland Conservative Chairman Irwin Armstrong attributed this both to the Tories’ ongoing collapse on the mainland and the development of the peace process.

He said: “There was a certain amount of disruption within the national party in the run up to the 1997 general election and there were the negotiations which eventually led to the Good Friday agreement, where local parties were central to the deal.”

He continued: “During those years the local party virtually collapsed and subsequently it stood only a few candidates when elections were called and there was very little serious campaigning. The Conservative Party nationally then underwent a long process of soul-searching and reinvention during the years of Opposition.

“Naturally the party’s energies were devoted to GB and recovering as a serious electoral force, rather than pushing its presence in Northern Ireland.”

For the next ten years, the Northern Irish Conservatives were almost entirely unsupported as the Tories tried to rebuild themselves as a force in British politics. By 2001, their general election vote was only 2422 across all 18 constituencies and they were no longer contesting many local and European elections at all.

Vote share of the Conservatives in various Northern Irish elections from 1989 to 2011. Statistics courtesy of the University of Ulster.

UCUNF – Cameron Tries Again

After David Cameron was elected Conservative leader in 2005, his own deeply held unionist convictions led the party to try once again to break into Northern Ireland. For the first time the party opened a permanent staffed office after hiring Owen Polley, author of the widely-respected pro-union blog 3000 Versts of Loneliness.

However, the approach taken was very different from the go-it-alone approach of Dr Kennedy and the CEC Conservatives of the Nineties. Instead, Cameron negotiated an alliance with the waning Ulster Unionists, hoping to trade on their brand awareness and established base.

This was a highly controversial move that caused a lot of problems, especially amongst those who had earlier supported the Conservatives in the province. Writing in 2009 Dr Kennedy declared that the Conservative movement he had led was being ‘stitched up’.

He continued: “The Ulster Unionists will just take the Tory whip, not be required to run as Conservatives – the same old client relationship that will again ensure that a “Conservative” vote will be just as sectarian as an Ulster Unionist one.”

This concern was shared by Ian Parsley, the 2010 Conservative candidate in North Down who had defected from the cross-community Alliance party.

“The agreement of a ‘Unionist Unity’ candidate in Fermanagh/South Tyrone gave the lie to the notion that UCUNF was some kind of ‘centre-right Alliance Party’, which is what I’d signed up to,” he said.

He continued: “The failure to shift the agenda away from the DUP’s obsession with ‘Unionist Unity’ and ‘balance of power’, and towards non-sectarian politics and playing a role on welfare reform, fiscal policy, European issues and so on, led to the DUP controlling the campaign.”

Sectarianism was to prove a major pitfall during the campaign. In January the party was caught holding secret talks with the DUP at Hatfield House. These talks appeared to bear fruit when the Conservatives, Ulster Unionists and Democratic Unionists all decided to support one Unionist candidate in the ultra-marginal Sinn Féin seat of Fermanagh and South Tyrone.

Although this independent would take the Tory whip, this was almost a step too far for many Conservatives. Even provincial Chairman Irwin Armstrong was pushed to the brink of resignation.

He said: “Then the abandonment of a pledge to fight all constituencies, including Fermanagh South Tyrone, did the project enormous damage.

“That was a key moment, which undermined everything the pact was supposed to stand for. It’s not widely known, but it was only the national party interest which persuaded me not to withdraw my nomination as the candidate in North Antrim.”

He continued: “I felt that the Conservative Party and its members had been betrayed and were forced to compromise their important cross community credentials. The promise to give every single voter in the UK a chance to vote for a Conservative candidate had been abandoned.”

Aftermath of the 2010 Election

In the end, UCUNF delivered no MPs in the 2010 general election. This led to the resignation of UUP leader Sir Reg Empey, who had been a key supporter of the partnership. Despite his assurances that the new leadership believed in the alliance, new leader Tom Elliott led the UUP into the 2011 Assembly elections without the Conservatives.

Everybody has their own list of reasons for this disappointing result. These can be divided into two types: problems with the campaign, and problems with the concept.

There appears to be a broad consensus about where the campaign went wrong. Apart from the problem with sectarianism listed above, a major complaint was the last minute nature in which it was organised.

Ian Parsley claimed that ‘the catastrophic failure to select candidates until barely a month before the election itself’ created all kinds of further difficulties.

For example, the DUP had time to recover from the scandals that rocked Peter and Iris Robinson at the beginning of the year because there were no UCUNF candidates ready to exploit the issue. The electorate also had ‘six months of literature pushed through their doors in six weeks’.

This same difficulty was picked up on by Trevor Ringland, former international rugby player and the Ulster Unionist candidate for East Belfast.

He said: “UCUNF was the right idea but it had a lot of problems. We only had a six week lead-in in each constituency before polling day and it just wasn’t enough.”

David Vance concurs, adding: “Another factor behind the failure of UCUNF is that it seemed to appear from nowhere, was not sold effectively as a major initiative and seemed to reduce to a few contrived photo calls with little evidence of widespread UUP support.”

This rushed campaign also undermined what should have been one of UCUNF’s key assets – new, fresh candidates. Ian Parsley said:

“To look new and vibrant, the project needs new and vibrant candidates – but they needed to be selected in time for the electorate to get to know them. Big opportunities to get known, such as Christmas activities and so on, were thus missed.”

The final major reasons for the failure of the campaign were divisions both between the Conservatives and the UUP and within the UUP itself.

According to Cllr Parsley: “The UUP was unable to move beyond its dislike of the DUP and thus campaigned primarily on parochial issues, which was to the DUP’s obvious advantage.”

These divisions became clearer after the election when Sir Reg Empey became a Conservative peer and Tom Elliott, the new leader, dissolved the alliance.

The supposed point of the Conservative project – introducing normalised, non-sectarian politics to Northern Ireland – was thus undermined by attaching it to a pre-existing local party steeped in sectarian issues. It had certainly come a long way from the initial ambitions of Dr Kennedy and the CEC.

David Vance, who as Deputy Leader saw the pro-integration UKUP win the North Down constituency and a clutch of assembly seats in the late Nineties, agreed that the modern Conservatives in Northern Ireland only offer equal citizenship ‘in principle, but not in reality’.

Going Backwards?

All this begs the question: where do the Northern Irish Conservatives go from here? Despite a cosmetically high vote share for UCUNF in 2010, the Tories themselves have not come close to matching their early Nineties success.

In the 2010 election, Ian Parsley in North Down took only 6,800 votes – nothing close to Dr Kennedy’s 14,000. In Northern Ireland’s 18 constituencies UCUNF fielded only two Conservatives – Parsley in North Down and Armstrong in the rock-solid DUP seat of North Antrim. In the Nineties the Conservatives also elected six local councillors in North Down, but do not even have one today.

There are those that argue that performance in North Down – traditionally regarded as the most ‘mainland’ of the Northern Irish constituencies and the Tories best hope for a breakthrough – can’t be taken as evidence of the party’s broader prospects.

Matthew Robinson, Chairman of the Northern Ireland Conservative Future youth movement, thinks that the 1992 result has distracted the party. He said: “I think North Down was a fluke, to be honest. North Down is a very special case. Bob McCartney came in during the late 90s as the UKUP MP and blew out a lot of Tory support.”

David Vance agrees that personality politics plays a large role in the seat. According to him: “A dominant and colourful personality tends trump party loyalties. James Kilfedder had a large personal vote in 1992 and it was most likely this that stopped the Tories winning.”

But he believes that the seat is not the naturally Conservative seat some presume it is.

He explained: “There also seems to be an anti-Conservative dimension to North Down, exemplified in Lady Hermon’s antipathy towards the Conservative Party and her serial voting with Labour.

“Champagne socialism is vintage in this area and despite the ABC1 demographic I do not believe that North Down is fertile ground for the Tories at this time.”

In terms of electoral success, the Conservatives appear to have gone backwards since the Nineties. But in allying with the UUP to reverse this decline have they also gone backwards in what they offer the electorate?

Dr Kennedy described the UUP/Conservative alliance as ‘quite a cycnical, backward step’. He sees his project to bring Northern Ireland into normal mainland politics apparently reduced to an attempt to bring the Ulster Unionists back under the Tory whip, which they withdrew from in 1974.

He finishes: “Please explain to me how Catholic conservatives in NI will be attracted by a cobbled up arrangement with the UUP.”

However, Ian Parsley believes that an alliance with a local party is the only way for the Conservatives to make an impact in Northern Irish politics. He explained:

“NI has had a stable five-party system effectively since the Hunger Strikes, and although there is the occasional breakthrough by others – such as the Conservatives in the early ’90s, local Labour in the late ’90s, the TUV and the Greens now – those breakthroughs have never proved to last more than a full electoral cycle.”

Moving Forward

Not everybody is so pessimistic. Irwin Armstrong believes that the Conservatives have a positive role to play in the future of the province’s politics.

Percentage results of the 2011 NILT survey.

He said: “Our own internal research indicates that many voters believe in mainland politics, that they’re unhappy with the performance of the assembly and that they’re looking for an alternative.   The NILT survey and the fall in turnouts are also evidence of this.”

He refers to the Northern Ireland Life and Times survey, which is taken every year. Since 2008 it has showed a majority of Catholics favour remaining within the United Kingdom – a truly monumental development in a province where ‘Catholic’ and ‘nationalist’ have been used interchangeably for generations.

The partnership also appears to benefit the UUP, despite the position of their current leader.

Mr Armstrong also stresses that the Conservatives remain hopeful that the alliance with the UUP can be revived. When asked about the party’s plans going forward, he writes:

“Our joint Chairman, with support of the Prime Minister, the Party Board and I, has made a broad and generous offer to the UUP. The offer is to set up a new party under the auspices of the Conservative Party, if the UUP and local Conservatives disband. We still await a final response from the UUP by Christmas and we will announce our plans for the future in the New Year once that has been received.”

This might come to something, despite the reluctance of the new UUP leadership. Several former members of the UUP have publicly supported Lord Feldman’s push for a merger.

As Ian Parsley points out: “For all the problems, I would note that 102,000 people voted UCUNF in the 17 constituencies in which there were candidates, while the UUP received just 78,000 first-preference votes in the same 17 constituencies a year later.

“It is my view that maintaining the relationship and correcting some of the above issues would have been beneficial to both parties.”

Conclusion

The Conservative and Unionist Party has a long and chequered history with Ireland. Yet despite the near-death of one of their strongest leaders, the assassination of two popular MPs and the killing and maiming of other party members in acts of republican terrorism, the Tory commitment to the Union remains undiminished.

This commitment is reflected in the tenacity of their attempts to get into Northern Ireland. Despite the potential for scandal and the lack of electoral success, the local Conservatives remain doggedly loyal and under David Cameron the national party leadership is backing them up.

The reasons for this commitment are rooted in the history of the party as much as any up-to-date political calculations. It is hard to tell whether or not this latest move by the Conservatives to woo the UUP will be any more successful than the last. With the DUP – formerly the bastion of ultra-Protestantism – planning to appeal to Catholic voters, the anti-sectarian pro-Union niche the party plans to occupy may disappear.

One thing seems certain, however. Whether this latest plan works or not, the Northern Irish Conservatives aren’t giving up.

Dec
17

Devolved Government: Copying the Eurozone Crisis Model

This is a piece from “St Etienne” who is normally to be found blogging here.

The first drips of social unrest are permeating through Italy and Greece. Merkel is fighting the crosscurrents of Eurozone leadership and Germany domestic leadership. The French are being well, French. And everyone it seems is wanting a different version of the 9th December ‘agreement’ in Brussels.

This treaty, yet to be ratified by state parliaments anyway, is political gloss applied over the cracks of the EZ experiment. And we’ve seen it all before. This is the fifth agreement to end all agreements. A few days after the summit with bond markets resuming their declines, Merkel said ‘there were no easy solutions’. She said that back in October after the fourth agreement – remember the one that promised a €1bn leveraged EFSF to bailout insolvent governments? We didn’t get anywhere near that leverage – a meeting of EU finance ministers at the end of November agreed to a fraction of that if at all. Another €200bn was pledged by EU central banks this time round.

Each time those whose primary task is to stay in domestic power create a frenzy hailing a measure here and resolution there, how wonderful it is that all of the Eurozone has at last come together, that this time will be different. Then they head home and the disagreements & recriminations begin. Watered down, delayed and ultimately out of date proposals eventually get implemented months later, and by that time the market has hammered out new losses for the politicians to deal with. They blamed speculators to begin with, then discovered the holders of the derivatives were their own banks protecting their money with hedges. Then they blamed the ratings agencies, for doing nothing other than what is in their job description.

This is political dysfunction.

Devolved administrations would be best remaining contrite, rather than blame Westminster for all their ills. All 3 UK regional structures are illiquid. If ourselves and Wales had exited the UK say at the dawn of the EU we would likely be as insolvent as the Southern European states today. That is a big wake up call. Or rather it should be. But Edinburgh especially is busying itself with talk of further isolation from the UK – turning 3rd level education policy on it’s head (& shamefully discriminating against others into the bargain), the first minister talking up joining the Euro (think Last King of Scotland type madness but actually in Scotland). While at Stormont too we have failed to grasp the fallacy of breaking away from the unified fiscal authority and are pushing for tax changing powers. This is bad policy in action – divergent, competing interests is precisely the opposite of what the Eurozone needs to fix their predicament. Why would we want it here?

Don’t get me wrong I’m all for lowering corporation tax – throughout the UK. Tax is simply not an NI-specific issue. Productivity is. But that means horrible non-populist measures such as pension reform in an aging population, cracking down on sick leave abusers, management reform in several large state organisations and so forth. Changing attitudes is the real nub of the problem in NI but our political structures encourage politicians to ignore it rather than to face up to difficult realities.

And so in our festering regional mess we apply a peculiarly backwards logic – more devolution! more power to the people! – when it has been shown that the drug of populism has only condemned the Eurozone to a fate that will take many years to unwind itself fully. The UK is a single market with fiscal union free of charge – why destroy what everyone else is attempting to achieve?

Dec
13

Introducing: Northern Ireland Conservative Future

Continuing OU’s occasional series on the various unionist youth movements in Northern Ireland, we present the Northern Ireland regional branch of Conservative Future.

Northern Ireland Conservative Future (NICF) is the organisation for those under the age of 30, and those in institutions of higher/further education, who are members of the Northern Ireland Conservative Party. NICF is the regional body of the national, UK wide Conservative Future organisation.

Currently, NICF is led in Northern Ireland by Matthew Robinson as Regional Chairman, and a six member regional executive including three Area Chairs – Greater Belfast & Antrim (Alex Huston), Londonderry, the South and the West (Conal O’Hare) and Down (Simon Warren). At a more local level, NICF at present has two active branches in NI, one at Queen’s University, Belfast and another based in North Down.

The goals and purposes of Northern Ireland Conservative Future are the same as those of CF organisations elsewhere in the UK. The CF constitution lists 6 in particular. These are:‘To advance the principles and policies of the [Conservative and Unionist] Party’ amongst our membership; to actively recruit new members into the Party; sharing particular CF expertise and experiences with the wider Party; representation of the interests of the membership and to promote their profiles; encouraging members to help form new branches, or to get involved in the running of existing branches; to work for the election of Conservative candidates in all elections.

Of course, NICF is keen to help members socialise and to ease introductions to others within the wider Party, and so organises and runs social events for CF members which are frequently attended by members of the senior party and interested guests.

We have been eager to pursue working relationships with other political youth groups within Northern Ireland, and in particular to provide a forum for centre-right political discussion and debate. In turn, members attend events run by the Conservative Party or other groups in order to represent the views and aims of Conservative Future.

Since early 2011, NICF has been working hard to restructure itself after a time of comparative dormancy, and to match the increased presence of the Party in Northern Ireland by developing our own. Recruitment has been a major focus of the organisation, which paid off at the QUB Freshers’ Bazaar on 28th September 2011, where CF members recruited 66 students into Conservative Future.

NICF has sought to build on that success by hosting events for members in the NI Conservative Party Headquarters in Bangor, and in Queen’s University, aimed at facilitating introductions, and encouraging activity.

With the launch of the organisation’s own website at www.nicf.co as well as an active Twitter feed @NIrelandCF and increasing use of other social media, NICF hopes to continue to build a presence in youth politics in Northern Ireland.

Simon Warren is currently Conservative Future Area Chairman for Down, and also serves as Secretary of the North Down Conservative Association. He lives in Bangor, where he campaigned for the Conservative Party at the 2010 General, and 2011 Local elections.

Dec
09

Nomenclature Wars Part 2

Yesterday I provided evidence of how Irish Republicans are using words and language to, well, basically rewrite history. Today I’ll give you two more contemporary examples of the importance of words and language in modern political discourse and why pro-Union activists should pay more attention to their effect.

Imagine you are a Scot who is not politically committed and try to gauge your reaction (be it direct or subliminal) when reading the following:

1. a) “X/Y/Z is a British Unionist” or
b) “X/Y/Z is pro-Union”

2. a) “Alex Salmond is a pro-independence social democrat” or
b) “Alex Salmond is a nationalist separatist”

Remember, you are not politically committed, someone who has no firm opinion on the future constitutional status of Scotland.

If we want to present our argument in the most positive language possible, then I believe in both cases we should be using the latter definitions.

It is more than likely “X/Y/Z” is proud, as I am, to be a “British Unionist” but the effect on the neutral is more important and to be “pro” anything is almost always perceived as a positive (e.g. “pro-life” and “pro-choice” in the abortion debate) and if you are pro-Union then surely automatically you would also consider yourself “British” at least to some degree? By including “British” in the title however, you may (albeit perhaps only indirectly or subliminally) put off those people who would value the Scottish element of their identity higher that their British part. It may seem rather counter-intuitive but if those people still vote for Scotland to remain within the United Kingdom, then really… who cares?

Similarly with Salmond. The term “pro-independence social democrat” conjures up a cosy, civic, Scandinavian type picture.

“Nationalist”? Well, in most political circles in the developed world, that would be a term of abuse to describe the loony far-right.
And if I say “separatist” what’s the first image coming to mind?
The Tamil Tigers? ETA? Chechnyan rebels?

Of course, Salmond has never murdered his opponents on account of their religion or national identity but as he believes in Scotland separating from the rest of the United Kingdom, then it’s not stretching the truth to describe him as a “separatist” is it?

In both cases, we are not telling lies, we are merely crafting the image in a potential supporter’s mind and in the fight (Struggle? Battle? War?) to preserve (Save? Develop? Improve?) our nation, word and language should be an integral part of our armoury.

*If you check the comments from yesterday’s post and also the discussion page of the Kingsmills Massacre, you will see that an attempt to include the victims’ names has once again been thwarted.

However, I’m pleased to report that there has been a positive development with this specific case.
The question of the selective naming or not of victims will now become a more centralised discussion on all affected articles in an attempt to reach a “general consensus” (i.e. not one directly solely by Republicans) on the matter. Sometimes persistence does pay off!

Dec
07

Nomenclature Wars Part 1

Recently Chris Tribble pondered on what we should call those who have heroically introduced the Arab Spring this year- Rebels? Protesters? Campaigners? Fighters? Guerrillas? Insurgents? Dissidents? Revolutionaries? Maybe even, depending on whom you ask, terrorists?

Does it matter how we describe them? Yes, it does. How language is employed is important in determining not just how history is recorded and interpreted but also in how we may influence the present and future- there’s a mighty difference between defining someone as an ex-”volunteer” and a “terrorist”; between describing a party as “separatist, nationalist” and as “pro-independence, social democratic”. Words and language most definitely do matter in the creation of a political and historical narrative.

As an example, check out these two Wikipedia entries- this for the Kingsmill Massacre, this for the Loughinisland atrocity. Check how differently the context is dealt with. In the latter, the attack itself rightly takes prominence whilst in the former, it’s almost added as an afterthought. But more importantly, where are the names of the victims in the two cases? You could study the Kingsmills entry all night and you would be still none the wiser, in contrast the six victims of the Loughinisland shooting are (again rightly) recorded. The Loughinisland/Kingsmills juxtaposition is not an exception.

Compare Ballymurphy with Enniskillen. Only one event qualifies as a “massacre” apparently, in only one case again are we given what you would think were the historically important details of the victims’ names. Compare Bloody Sunday with the Birmingham Bombings; Milltown “Massacre” with the La Mon “restaurant bombing” and a clear pattern emerges, one which has been crafted by Republican activists who recognise the importance of moulding history to their way of thinking. This is a quote which one of their Wiki-Warriors lists on his own page:

Impartiality in Irish history writing has meant in every case a non-acceptance of the historic Irish Nation, and the result has been a political pamphlet rather than a history

Patrick Sarsfield O’Hegarty

In other words, “impartiality” must be sacrificed in the interests of the greater Irish “national good” and if that means the dehumanisation (and in some cases, even demonisation) of the victims of the Republican terror gangs, then so be it.

Of course, the value of Wikipedia as a resource tool can be argued and of course we can complain about the morality of a movement, which not only slaughtered innocents but also now attempts to whitewash their memory from history. For the purpose of this article, both debates are beside the point. If someone not au-fait with the event, googles in “Kingsmills” the wikipedia article is the first one up on the list and in that article the crime of murdering ten men solely because of their religion has been “contextualised” and ultimately trivialised for the purposes of political expediency by Republican activists*.

The point is that in this case “reality” can and is being created and this “reality” is coming from the mouths and keyboards of extremely ruthless, politically motivated and amoral users of the medium. They are proving words and language matter in the creation of a political and historical narrative and if not challenged, that will be the narrative posterity will regard as “the historical truth”.

Tomorrow in the second part of this article, I’ll expand on why pro-Union activists need to be aware of the wider Nomenclature Wars now taking place in our United Kingdom

Nov
25

An open letter to Tom Elliott

Note from Admin: Bill McKendry was chairman of UUP Comber branch and Elections Officer for Strangford, as well as a member of Jim Nicholson’s election team.

Dear Tom,

As you may know, I held a number of senior positions in Strangford UUP until recently. I was a typical member, considering enterprise and entrepreneurship the engines of a successful economy and convinced that Northern Ireland should remain firmly within the UK, participating fully in Westminster politics.

When there is a general election I want the right to vote for or against the Westminster government. At Assembly elections, I want to support a party which is prepared to stand up for a shared future, make difficult decisions and support job creation.

Unfortunately I no longer believe the UUP answers that description. The moves which it made towards mainstream politics have now stalled.

That’s why the letter you received from Conservative chairman, Lord Feldman, proposing a new, centre-right party in Northern Ireland, within the auspices of the Conservative Party, was an offer too good to miss.

You immediately rejected his proposal, stating that you don’t want the UUP to lose its identity. I must ask you, though, why are any of us in pro-Union parties, if the ultimate aim is not to bring mainstream national politics to Northern Ireland?

The UUP deserves credit for helping to secure Northern Ireland’s UK status, but it is time to stop defending the Union and start participating in it. Why not do that through a national party? After all, the UUP currently has no MPs, while the Conservative Party has over 300 and it is the senior partner in a government coalition.

At Stormont too, the UUP struggles to provide an alternative to the dominant parties in the Executive. Would it not be better to leave the current, outdated form of politics behind altogether and instead offer a common sense, centre-right alternative?

I haven’t agreed with all your actions as UUP leader, Tom, but there are some objectives upon which the vast majority of Conservatives and Ulster Unionists can surely still agree.

We all want Northern Ireland to be successful, with a flourishing private sector, rather than an overdependence on public sector jobs. We want Northern Ireland to remain securely within the UK, with people here able to vote for or against the government at Westminster. We want a shared future and most of us agree that personal freedoms and responsibility are the bedrocks upon which democracy is built.

There were many practical problems when the Conservative and Ulster Unionist parties stood on a joint platform, but almost 124,000 people voted for candidates who were pledged to take the Conservative whip at Westminster. Just 12 months later, when the UUP stood on its own at Assembly elections, it attracted just over 88,000 votes.

Surely losing 36,000 voters in a year signals that the electorate does not want the UUP to retreat from a process designed to deliver mainstream, national politics in Northern Ireland? That it is time to take that process unto the next stage? Why not be brave and help move Northern Ireland into a new era, rather than leading the UUP back to the stale politics of the past?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Bill McKendry
Northern Ireland Conservatives

Nov
24

Undertaking the Union

Critics may brand The Democratic Party Unionist Party (DUP) as a ruthless amalgam of driving ambition, internecine rivalries and disposable political principle but they should also appreciate the central driving force that binds this party together and which makes it so electorally successful– the insatiable lust for power.

Having spent years in the shadows of the Ulster Unionist Party, the DUP learnt their lessons well, importing fresh talent from their bigger rival and synthesising these with an ability to retain a solid base of those who worshipped at the Paisley alter. Post St. Andrews Agreement , the DUP has been slowly morphing into a party that is well suited to becoming the undertakers of the Union, albeit it in a red white and blue coffin. Little wonder Peter Robinson openly talks of being the last Unionist First Minister. However I believe it is more accurate to call Mr Robinson the first post-Unionist First Minister.

Why? The answer lies in the DUP’s embrace of a petty little Ulster Nationalist mindset that echoes that of the SNP. Rather than focus on our East-West links to the rest of the UK, it increasingly operates on a North-South agenda, protective of the £100m pa North-South bodies it once castigated. It has also supported a University Education policy that actively discriminates against our fellow Brits in England, Scotland and Wales, whilst providing favourable financial arrangements for students from the Republic. The concomitant greening of University life here holds no obvious concerns for the DUP who sell this lamentable deal on the basis it “keeps fees down” for local students.

And herein lies the rub. “Ourselves alone” is the shared future for Sinn Fein AND the DUP. It is parochial mindset that is predicated on suckering the local electorate into thinking that devolution is good news even when all the metrics show otherwise. Four years of DUP hegemony at Stormont has delivered soaring unemployment, record insolvencies, sustained business failure, chaos in Education, justice devolved to a puppet in the form of David Ford (Who sets out to remove all the symbols of the Crown and Britishness, as required by his Sinn Fein masters) and we are told that we have never had it so good thanks to the “stability” that the DUP has delivered. For stability substitute inertia and you are get closer to the mark!

The DUP has a brass neck. Not only has it been successful at selling a record of political failure as a success but it is also able to break electoral promises with impunity. Before the 2011 Assembly election, you could not stop the DUP talking about the momentous Corporation Tax changes it would make post-election. Once re-elected, any such CT changes were being pushed out to potentially the next election. The game-changer became a no-show.

DUP leader Peter Robinson looks to Alex Salmond as his political exemplar. Blame Westminster for all that goes wrong, curry the favour of specific self interest groups, and work towards a Northern Ireland increasingly apart from the rest of the UK. Tamed by Sinn Fein, the DUP is less of a lion and more of a pussycat, rolling over each time Sinn Fein demands. All of this makes it lethal to the longevity of the Union with the rest of the UK but essential to a new union with the Irish Republic.

David Vance is a political writer, commentator appearing on TV and Radio and author of “Unionism Decayed.” He was Deputy Leader of the UK Unionist Party and Economics spokesman for Traditional Unionist Voice but is no longer involved in party politics.

Nov
18

East Belfast Speaks Out!

Update: 22nd November.

“Given the increasing support for industrial action (such as the NASUWT vote last Friday), we thought it wise to seek advice about the potential difficulties involved in going forward with our debate event on 30th November, the day of the proposed strike.

Unfortunately that advice has led us to the very disappointing conclusion that it would probably be best for all concerned if we were to cancel the event for next Wednesday and seek to re-schedule it for some time early in the new year. This is now our intention.

We hope you will do everything you can to let others know that the event East Belfast Speaks Out will now not take place as originally planned, since we really don’t want people to show up and be disappointed on the night. Needless to say, as organisers we greatly regret the need for postponement.”

The “East Belfast Speaks Out” event is taking place on Wednesday November 30th in Ashfield Boys High School.

It is now in its third year and takes the form of a “Town Hall” style meeting between the people of East Belfast and their elected representatives. A panel chaired by Mark Devenport of the BBC has been invited to tackle questions from the audience. The choice of panellists was dictated by the wish for real dialogue between members of the public and those responsible for pursuing the interests of East Belfast as well as the wider community. The panel members are:

John O’Dowd MLA (SF) Minister of Education
Sammy Douglas MLA (DUP)
Judith Cochrane MLA (Alliance Party)
Frankie Gallagher (UPRG)
John Kyle (PUP) Belfast City Councillor

Questions to the panel will commence at 7.30 pm.
Doors open 7 p.m. Admission is free. Seats are limited.
They are keen to get as many people from both inside and outside the constituency to come along and to pose their questions directly to those who represent them.

Nov
12

Unionism and the Republic

This is the conclusion of a much longer document which can be found here.

That document deals with the recent history of N.Irish Unionism’s relationship with the Republic of Ireland and how this could be utilised to our fullest benefit in the future.

In summary, compared to where we were in 2006, we now have:

1. Continuing secularisation of the Republic of Ireland’s (ROI) society
2. Increasing Unionist confidence in dealing with ROI, as a state and on an individual political and economic level
3. Development of two separate Sinn Feins, with different agendas, personnel, structures
4. Constantly strengthening cultural, social and political ties between the UK and ROI
5. Stark proof of the interlinking economic connection between the two states.

How should these factors change future Unionist policy towards the Republic?

With the setting up in 2012 of a proper standing secretariat for the British-Irish Council, Unionists must start to take fuller advantage of the all-islands’ potential offered by this body. There are reports detailing discussions with regards to electricity grids and abstract “economic growth”; informally links are being created on an individual and “governmental” basis between the different administrations operating within these islands. Such cooperation, even with nationalist parties, means greater Union on whole host of political, economic, social and culture levels. The BIC should also be used facilitate more intra-UK Unionist cooperation and its benefits, real and potential should be publicised to a much wider audience than at present.

Northern Irish Unionists enjoy a unique advantage due to their national identity and geographical location. Ireland, as an island, is not Unionism’s enemy; the vast majority of Irish citizens living in the Republic are not Unionism’s enemy, a large majority of the ROI’s political and business leadership is not Unionism’s enemy. N.Irish Unionism should therefore be playing a much more pro-active bridging role bringing our geographical neighbours and our fellow UK citizens living in Britain closer together. This can be accomplished by building up stronger relationships with the political, economic and media “players” and “influencers” in both the ROI and mainland Britain.

There remains an occasional knee-jerk reaction amongst political Unionism when the topic of economic cooperation with our nearest neighbours within the European Union is broached. From an economic and PR point of view this kind of attitude is counter-productive- each case should be examined on its objective merits and the only question which needs answering is “will this cooperation bring economic benefit to N.Ireland?” If it doesn’t (and often the proposals brought forward are based solely on political considerations), then a simple “No, this will cost not benefit N.Ireland” will suffice. If the answer is “yes”, then Unionists must have the self-confidence to get fully involved politically to ensure that the matter under consideration develops to not only the United Kingdom’s benefit but also consolidates not weakens our place within the Union.

The Belfast Agreement codified one ‘identity’ to be as valid any other on these islands. The changing social and economic climate in the Republic provides Unionists the opportunity to help define or renew identity in a way that is appropriate to both the modern age and also our political, social, cultural and historical background. Identity is (or should be) the choice of the individual: not as something defined in narrow, stereotypical terms and not identified merely by his/her attitude towards the UK, faith, culture and interpretation of the history of the island of Ireland.

Older posts «