Oppose

Jim Allister has came out against varying corporation tax rates in Northern Ireland:

"A common fiscal regime is inextricably linked to the maintenance and purpose of the Union, which is why devolved institutions in Northern Ireland have never had tax-raising powers. The matters reserved to Westminster are the common bond that binds the UK together and warrants our representation in Parliament. Reduce those reserved matters and you further detach from the rest of the UK."  

This possibly means that Jim's ability to oppose has achieved its zenith.  He now stands in opposition not only to the other parties in Northern Ireland but himself.  In 2005 in a speech to the European Parliament Jim Allister said:

"In this context, the DUP MEP called for a reduction in Corporation Tax in Northern Ireland, as was recently recommended by an economic task force under Sir George Quigley... "For economic growth, independence and freedom of action is essential, with more not less national flexibility.  For example, corporation tax in an area likeNorthern Ireland should be radically reduced as a means of stimulating investment and thereby moving us away from over-dependence on the public sector."

He has also been a strong advocate of differential treatment for Northern Ireland as he set out in 2006:

"I welcome the fact that the present Regional Aid Guidelines, as they affect Northern Ireland, are a marked improvement from earlier drafts and that the Commission listened to representations from myself and others.  The new draft Guidelines provide for continued distinctive treatment of Northern Ireland as an economic development region and therefore allow ongoing aid to attract inward foreign investment, though on a reducing scale until 2011."

Nature

The TUV have just released a new leaflet (pdf file).  In keeping with its attempts to shift its ground and perceptions, it tries to go for some positivity:

"TUVʼs positive vision for Stormont: We donʼt want to wreck Stormont, we want to make it better for you...Jobs for you, not job for the boys: Facing up to economic reality, getting the priorities right"

However, its nature overwhelms the intent.  In terms of economic vision it manages to offer even less than the UUP document (yes it appears that is possible).  It calls for a economic strategy and that's about it.  No ideas of what it should actually contain only what it shouldn't.

They only have two ideas for savings - cut backs on the operation of government (fair enough) and abolish North-South bodies.  On the second suggestion the numbers don't entirely add up to the level of savings they claim.  A number of the tasks fulfiled by cross-border bodies would still need to happen so a Northern Ireland enitity would have to be created unless of course the TUV wishes to turn off the lighthouses and end all funding to Ulster-Scots etc etc. Even if we take their figures as accurate it would only fill about £500 million of a £4 billion hole (although perhaps they will save the rest by axeing the NHS as their economics spokesperson, David Vance, believes.)

The lack of ideas isn't the only thing undermining the "jobs for the you, not for the boys" message. The centre pages are taken up by what even the accompanying press statement admits is a "lengthy" article on the history of the methodology for electing first minister.  An article that involves some interesting re-writing of Allister's history in the DUP. He says:

"If there was a single occasion when I realised my days in the DUP were probably numbered it was 17 November 2006."

Despite this apparent realisation and objections to the legislation as soon as November he went on the campaign trail for the DUP in the subsequent Assembly election in February 2007.  There is also a bit of irony by-pass about the complaint of parades legislation being in abeyance.  Overall, the shoot of positivity gets buried by the muck-spreader.

Liberalism

It seems the defeat in the Westminster election has led to something of a re-think at TUV HQ. Some interesting footwork over language with more positivity and liberal buzz phrases seeping into their public statements. Jim Allister even  used the rhetoric of the DUP's moving forward slogan in his recent statement about talks with the UUP.    While Keith Harbinson referred to the "terrorist past" of Sinn Fein, note past not present.

If this shift continues then it pretty much confirms that the division in Unionism is essentially about timing i.e. how quickly we get away from mandatory coalition.  Somewhat typical of Unionism that it manages to gut itself over a detail within a policy consensus.  All three parties are signed up to the same goal. 

It will be interesting to see if its voters notice and how they react.  For some this will no doubt bring back memories of the DUP's repositioning and be wary of the dilution of the position.  Also outright opposition has been the TUV's Unique Selling Point without it what does it have?

The Odd Couple

Before Tom Elliott appointed John McCallister as his deputy leader of the UUP Assembly group he took the time to have a tete a tete with the TUV.  However, while the TUV appears upbeat about the meeting:

"There seems to be a wide number of issues that we could find common ground on, chief among them being the changes to how the First Minister is appointed..."

The UUP Leader's placed a different emphasis on the meeting and its conclusions:

"We talked around a number of issues. At this stage it is very hard to come to any conclusions but we had a fairly frank meeting."

It's not 1912 anymore

I am weak and succumbed to temptation and made my first attempt at a fisk with the Allister article in today's News Letter as my subject.

"AS the 100th anniversary of the foundation of Northern Ireland approaches, unionists should reflect on why our forefathers fought so hard for the creation of the state."

The creation of the Northern Ireland state was not the original aim of Unionism during the Third Home Rule Crisis.  It was the compromise that was accepted after the Great War.

"Northern Ireland was established because the unionist people of Ulster refused to accept the imposition of a Dublin parliament"

This is negative reductionism.  The Unionist desire to be part of the Union (and at that time the Empire) was a positive but here it is presented as solely based on a negative motivation.

"They valued, as the foundational document of Northern Ireland, the Ulster Covenant, puts it, "our cherished position of equal citizenship in the United Kingdom". 

It was the foundational document but the house built upon it was not  what was intended.  The reality of our history and not something that Unionists are keen to admit, is that the Ulster Covenant is a compromised document.  It was a 9 county document not 6. 

Furthermore, it was a rejection of any form of Home Rule yet Ulster Unionism compromised the principle of equal citizenship when it agreed to establish the Northern Ireland parliament.  (Note there is an argument that this was in the expectation that a federal UK was on the horizon.  However, there is not much to substantiate that this was a serious possibility.)  In the Unionist debates of the time the justification for this was to claim that the Ulster Covenant was a time bound document that no longer applied.  IIRC it was the Larne Gunrunner, Sir Fred Crawford, who was the man used to make this particular argument.  So they didn't value it in 1921 rather they were working out how to get around it.

"Equal citizenship is the cornerstone of the Union. When this is diluted, so is the Union.This has already begun."

 

This ignores that asymmetry has been a more common feature of the Union than symmetry.  If asymmetry creates an inequality of citizenship then Unionists diluted it in 1921.  So technically the 'dilution' began in 1921 not 1998.  BTW I happen to think that equal citizenship is a good guiding principle for the Union but it is a mistake to present it as if it has been successfully implemented, it hasn't and isn't.

 

"Unlike Scotland and Wales, the devolved setup in Northern Ireland denies us two fundamentals of British democracy – the right to vote a party out of government and the right to have an Opposition."

 

The second right is not denied by law.  There can be an opposition at Stormont.  There is no legal requirement on a party to take its seats in the executive.  Any of the Executive parties can leave any time they wish. 

 

"As part of the UK, any form of devolution here should be compatible with British practice instead of the undemocratic and fundamentally unworkable system we have at present."

 

Which British practice?  English with no devolution, Welsh with administrative or Scottish with the highest degree of devolution.  This is a further example of the asymmetry of the Union mentioned above.

 

"In Northern Ireland we have compulsory coalition with those whose overriding purpose is the destruction of the Union."

 

The over-riding purpose of mandatory coalition is to make sure Northern Ireland has a government.  It has no legal or constitutional imperative or power to destroy the Union.

 

"Today, it is clear that government by joint authority with terrorists at Stormont and cross-border executive bodies with Dublin is semi-detaching us from the UK and building a momentum towards ending the Union...If unionists do not waken up to that reality, we will drift inexorably out of the Union and into an all-Ireland, built by increasing north-south fusion and cutting the ties which bind us to London."

 

This is a fear (a fear at a time I'd have shared) but after 12 years is it still a rational one?  The Cross-border bodies have been operating for 10 years with no impact on our position in the Union.  Also in that 10 years not one more has been created.  Furthermore, the nationalist vote has stalled and in the last election shared Unionism's turnout issues.  The Republic of Ireland more than enough woes of its own as well. So what momentum is there?  To be fair to David Trimble it was one area of identifiable success - it was in the internal arrangements and deparamilitarisation that the mess was made.  Jim Allister also chooses to forget that he argued after the Anglo-Irish agreement in a book, Alienated but Unbowed, that the best thing for Unionists here was to get as much power away from London as it could not be trusted but we could.  Now it is the reverse. 

 

"Fiscal powers for Stormont is just the latest staging post demand by republicanism."

There is no serious attempt to increase Stormont fiscal powers.  The one proposal that was floating around was corporation taxes and it looks dead in the water because of the budgetary hammering it would involve.  Anyway the Scottish parliament has greater fiscal powers (and due to get more) and the earlier demand was "any form of devolution here should be compatible with British practice".  Fiscal powers can fit that definition.

"Here is the unifying challenge for all unionist parties.  If we all dislike compulsory coalition and recognise it as undemocratic then let’s do something about it.  Let’s all pledge now that after the 2011 Assembly elections none of us will operate it and, thereby, compel the change to voluntary coalition.  This is not an anti-devolution strategy; this is a pro-democracy strategy."

Unionist Unity through agreeing to TUV tactics is not credible nor is it a sincere approach to the topic.

"I fear some unionist politicians are too comfortable in the present destructive arrangements to force change but instead salve their consciences with empty talk about there being ‘no alternative’.  Had our forefathers taken that attitude Northern Ireland would never have come into existence because there was ‘no alternative’ to the 1912 Home Rule Bill!"

There are alternatives to what we have at present.  That does not mean they are pleasant ones nor morally pure either.  Unionism did ultimately get a pretty good deal in 1921 but it was a compromise not the target that had been set.  Finally the situation of Unionism and its levels of support in 1912 and 2010 bear no comparison.  The sister document of the Ulster Covenant, the British Covenant, attracted 2 million signatories in GB.  Unionism had the support of the Conservative Party, a broad swathe of the British establishment (an establishment that still had its self-confidence (arguably over-confidence)) and significant parts of the British media.  It had a mass membership and wealthy benefactors.  If we had all those then by all means the 1912 strategy could be a credible runner and I'd happily sign up.  It isn't.  An attempt at a grand stand now would owe more to General Custer than Edward Carson or James Craig.

"There is an alternative to terrorist-inclusive compulsory coalition, but only if we want it.  If we don’t then prepare to live in a different Union, the union of an all-Ireland."

Co-opting the historical determinism of Irish republicans really needs to stop in Unionism. It is perfectly within the abilities of Unionists in Northern Ireland to out-work, out-think and out-manoeuvre republicanism.  Allister has a point whe he says "Some may lull themselves into pretending the Union has never been stronger." but prophecies of imminent doom as a response to rose-tinted analysis is not the answer either.

Lead me not into temptation

I made the mistake of reading Jim Allister's contribution to the Union 2021 debate and now having to fight the temptation to fisk it rather than do something more useful and read the new Policy Exchange report (pdf file) on Scottish devolution.

TUV - a testimonial party?

Since the election the future of the TUV has only been paid limited attention.  It has publicly committed to continuing but with an internal grouping to examine its future.  However, to conclude the TUV is finished would be premature, the Westminster result left it seriously wounded not dead.

A few weeks ago, the unsuccessful TUV Lagan Valley candidate, Keith Harbinson, gave an interview to the News Letter in which he said:

"Mr Harbinson acknowledges that the timeframe for the task the party set about achieving - voluntary coalition government at Stormont with an opposition - has now "probably lengthened" but insists it is still possible."

This is not an insignificant shift.  This is essentially the position the DUP adopted in 2007 (pdf file): 

"While the changes which we have made to the Belfast Agreement have transformed the political institutions in Northern Ireland our long-term goal remains to have a voluntary coalition Executive.  The new arrangements represent a fair deal.  They do not represent a final settlement. It is widely accepted that while the new arrangements are a massive advance on the Belfast Agreement they still do not offer the best way for Northern Ireland to govern itself.  We continue to believe that a voluntary coalition is the best permanent solution for Northern Ireland to provide good government for our people."

So one key area of difference appears to have been removed. With the possible exception of the PUP, all unionist parties are now signed up to voluntary coalition as a longer-term goal.  However, the moral objection remains (even if it is not clear-cut as they imagine) so in this respect the TUV maybe does have a distinct role.  It is a possible British example of the phenomenon in Dutch politics called a testimonial party:

"...a party that focuses on its principles, instead of adapting them to local or temporal issues in the pursuit of coalition government participation."

The Reformed Political Party (RPP) is the best modern example.  Although it is hard to see how such a role is the basis for growth or a sustainable future, like the RPP it would most likely be:

“an almost perfect illustration of Duverger's category of “fossilized” minor party.”

Shaping the Union

Below is my article from the political review section of today's News Letter.

If a person had offered the DUP membership 25% of the Northern Ireland vote and 8 MPs last summer or earlier this year then the poor soul would have been trampled in the rush. It is an impressive achievement considering the 2009 European result and the recent media controversies. However, there were enough flaws to ensure level-heads are maintained.

On the positive for the DUP it maintained 8 of its 9 seats despite apocalyptic predictions. The overall Unionist Nationalist split remained stable. There were no nationalist gains. Sinn Fein's vote remained relatively static and Ruane received some well-deserved electoral punishment for her failure at education.

On the negative, the principal architect of the party's strategy and its leader, Peter Robinson, lost his seat in East Belfast. In that constituency the party's core vote of 11,500 stayed loyal but a rainbow coalition of Alliance, UUP, PUP, SDLP and SF votes proved enough to unseat him.

This result has not precipitated a leadership crisis because that is not the DUP’s nature. Its many years as Unionism’s second party taught it to react carefully to public opinion. Some shifts are temporary others permanent, identifying which is which is the key. The UUP’s decades of dominance means that skill is lacking and failure tends to lead to a sense of crisis.

Beyond East Belfast, Fermanagh and South Tyrone remained in Sinn Fein's hands by the cruellest of margins and in South Belfast faced with another split ticket, about 3,000 Unionist voters chose to stay at home. The projections for the Assembly election based on last Friday's result show it will be a fight but the DUP is in pole position.

Last week will undoubtedly lead to a re-examination of the idea of greater Unionist Unity and whatever its outcome, it is a discussion well worth having. Such a debate could contribute to defining 21st century Unionism, thinking about the organisational structures needed and how to build the traditional voter base and a realistic vision for expanding beyond it.

Whatever the details of the result, there is still a strong temptation for the most successful party to celebrate. To boast of how well-crafted the message was. To crow about how strong the campaign was. To heap derision on your opponents for the mistakes they had made. However, for the DUP to achieve the result it did there needed to be something deeper than a good billboard or slogan.

The European election result did contribute but was not crucial. The Unionist electorate gave the DUP a clear shot across its bows. Sensibly, the DUP examination of it identified the correct lessons and its campaign dealt with many of their voters concerns. The result also gave the Unionist electorate a glance into what a three way split in Unionism meant. Amidst all the public anger and perceived unimportance of Europe, this had not been foremost in many minds. Afterwards, it did not look a wise option for the future.

However, the deeper reasoning was how do we shape the Union? Unionists here tend to talk about the Union as if it has a singular meaning but the Union adapts in small and major ways. This is how the internal relationships of the UK change to deal with political, social and economic shifts. This has been its inherent strength. In this election the Unionist electorate were faced with a three way choice of approach to managing those relationships – supplicant, dictator and battler.

The underlying tone of the Ulster Unionist message was that the Union exists on the forbearance of others. For the Union to be maintained we must supplicate ourselves to a ‘national interest’ (aka whatever the government wants). The Conservative link-up reinforced this tone. This is not a new phenomenon in Ulster Unionism with it being the ethos of Trimbleism throughout his leadership.

The TUV had the simple message that Unionism should be the sole determinant of what happens here. The regional interest is supreme. However, 40 years of bitter experience has taught Ulster’s Unionists that is no longer achievable. It is also built on the perception of an Ulster that owes more to 1960 than 2010.

The DUP’s message was the middle path. While we cannot dictate, our interests are not served by rolling over either. In the ongoing process that is the Union, to maintain the cohesion of the whole by battling for a balance between the regional and national.

In their good sense the Unionist electorate recognised that the middle path of seeking balance between the regional and the national is the best approach for the Union and Northern Ireland.

NI Election Review - TUV

I'm intending to do a examination of the Westminster campaigns of the different parties in Northern Ireland. I'll start with the Traditional Unionist Voice.

Overall the TUV campaign was a broad failure. The TUV needed to show it could hold on to the 66,000 voters it got last year. It didn't. If you project its performance from the 10 constituencies it contested, then across NI it has a vote of about 35-38,000 votes. This is consistent with what the Dromore by-election indicated was its core vote. The TUV needed to prove themselves viable for at least 6 Assembly seats but to have the real potential to upset Stormont they needed to be into double figures of seats. It didn't. Assembly projections on last week's result reinforced by their difficulty in attracting transfers would have them on 2-3 seats.

So what did they do wrong?

Media - They had difficulty maintaining a media profile since Jim Allister lost his European seat. Also running the party's press officer as a candidate was not a good recipe for a media profile during a campaign either. Media exposure is much more difficult in a Westminster campaign than a European one so the press operation needed to be a central cog not the after-thought.

Candidates - It failed to provide a full raft of credible candidates. This made them unattractive as Westminster candidates. Crucially, as the expectation was these would be the same candidates for Assembly, the TUV looked an unimpressive choice in the longer-term. They also failed to tie these candidates in closely enough with Allister's brand (something UKUP did successfully with Bob McCartney's brand in the first Assembly election).

Message - There was no message progression from the European election. Their campaign was a virtual carbon copy of the 2009 election. This is a strong temptation when a campaign has worked so well but each campaign needs something new about it. It did not or could not adapt to the different message of the DUP its primary source and competitor for votes. If their message changed at all it was to become even angrier despite the public mood having calmed somewhat but not entirely from last year. This was not a recipe for maintaining 'protest' voters nor attracting further 'floating' voters. Their half-endorsement of the UUP also mixed their message to a small degree.

Representation - This is a structural weakness of the TUV with only a small number of councillors and no MLAs. It did not succeed in getting further defections in terms of elected representatives after the 09 result and this all meant on-the-ground to entrench its performance was severely hampered.

What went wrong for them?

DUP - Their primary competitors successfully identified the right lessons from the European election and adapted its message and campaign accordingly. Essentially those that had voted Allister 1 and Dodds 2, and those who sat at home last year, voted DUP X.

Events - First Past The Post encourages voters to plump and the hung parliament narrative encouraged that further. The question was not about Stormont but about who Unionists would send to Westminster. In that context the TUV were also-rans with the choice between a party with freedom of action or a pre-agreed Tory pact with most Unionists preferring freedom to trusting a tory.

Policing and Justice - This was the issue that did not bark (something I must admit surprised me). In terms of what made Unionists frustrated with Stormont, inertia seems to trump anger over Sinn Fein's presence. The overall package must have impressed the average Unionist voter and the DUP successfully keeping the Loyal Orders on board as regards parading legislation prevented it being developed as a wedge issue.

PS I should have a column in the political review section of the News Letter tomorrow - not my best work afraid my brain is only starting to get into gear again after the election.

Vance accepts TUV law won't block Adams

On the Nolan show today it was the TUV's turn to be interviewed about their manifesto. One of the questions was about the TUV proposal to have 'No terrorists in government' by passing legislation to bar those with terrorist convictions. Vance accepted that this legal bar would not block Gerry Adams from ministerial office.

The TUV PEB

Now for a critical eye on the TUV PEB (still can't find the original Alliance PEB on the internet for some odd reason I can only find a remix version). There are no surprises in terms of the TUV's messages - scandal, terrorists in government, Stormont's crap etc.

In terms of message they actually do the DUP three small favours - they acknowledge the DUP shift on multiple mandates, they reiterate the hung parliament narrative and attack the Ulster Unionist and Conservative link-up. They do repeat the fallacy that they have the answers to 'terrorist inclusive government' but they are hardly going to admit that in a PEB or anywhere else for that matter.

Visually it's a mixed bag - they use the newspaper headline approach (useful for reinforcement of message by 'neutral' sources). In terms of backdrops they veer to having them to not - Allister and Ross do others have blank walls. Falls down a bit on their candidates failure to learn their scripts and the Harbinson, Kilpatrick, Ross sections needed re-shot - the off camera eye movement isn't good.

No terrorists in government

The TUV manifesto is out. No surprise is that a central theme is 'No terrorists in government' essentially code for Sinn Fein. However, how do they intend to fulfil this promise? They offer three ideas but none of them keep their pledge.

Their key proposal is a law barring anyone with terrorist convictions:

"...we propose that it should be provided in primary legislation that no one with a terrorist conviction can ever hold ministerial office."

There is one fundamental and obvious flaw with this - not all terrorists were convicted. So a more honest slogan would be "No convicted terrorists in government". Neither Martin McGuinness nor Gerry Adams has a terrorist conviction in a British court. McGuinness could be excluded if the TUV legislation recognised his conviction in the Republic of Ireland but Gerry Adams has none in any country. So if enacted the TUV law would potentially result in Adams taking over from McGuinness as Deputy First Minister which I doubt is what those with moral objections would like to see.

The second idea that will allegedly achieve this is voluntary coalition. However, this cannot guarantee no terrorists aka Sinn Fein either. Jim Allister has already publicly admitted that Sinn Fein can still remain in government under voluntary coalition:

"If Sinn Fein can persuade others to join them in government then, distasteful as it would be to me, I'd have to accept them getting there."

The third idea is "enhanced local government". However, this doesn't remove Shinners from government either it just changes the form of government they are in.