Legend

In his latest column Alex Kane examines the issue of Sinn Fein's growth in the recent Irish elections.  In it he argues that whatever Sinn Fein will try to make of it, it is a largely meaningless development. He makes clear that:

"Sinn Fein has been sucked in, screwed over and spat back out by the Brits."

He concludes that:

"Sinn Fein is just arrogant, absurd, deluded and trapped. The balaclavas have been swapped for suits, P O’Neill replaced by a senior civil servant and anti-British rhetoric drowned out by talk of budgets and the need to implement Tory cuts. So yep, Gerry, your day has come: and Northern Ireland remains firmly anchored in the United Kingdom."

I have found Alex's columns tend to have a cyclical feel to them with periods of positivity and negativity.  He has been in a rather over-despondent mood of late and I hope this column is a sign his writing will be heading in a more positive direction again.

Critcal and Slugger

My Critical Reation essay has been picked up by slugger.  The debate is here.

Critical Reaction

You may have noticed a lack of blogging on my part over the past few days.  This is because I was kindly asked by the Critical Reaction website to produce a piece on the UUP following its election of Tom Elliott as leader.  My brief was to produce something comparable to the big threads I used to do occasionally under the Fair Deal nom de guerre on slugger so it is a somewhat lengthy essay. 

The site editor has also done some nice polishing of the text which makes it a better read.

Happy Ulster Day

Today is the 98th anniversary of the first Ulster day, 28th September 1912.  When the Ulster Solemn League and Covenant was signed by 237,368 men and its sister Declaration signed by 234,046 women.

The Covenant stated:

"BEING CONVINCED in our consciences that Home Rule would be disastrous to the material well-being of Ulster as well as of the whole of Ireland, subversive of our civil and religious freedom, destructive of our citizenship, and perilous to the unity of the Empire, we, whose names are underwritten, men of Ulster, loyal subjects of His Gracious Majesty King George V., humbly relying on the God whom our fathers in days of stress and trial confidently trusted, do hereby pledge ourselves in solemn Covenant, throughout this our time of threatened calamity, to stand by one another in defending, for ourselves and our children, our cherished position of equal citizenship in the United Kingdom, and in using all means which may be found necessary to defeat the present conspiracy to set up a Home Rule Parliament in Ireland. And in the event of such a Parliament being forced upon us, we further solemnly and mutually pledge ourselves to refuse to recognize its authority. In sure confidence that God will defend the right, we hereto subscribe our names.  And further, we individually declare that we have not already signed this Covenant."

The Declaration stated:

"We, whose names are underwritten, women of Ulster, and loyal subjects of our gracious King, being firmly persuaded that Home Rule would be disastrous to our Country, desire to associate ourselves with the men of Ulster in their uncompromising opposition to the Home Rule Bill now before Parliament, whereby it is proposed to drive Ulster out of her cherished place in the Constitution of the United Kingdom, and to place her under the domination and control of a Parliament in Ireland.  Praying that from this calamity God will save Ireland, we here to subscribe our names."

Later a sister document the British Covenant would attract some two million signatories on the mainland before the start of the Great War.  The Irish News somewhat unwisely dismissed the entire thing as a "farce", "circus" and "highly ludicrous".

False idol?

Mike Nesbitt has made his contribution to the Union 2021 series. It has a number of odd elements. For example he begins by arguing:

"As a broadcast journalist, interviewing Ian Paisley and the other unionist leaders of the 1980s, I felt they were missing a trick. Had I been Paisley or Jim Molyneaux, I would have driven down to the Office of An Taoiseach, and offered Charlie Haughey a United Ireland there and then, on the simple condition the Republic match NI’s budgets for Health, Schools, Roads, and the rest. Would Haughey not have insisted on offering an armed Garda escort back to the border with a lifetime ban on a return visit? The Republican could not afford us then, any more than they can today."

The idea would have been pointless stunt politics that shows an inclination to headlines not narrative. Its underlying basis has two worrying elements. It presents Unionism as based on the rejection of something, Irish unity, rather than a belief in the Union and presents support for the Union as an accountant's calculation. (UPDATE Bobballs on Open Unionism defends the comment here. He argues it is a self-evident truth - the republic can't afford us - but that doesn't give any means to highlight it merit nor deal with its reductionism of Unionism to negativism and money.  Reductionism is something I have previously criticised in other contributions.).  A second oddity is a comment about churches:

"In 2010, our government endorses segregated housing, segregated education, segregated leisure spaces, and denominationally discrete churches."

Highlighting the issue of segregation is perfectly valid but why are churches on the list? How exactly does a government endorse discrete churches? What is being implied government should do about churches?

The third is a curiosity rather than an oddity. He continues the UUP obsession with the First Minister post calling for a referendum on the issue. Why this fixation? If the UUP is convinced it is electorally harmful then drawing attention to it could add to the harm rather than mitigating against it. If they try and fail to change it they look ineffectual. Neither do they seem to have thought more than one step ahead on the issue.  If they did somehow change it they'd probably face a backlash about not being able to do the same on NI's budget reinforcing a perception of being divorced from the day-to-day issues. Perhaps they hope a blame game will harm the DUP but can that be guaranteed? If they did succeed in convincing a voter of the DUP being at fault that doesn't necessarily lead to a desire to punish but the voter can opt to deal with the circumstances as they are now.

Nesbitt's, like many contributions to the Union 2021 series, has become too attracted to the idol of economics. His argument is barefaced in its economic determinism:

"In 2010, the Union remains an economic imperative, and that is not going to change by 2021."

Why is the economic case so heavily relied upon in a visioning exercise? The economy is particularly prevalent in peoples' minds right now. It is a case with lots of evidence to support it. It is also the more socially acceptable argument - why get involved in a debate around something trickier like identity at the dinner table when you can just invoke wallet?

However, the economics of the Union are nothing new. It has been a central plank of its case since the beginning. When the Ulster Liberals put their case to Gladstone against Home Rule he recognised its validity. Yet throughout that time it has failed to be an effective persuader for the Union among Irish nationalists. It may from polls look like it'll work in a referendum booth but it has not worked at election time.

Has it changed into Unionism's silver bullet now? The argument would be the increased wealth of the nationalist community has made them more appreciative of the economic case. However, throughout this growth in wealth the nationalist vote rose and ultimately plumped for the more virulent form. Therefore the immediate evidence offers little support. There is also the broader issue of emotion in someone's political choice and how the means to effect that choice is through narrative (even how belief is reinforced by error). How many good stories have been written with statistics?

So throughout the Union 2021 series have we made a false idol of economics?

The Domino Theory

I caught the tail end of Alan Davies Teenage Revolution on Channel 4 last night.  This section concentrated upon the 1984 miners strike.  He talked of attending various fundraising events as well as some criminal damage to a local Tory office before discussing the strike with Lord Tebbit of Chingford.

As a young teenager the Miners Strike was something I had sympathy for.  My father had been a trade unionist and it ultimately led to him being targeted by the management for redundancy. Living in a working class neighbourhood the fear of job loss in the 1980's was tangible (as was high unemployment) so people doing what they could to save their jobs was fully understandable.  Also northern working class culture of bands and banners was something at an basic level made identification easy - they looked like the community I came from.

There was also an interesting fourth aspect - the domino theory.  The Ulster Loyalist belief was that the 'establishment'/Tories had set out to destroy the power of two groups in the 1970's - the miners and the Unionist community in Northern Ireland.  They had failed but they would be back.  So the success and failure of the miners would have political consequences for us - 'If they lose, we're next'.  The Miners Strike ended in defeat in March 1985. The Anglo-Irish Agreement was imposed in November 1985 and like the miners, Unionists failed to defeat it.

"...a new shining city on the hill"

DETI Minister Arlene Foster makes her contribution to the Union 2021 series today.  Following the biblical and reaganite theme of a shining city on the hill, she argues that:

"Our task for 2021 and beyond is to build a new shining city on the hill. A city built on the values of excellence, enterprise, family, limited government and tolerance."

She argues that:

"The idea of the new city is an inclusive one. It is an idea that a credible and sustainable broad church could be built around. It can create space for Unionism to adopt new approaches. The human and financial resources of Unionism can be focused on delivering a positive vision for Unionism and Northern Ireland rather than back-biting and sniping."

Basil's speech

I've had the chance to read Basil's launch speech  although two versions seem to be in circulation.  It is better crafted than Tom's but still lacks.  He had the sense to identify the potential Merchant Hotel problem and address it.  He tackled questions over his business career (but not his past handling of Office Cost Allowances.) 

The 'meat' is supposedly within the five pledges.  Mike Nesbitt goes with the tack that they are nothing new.  Cicero's Voice argues there is something more sinister going on.  However, the pledges are built upon an inconsistent foundation.  In April Basil McCrea believed:

"...opposition was the only coherent option for his party."

Yet at his launch a mere six months later he has shifted his ground and pledged the UUP under him would be:

"...committed to the Assembly, with all its faults, determined to make it work whatever the tribulations...a party that is emphatically...pro devolution."

So what is his real belief about what the UUP's position should be?  In or out? 

The first pledge of committing to the party is fine.  The second peldge about the Education ministry is a mistake on a number of levels.  To fulfil this pledge the UUP will have to run in excess of 30 candidates which will interfere significantly with vote management and place existing UUP seats in danger as well as risk squandering potential gains for Unionism overall.  Second it involves a degree of misrepresentation of the Ruane problem.  One of the downsides of mandatory coalitions is that such a blocking move in one department moves the problem if the nominating party stick with their choice of personality.  It also shows a lack of realism.  This will involve the UUP going from 3rd to 1st in party size and nearly doubling its Assembly membership.

The third pledge limits options particularly in a system where PR plays such a role.  It also brings the second pledge into focus.  A pact gives Unionism greater opportunity to gain the first two ministerial choices and thus control of education than pie in the sky electoral targets.  As regards pledges four and five Cicero's analysis has a point.

In his conclusions the comment about self-promotion is deserving of a wry smile:

"Our message to the public has been blocked by too many voices and too many self promotional messages...Our message to the public has been blocked by too many voices and too many self promotional messages."

The invoking of God at the end is odd from the civic candidate seeking to make hay from his opponent's sabbatarianism and phrases like integrity and decency have an ability to haunt.  Overall there is little genuine meat on the bones with him continuing to provide soothing but predictable soundbytes.

Things that make you go hmmmm

There are many epithets that could be applied to James Molyneaux but 'inspirational' is not one that would have came easily,  immediately or willingly to my mind.  However, I suppose he did inspire a younger version of me to get off my backside and do something but somehow I don't think that was the form of inspiration being alluded to.

Conflicting tides

David Gordon argues there is a secular tide that Tom Elliott isn't recognising in his comments of the Gay Pride parades.  However, the picture is more complicated than that.

Besides the dumbing down of politics to symbol issues/tests, there are genuine questions how much the issue is a vote shifter and for how many here?  The growth of secularism is not the only social phenomenon going on.  While religious belief and church attendance is declining within those who do hold religious beliefs it is the smaller, evangelical and broadly more conservative churches that are growing.  Simply if people are going to believe they want something to believe in not the intellectual drift of the mainstream churches to offering very little but somewhere to go on a Sunday.  With the additional issue that such people have a good voting record.  Decisions are made by those who turn up.  Also many have chosen the option of silence on such issues but that shouldn't automatically be interpreted as support.

Beyond this electoral push and pull there is the issue of consequences.  This week CSJ produced its Breakthrough Northern Ireland report.  It provides an insight into the social costs of the social liberalism of the last 40-50 years (Note this is not how CSJ would present its work).  Granted many of these costs were unforeseen and unintended by those who proposed them but they have occurred.  So when faced with all this how should someone looking to leading act? Is compliance the only right answer?

Passing it forward

After my retirement from sluggerotoole with 1000 blogposts under my belt (my final one is here) I wandered in the cyberspace wasteland and even real life for some months before re-emerging in my new home here.  When I did a few gave me a leg up by linking to early posts or adding me to their bloglist.  So its time to pass it forward and highlight a new blog on the Ulster scene by Paula Bradshaw - From the Front Line. 

In her most recent blog she's picked up the lack of female contributions to the Union 2021 series (something I know the News Letter is conscious of and seeking to remedy)  and offered her thoughts.

A Dissection of Liberal Unionism

Conal McDevitt has blogged Arthur Aughey's speech to the McCluskey Summer School.  It contains a detailed dissection of 'liberal/progressive Unionism'.  He points out that an attractive idea does not mean success:

"...it remains rhetorically powerful if not practically convincing."

He points out that an underpinning notion of liberal Unionism is:

"There is an assumption at the heart of liberal unionism and it is the possibility that ‘middle Ulster’ can find common ground with ‘middle Ireland’ (within Northern Ireland and between North and South). That common ground can be found insofar as Unionists and Nationalists think rationally and put material interests before sectarian ones."

However, that assumption has structural problems nothing to do with the merits of Nationalism and Unionism.  He highlights that while people talk moderation they continue to think tribal.

"Those surveys tend to present Northern Ireland opinion in its Sunday best but I think this one is most revealing.  The question is: A political gain for one religious tradition in Northern Ireland usually results in a loss of ground for the other? – 53% agreed and 15% were too polite to say! However, with all allowance for positive response syndrome, it looks like about three-quarters of the Northern Ireland electorate believe this is a truism of politics."

The resultant risk is it proves:

"...unpersuasive for nationalists and missing the point for unionists."

However, the strongest criticism is liberal Unionism's ability to ascribe a system of thinking to nationalists that they don't have:

"...liberal Unionism, then, seems to misrecognise nationalist opinion (rather, idealise it according to its own requirements) it can often fail to understand the anxieties and concerns of unionists."

Its misrecognition (critique here and response here) is not necessarily restricted to nationalist opinion.  Despite the pessimistic dissection of liberal unionism's flaws and inability to achieve he places his hope on the optimism displayed in the Union 2021 series:

"...when you consider the contributions to the Newsletter’s Union 2021 series it is striking that (with a few exceptions) contemporary Unionism – in its diversity – is reasonably optimistic about its future, possibly most consistently for a generation. If this is true, then the future is not without its promise. For liberal Unionism requires optimism in order to flourish."

He is predictably harsh on the DUP:

"...having its clothing stolen by the DUP...The DUP and Sinn Fein have both made the most of that fable politically but want – and prosper – by the ‘two communities’ keeping their distance."

However, the DUP is the dominant party and with that comes certain responsibilties.  Necessity may require him to revise that opinion if he desires an sustained effort to build Unionism.  The alternative party is the UUP which has not been fit for purpose for some time with questions if it is capable of being so.

Towards Northern Ireland's second century

Below is my contribution to the Union 2021 series in the News Letter.

1) What do you think Northern Ireland's Union with Great Britain will look like in 2021?

It will look like whatever Unionism puts its mind to and spends the next decade working for. It would be complacent to expect a better future to fall into Unionism’s lap regardless of how good the economics or other factors look. If Unionism is lazy it could be surprised how dissatisfactory a Northern Ireland of 2021 could look.

2) What would you like it to look like?

Rather than engage in fantasy politics with 2021 it should be approached as a chance for strategic politics. Unionism should set itself a series of targets for 2021. This would mean Unionism and Northern Ireland not crawling across the centenary line but bounding over it into its second century.

A target should be Northern Ireland taking its place on the national stage as a full and constituent part of the United Kingdom, re-integrating us into national politics. This will not be achieved through shallow deals with a consistently unreliable Conservative Party. Instead it will be achieved by making Northern Ireland a success. Through the full utilisation of devolution Ulster should seek to become a beacon within the Union. Many of our policy challenges are common throughout the UK and if you wish the national media and political class to build a meaningful relationship with you then tackling them is the means to do so. We need to be the tailor of new policy not wearing hand-me downs.

Electorally we need to grow, 50% +1 may be all that Unionism needs but it shouldn’t be satisfied with it. Unionism should aim for a vote share of 57% by 2021 and a total non-nationalist share of 65%. Unionism should seek to grow its vote among three groups:

• Protestant working class – This is the section of past Unionist voters that have seen the greatest decline in turnout, not the middle classes as often claimed.

• Minority Ethnic Communities – This is the social group that has seen the largest growth in Northern Ireland in the past decade. With many entirely new to Northern Ireland they have no allegiance to any party.

• Catholic Voters – This will be a generational task and Unionism needs to be realistic. A full ideological jump from Nationalism to Unionism in a society like ours is a significant step. Therefore, Unionism’s task is a series of steps. Someone who previously voted for a nationalist party becoming a non-voter or voting for a non-nationalist party is an advance for Unionism. After these a further step towards Unionism becomes a greater possibility. The increasing identification with Northern Ireland to 1 in 4 Catholics also means a regional emphasis would be of value to Unionism (and not a closet Ulster Nationalism)

3) Is unionist unity essential for the achievement of your vision?

If unionist unity is done properly then it would help.

4) If so, what does that mean?

It means having a proper debate about what Unionist unity could be rather than someone presenting a finished plan. The discussion so far has told you more about the recriminations within the UUP than the risks and benefits of unity. The question should be what would a broad based Unionist party fit for the 21st century look like? The answer to that will help people genuinely assess its value and if people’s concerns can be adequately addressed. A decent debate, rather than the presently stunted one, could ensure at least productive co-operation and collaboration as an outcome.

5) Could you accept a Sinn Fein first minister?

The risk of this has become over-stated with a DUP first minister the more likely result. Unionism need not face this possibility nor should it. Planning for failure is not conducive to a good vision or strategy but gets you mired in reactive counter-strategy.

Union 2021ing

I have until 5pm to get it done for it to be in tomorrow's News Letter so time for some speed typing. UPDATE Deadline beat by 3 minutes.

More than a no

Jeff Dudgeon has made his contribution to the Union 2021 series and I was somewhat surprised by his very bold pronouncement but equally negative one that:

"One hundred per cent of unionists do not want a united Ireland. Unlike nationalists, we are defined and united by that negative policy. We know what we don't want.  Unionism is strong because it is negative. It is weakened when it tries to be positive." 

Psychology is on Geoff's side, in that the negative emotion, rejection of change through fear of loss, is usually more powerful than the expectation of gain.  However, I would not share the degree of pessimism.  Instead I'd contend that as Unionism has survived too much on the easy option of negativism it simply isn't very good at positive but it can learn to be better with it.

Building the vote

In my internet meanderings I came across this post by Nicholas Whyte in response to my Garden Centre Prods.  Of my three lines of argument he agrees with two and provides a statistical argument against the second - that I have overestimated the East Ulster Catholic turnout issue.  He believes that:

"However, Reynolds' wider conclusion (if I read him correctly) is that it's not worth the while of Unionist politicians trying to engage with the '100,000 or more' voters who participated in the referendum and not in the subsequent election."

In my enthusiasm to challenge the GCP myth I may have created this impression but it was not my intention so I can put him at ease.  I have no problem whatsoever with Unionism reaching out to get more voters, I wish it were more proactive in that field.  However, I don't consider trying to do so on the basis of misidentification, over-estimation, preconceived notions of what their views are (rather than a research base) and to the degree of obsession that it excludes other opportunities e.g. minority ethnic communities (who have barely been discussed as a new source for Unionism despite them being the most speedily growing social group in Northern Ireland in the same period as the GCP theory.) 

He adds an interesting angle to the UCUNF debacle that I hadn't considered:

"...the problem is that by 'normal politics', the UCUNF integrationists actually mean 'English politics' - not Scottish or Welsh, where Labour and the Nationalists compete for the top spot, with Tories and Lib Dems (now the UK's ruling coalition partners!) in third and fourth place. Most Northern Irish voters know Scotland at least as well as they know England, and can spot the difference between 'normal' and 'English', in politics or anything else."

I would add one further caveat to his argument that is like most he ignores the role of organisation in delivering votes.  Disconnect with voters isn't simply an ideological/political driven issue but also one of personal relationship.

BTW Nick's intermittent political blogs are well worth reading despite having to wade through a large number of Dr Who ones to find them.

Economic determinism

Chekov has made his contribution to the Union 2021 series.  While reiterating his opposition to Unionist Unity and his theme of integration into national politics he places a strong emphasis upon economics.  He declares:

"If Northern Ireland can be made to work economically, then it will work politically...If instead the focus is on economic achievement, contributing to the politics and culture of the UK and ensuring that Northern Ireland is a desirable place to live for everyone, then support for the Union will flourish. If we are seen to pay our way, then mainland resentment at our addiction to subsidies will die away."

Missing the opportunity

Dawn Purivs has made her contribution to the Union 2021.  While it is by no means the only example within the series, it is symptomatic of too many contributors to this series.  It is a predictable repetition of a position stated many times previously. Granted the questions could have been better framed but considering the number of times people have bemoaned the opportunity, depth or constructiveness of debate within Unionism I'd hoped more would have utilised the opportunity with more openess. 

In this spirit, perhaps they can ask contributors to write again in response to other contributions with an emphasis on something that has made them reassess or intend to approach something differently.  Perhaps through these means it will not be grow to something more than mostly elongated position statements.

Economics and Unionism

Graham Gudgin has provided the second contribution in the Union 2021 series with significant challenge in its content.  His focus is upon economics and Unionism.  His analysis seems somewhat tainted by what appears to be negative experiences of the UUP, like most economists he doesn't grasp that a politician has to marry economic necessity with the politically possible and fails to sufficiently acknowledge the steps towards a greater policy focus that have been made.  However, this doesn't take away from the fundamentals of his argument.

He stresses the scale of the economic difficulties our region faces:

"This was sustainable during the UK's debt-driven boom, with ever increasing amounts of money flowing into Northern Ireland, but in a post-recession world realities must now be faced.  Cuts will reduce public services by 15 percent over five years, economic growth will slow to a trickle and unemployment will rise."

Something I doubt people have yet truly grasped here.  He rightly highlights a problem in Northern Ireland's governance that is often overlooked, the bureaucracy:

"The relevant civil service departments show little desire for radical change and as have allowed their capacity for strategic economic thinking to wither away."

Gudgin also does not dimiss Unionist Unity out of hand but grasps its potential for a new departure in Unionism:

"Should the two main unionist parties unite to prevent such a prospect? Only if they could do so around a radical and reformist economic programme."

He concludes that:

"Unionism faces a choice as it looks towards 2021.  It can either fight an unsuccessful rearguard action on economic change or it can embrace reforms as part of a modern unionist programme."

But expresses doubts that it will happen, that may be less of a problem than he imagines.

We're Northern Ireland

As part of its Union 2021 series the News Letter is trumpeting the new Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey and the growing personal identification with Northern Ireland over other identities in both the main religious communities. 

This data has to be treated with some caution as the NILT has had difficulties in its sampling, the transformation is very slow and we don't know if it will continue to grow.  Also the change has been a partial result of benign manipulation / social engineering by the NIO.  However, a growth from 10% to 25% over a sustained period is a clear trend.

This raises an interesting question for the future definition of Unionism here if it is trying to attract this section of voters.  During the recent election UCUNF tried to label any regional identification by the DUP with Northern Ireland as some form of closet (or overt) Ulster nationalism.  However, does this data mean that a regional emphasis may have greater utility in attracting beyond the traditional base?