Here's something you probably never expected to see. In a leaflet publicising the 'Make IT secure' campaign, Peter Robinson, DUP Minister for Finance, has put his name, his photo, and his signature, to an Irish language text:
[image removed temporarily]
Anyone with any knowledge of the public service will know that this could not have happened without the agreement of Robinson himself, or from one of his close advisors.
This raises interesting questions. Firstly, in the light of the DUP's open hostility towards the Irish language, why has Robinson agreed to put his name and signature to an Irish language leaflet? Secondly, why has this happened at this particular moment, when Robinson is being lined up to succeed Paisley as DUP leader? Quite apart from the Irish language aspect to the issue, the campaign is a clear example of the kind of north-southery that the DUP used to have such an objection to. A campaign that could just as easily have been 'UK-wide' is instead Ireland-wide, with Robinson placed below the southern Minister, Eoin Ryan, in the leaflet's lay-out.
Recently Edwin Poots, DUP Minister for Culture, has been receiving a lot of negative publicity (from a nationalist perspective) for his blatant discrimination against the Irish language, which, to be fair, is merely a reflection of the backwoods mentality so prevalent in the DUP. Poots is, of course, a member of the DUP's 'bigot brigade'. Is the 'Make IT secure' leaflet a shot over his bows from a member of the DUP's 'modern' wing? Is Robinson trying to subtly hint to nationalists that under his leadership the DUP will be less hostile to Irish culture? The leaflet was, of course, prepared and translated before Paisley's abdication, but everyone knew that that abdication was coming, so perhaps Robinson was already setting out his stall. If so, expect Poots to be moved or demoted in Robinson's first reshuffle of the DUP ministers.
Monday 10 March 2008
Monday 3 March 2008
The laughter of our children
The political future of an octogenarian is dominating our news these days, giving the impression that the future of Northern Ireland will be decided by when Ian Paisley decides to retire. But the real future of Northern Ireland is being decided elsewhere, right at the other end of the age spectrum.
Last week the Department of Education released its annual Schools Census, a compendium of statistics of only slight interest to those outside the education system.
With one important exception: Table 5b of the compendium gives the religion of pupils in the education system.
What Table 5b shows is that Protestant children are a minority in the education system, and a declining minority too. In 2007/2008 the proportion of children whose religion was given as Protestant was 39%. This broke down as 39.5% in secondary schools and 38.5% in primary schools. The proportion who were Catholic was 50.7% (51.2% in secondary, 50.5% in primary).
There were also a small proportion from other Christian and non-Christian religions, but not enough to have any significant impact on the statistics. The only other group that was significant were those children described as 'Other/No religion/Not recorded', who accounted for 7.6% of the total.
Unionist deniers will, no doubt, claim that these 'Other/No religion/Not recorded' children are mostly (ex-)Protestants, as they appear mostly in schools in the controlled sector, which is overwhelmingly Protestant. However this claim cannot be verified, and these kids might easily be Catholics who do not wish to draw attention to themselves, or the children of mixed marriages whose religious identity is neutral. But even if one assumes that 70% of the 'Other/No religion/Not recorded' children are (ex-)Protestants, the picture still looks grim for the future of unionism, and thus for Project Ulster.
The 2007/2008 Schools Census has been carried out for a number of years, and thus it is possible to look at the evolution of the Catholic and Protestant proportions of Northern Ireland's school kids since 1999/2000.
The three graphs below show (a) the breakdown of the raw figures (Catholic and Protestant kids only), (b) the possible breakdown if one assumes the 'Other/No religion/Not recorded' children are evenly divided between the two main blocks, and (c) the possible breakdown if one assumes the 'Other/No religion/Not recorded' children are 70% 'cultural' Protestants, and 30% 'cultural' Catholics.
(a) Raw figures: Catholic and Protestant children in primary and secondary schools
The picture is clear. No matter how you try to sway the statistics, the Protestant proportion is declining, and the Catholic proportion is rising. This clear outcome mirrors the increasing proportion of religious marriages that are Catholic, and the higher birth-rate in Catholic areas. And it all adds up to one simple conclusion – Project Ulster has been beaten in the maternity wards, and it is all over bar the shouting. The whole basis of unionism's division of Ireland – its local majority in the north-eastern corner – is visible evaporating, and with it will go the division. Unionism has a short window of opportunity, before these kids grow up and vote it into oblivion, to come to an honourable settlement with their fellow Irishmen and women – but there is no indication yet that that reality has yet sunk into the consciousness of the leaders of unionism. Perhaps, like Paisley, they know that they personally will no longer be around when the day of Irish reunification comes, and so they are content to leave their children and grandchildren to their own devices.
Last week the Department of Education released its annual Schools Census, a compendium of statistics of only slight interest to those outside the education system.
With one important exception: Table 5b of the compendium gives the religion of pupils in the education system.
What Table 5b shows is that Protestant children are a minority in the education system, and a declining minority too. In 2007/2008 the proportion of children whose religion was given as Protestant was 39%. This broke down as 39.5% in secondary schools and 38.5% in primary schools. The proportion who were Catholic was 50.7% (51.2% in secondary, 50.5% in primary).
There were also a small proportion from other Christian and non-Christian religions, but not enough to have any significant impact on the statistics. The only other group that was significant were those children described as 'Other/No religion/Not recorded', who accounted for 7.6% of the total.
Unionist deniers will, no doubt, claim that these 'Other/No religion/Not recorded' children are mostly (ex-)Protestants, as they appear mostly in schools in the controlled sector, which is overwhelmingly Protestant. However this claim cannot be verified, and these kids might easily be Catholics who do not wish to draw attention to themselves, or the children of mixed marriages whose religious identity is neutral. But even if one assumes that 70% of the 'Other/No religion/Not recorded' children are (ex-)Protestants, the picture still looks grim for the future of unionism, and thus for Project Ulster.
The 2007/2008 Schools Census has been carried out for a number of years, and thus it is possible to look at the evolution of the Catholic and Protestant proportions of Northern Ireland's school kids since 1999/2000.
The three graphs below show (a) the breakdown of the raw figures (Catholic and Protestant kids only), (b) the possible breakdown if one assumes the 'Other/No religion/Not recorded' children are evenly divided between the two main blocks, and (c) the possible breakdown if one assumes the 'Other/No religion/Not recorded' children are 70% 'cultural' Protestants, and 30% 'cultural' Catholics.
(a) Raw figures: Catholic and Protestant children in primary and secondary schools
(b) Adjusted figures: assuming that the 'Other/No religion/Not recorded' children are evenly divided between the two main blocks
The picture is clear. No matter how you try to sway the statistics, the Protestant proportion is declining, and the Catholic proportion is rising. This clear outcome mirrors the increasing proportion of religious marriages that are Catholic, and the higher birth-rate in Catholic areas. And it all adds up to one simple conclusion – Project Ulster has been beaten in the maternity wards, and it is all over bar the shouting. The whole basis of unionism's division of Ireland – its local majority in the north-eastern corner – is visible evaporating, and with it will go the division. Unionism has a short window of opportunity, before these kids grow up and vote it into oblivion, to come to an honourable settlement with their fellow Irishmen and women – but there is no indication yet that that reality has yet sunk into the consciousness of the leaders of unionism. Perhaps, like Paisley, they know that they personally will no longer be around when the day of Irish reunification comes, and so they are content to leave their children and grandchildren to their own devices.
Friday 15 February 2008
Lord Laird's interest in rugby
A letter in today's Belfast Telegraph draws attention to the recent storm-in-a-teacup that John Laird (ex Stormont MP, made a lord for God-knows what reason) has been trying to stir up.
In a nut-shell, Laird is trying to insist that the Irish rugby team, whenever it plays in Belfast, should play under the British flag, and sing the British national anthem. His point appears to be that the Irish team represents two jurisdictions, one of which remains part of the UK, and that this fact is not being given adequate recognition.
But is this really his point? Is his gripe really about recognition of British symbols, or is he trying to use an ostensibly reasonable issue to further a longer-term political objective?
If Laird was a reasonable man, he might call upon the two ministers responsible for sport in Ireland to come together, under the north-south arrangements already in place, to discuss the creation of new and neutral symbols that all Irish sports fans could unite under. In that way, a common identity could be created for rugby, cricket, hockey, athletics, and other sports organised on an all-Ireland basis. And who knows, maybe even soccer a bit further down the line. If he made this suggestion, he would be pushing against an open (or at least unlocked) door in the south.
But Laird does not suggest the creation of neutral all-Ireland symbols. Instead he tries to insist on British symbols, knowing that they are unacceptable to the overwhelming majority of players and supporters of most sports organised on an all-Ireland basis. He is doing this in the knowledge that such a demand is unacceptable to the majority, because he is counting on that resistance, so that he then can call for the partition of the sporting bodies, and thus contribute even more to the partition of the country.
Laird's interest is not sport – he is on record (BBC radio Talkback programme) as saying, when asked if he supported the Ireland rugby team or the Scotland rugby team, that he unequivocally supported Scotland. His interest, as it is on so many other issues, is as far as possible to divide the north from the south, and to obstruct all areas where north-south cooperation and co-existence are the norm. He is a wall-builder rather than a bridge-builder.
So far, happily, the IRFU, the governing body of Irish rugby, has largely ignored his provocation.
In a nut-shell, Laird is trying to insist that the Irish rugby team, whenever it plays in Belfast, should play under the British flag, and sing the British national anthem. His point appears to be that the Irish team represents two jurisdictions, one of which remains part of the UK, and that this fact is not being given adequate recognition.
But is this really his point? Is his gripe really about recognition of British symbols, or is he trying to use an ostensibly reasonable issue to further a longer-term political objective?
If Laird was a reasonable man, he might call upon the two ministers responsible for sport in Ireland to come together, under the north-south arrangements already in place, to discuss the creation of new and neutral symbols that all Irish sports fans could unite under. In that way, a common identity could be created for rugby, cricket, hockey, athletics, and other sports organised on an all-Ireland basis. And who knows, maybe even soccer a bit further down the line. If he made this suggestion, he would be pushing against an open (or at least unlocked) door in the south.
But Laird does not suggest the creation of neutral all-Ireland symbols. Instead he tries to insist on British symbols, knowing that they are unacceptable to the overwhelming majority of players and supporters of most sports organised on an all-Ireland basis. He is doing this in the knowledge that such a demand is unacceptable to the majority, because he is counting on that resistance, so that he then can call for the partition of the sporting bodies, and thus contribute even more to the partition of the country.
Laird's interest is not sport – he is on record (BBC radio Talkback programme) as saying, when asked if he supported the Ireland rugby team or the Scotland rugby team, that he unequivocally supported Scotland. His interest, as it is on so many other issues, is as far as possible to divide the north from the south, and to obstruct all areas where north-south cooperation and co-existence are the norm. He is a wall-builder rather than a bridge-builder.
So far, happily, the IRFU, the governing body of Irish rugby, has largely ignored his provocation.
Jim Allister's future
The council by-election in Dromore on Wednesday 13 February can be seen either as a victory for Jim Allister's Traditional Unionist Voice party (who successfully blocked their arch-rivals, the DUP, from winning), or as a defeat (they did not win the election).
However, at council level, and perhaps more widely in Northern Ireland, the TUV is essentially a protest movement – protesting in the short term against the DUP-Sinn Féin coalition that holds the top jobs in the executive, but also protesting in the long term against all compromises with nationalism (one description of the TUV is that it is the party for those who miss the B Specials).
For its founder and chief spokesman, Jim Allister, the success or failure of the TUV has a more direct importance. Because he is an MEP, elected to the European Parliament in 2004 as the DUP candidate, and as chosen successor to Ian Paisley. His whole political future now rests on the support that he can muster via the TUV. Before he established the party there was a chance that he could remain as an independent unionist MEP, slightly critical of the DUP, but from the same political family. Now that he has set up a party specifically to target the DUP, he is prey.
So the performance of the TUV gives a foresight of the support that Allister will get in 2009 when his seat is up for re-election.
In Dromore the TUV received 19,6% of the vote, but this was not a representative area. Dromore is much more unionist than the average, with 72% of its electorate voting for one or other unionist candidate, against a Northern Ireland-wide figure of 48,7% in the 2007 Assembly election. Admittedly, in European Parliament elections, with only three seats at stake, voters tend to concentrate on electable candidates, as the minor parties and independents have no chance at all. But even in the last European Parliament elections the unionist total only reached 48,6%.
So if Allister can only attract 27% of the unionists of Dromore (i.e. 19,6% of 72%), he may have trouble in 2009. If he gets the same proportion of unionist votes then, he will barely achieve 13% of the total vote (i.e. 27% of 48,6%). And on that low percentage, he is likely to be eliminated early, as the four main parties will probably all receive more than that. If the bad blood between Allister and the DUP continues to fester, his voters may not transfer in sufficient numbers to carry the other two unionist parties beyond the SDLP candidate, and hence one of them (the UUP, probably) will be the next to be eliminated, leaving Northern Ireland with two nationalist MEPs for the first time ever. The psychological value to nationalism and the damage to unionism, of sending 2 nationalists and one unionist to Strasbourg cannot be underestimated. Allister may turn out to be an important nail in unionism's coffin.
However, at council level, and perhaps more widely in Northern Ireland, the TUV is essentially a protest movement – protesting in the short term against the DUP-Sinn Féin coalition that holds the top jobs in the executive, but also protesting in the long term against all compromises with nationalism (one description of the TUV is that it is the party for those who miss the B Specials).
For its founder and chief spokesman, Jim Allister, the success or failure of the TUV has a more direct importance. Because he is an MEP, elected to the European Parliament in 2004 as the DUP candidate, and as chosen successor to Ian Paisley. His whole political future now rests on the support that he can muster via the TUV. Before he established the party there was a chance that he could remain as an independent unionist MEP, slightly critical of the DUP, but from the same political family. Now that he has set up a party specifically to target the DUP, he is prey.
So the performance of the TUV gives a foresight of the support that Allister will get in 2009 when his seat is up for re-election.
In Dromore the TUV received 19,6% of the vote, but this was not a representative area. Dromore is much more unionist than the average, with 72% of its electorate voting for one or other unionist candidate, against a Northern Ireland-wide figure of 48,7% in the 2007 Assembly election. Admittedly, in European Parliament elections, with only three seats at stake, voters tend to concentrate on electable candidates, as the minor parties and independents have no chance at all. But even in the last European Parliament elections the unionist total only reached 48,6%.
So if Allister can only attract 27% of the unionists of Dromore (i.e. 19,6% of 72%), he may have trouble in 2009. If he gets the same proportion of unionist votes then, he will barely achieve 13% of the total vote (i.e. 27% of 48,6%). And on that low percentage, he is likely to be eliminated early, as the four main parties will probably all receive more than that. If the bad blood between Allister and the DUP continues to fester, his voters may not transfer in sufficient numbers to carry the other two unionist parties beyond the SDLP candidate, and hence one of them (the UUP, probably) will be the next to be eliminated, leaving Northern Ireland with two nationalist MEPs for the first time ever. The psychological value to nationalism and the damage to unionism, of sending 2 nationalists and one unionist to Strasbourg cannot be underestimated. Allister may turn out to be an important nail in unionism's coffin.
Thursday 14 February 2008
Banbridge District Council By-Election – Dromore DEA, 13 February 2008 – the result
The by-election in Dromore DEA (part of Banbridge District Council area) on 13 February threw up a few surprises, of which the result was not the least!
In an area where the DUP had collected almost 50% of the votes at the 2005 District Council elections, and thus should have had little trouble winning the seat this time, they were beaten. The UUP's Carol Black took advantage of the split extreme-unionist vote to come through and retain the seat vacated by her party colleague Trevor Howe, who had resigned.
The main interest in the election was, of course, the performance of Jim Allister's new Traditional Unionist Voice, and how it would affect the DUP. And affect it, it did! The DUP scored 28,3% of the first-preference votes, down 21,5% from their 2005 score. The TUV picked up 19,6% – almost exactly the amount that the DUP lost. While other factors may have played a small part, the unavoidable conclusion is that a large chunk of the DUP vote abandoned it, and moved over to the uncompromising old-style tribal unionism of the TUV. In a sense, the TUV has done to the DUP what the DUP previously did to the UUP. By providing a place even further to the right, it could snipe at everything the DUP has done, especially sharing power with the hated nationalists.
The first round of votes went thus (all figures subject to confirmation by the Electoral Office):
DUP: 1069 (28,3%)
UUP: 912 (24,2%)
TUV: 739 (19,6%)
APNI: 357 (9,5%)
SF: 350 (9,3%)
SDLP: 290 (7,7%)
Green: 59 (1,6%)
Round 2: The SDLP and Green candidates were then eliminated, and their votes transferred like this:
DUP: +5 to make: 1074
UUP: +25 to make: 937
TUV: +3 to make: 742
APNI: +122 to make: 479
SF: +157 to make: 507
SDLP ---
Green ---
This round shows two things; firstly that 'moderate' voters find the unionist extremes fairly repellent, and secondly that Sinn Féin is not as transfer unfriendly as previously thought.
Round 3: The elimination of the Alliance Party candidate would normally benefit other 'moderate' parties, but these had already been eliminated, so a large number of transfers reverted to their natural home, the UUP:
DUP: +53 to make: 1127
UUP: +182 to make: 1119
TUV: +59 to make: 801
SF: +60 to make: 567
APNI ---
SDLP ---
Green ---
In this round, unexpectedly, the supposed moderates of the Alliance Party gave the right-wing bigots of the TUV and the DUP 112 transfers. Surprising, also, is the transfer to Sinn Féin, who previously received few if any transfers from the nice middle-class Protestants of the Alliance Party.
Round 4: Having survived miraculously until now, it was Sinn Féin's turn to be eliminated, and with a choice of only three unionist parties for their transfers!
UUP: +75 to make: 1194
DUP: +51 to make: 1178
TUV: +27 to make: 828
SF ---
APNI ---
SDLP ---
Green ---
On the face of it, these transfers are quite odd. However, it is likely that the 414 votes that did not transfer included most of the 'real' (i.e. first round) Sinn Féin votes, and that the transfers were actually votes for other candidates that were simply transiting through Sinn Féin. They favoured the DUP over the two other unionist parties, which is strange if they came from the 'moderate' parties. One would expect them to favour the UUP, but perhaps they were trying to be strategic to stop any possibility of a TUV victory.
Round 5: Now with only the unionist parties left standing, the TUV's turn as kingmaker came. It had to be eliminated, but with only 16 votes separating the other two unionist parties, the breakdown of the TUV transfers decided the outcome. And such was their antipathy for the DUP that they plumped for the UUP, giving Carol Black the seat:
UUP: +377 to make: 1571
DUP: +327 to make: 1505
TUV ---
SF ---
APNI ---
SDLP ---
Green ---
So what overall lessons can Dromore teach us? Firstly, that there is a large part of the DUP electorate that is unhappy with it. The semblance of good-natured cooperation with Sinn Féin sticks in many unionist throats, as indeed it was supposed to have stuck in Ian Paisley's in previous years. To recover these anti-republican votes the DUP will have to start talking and acting tough – but the nature of the mandatory coalition means that their room for manoeuvre is small. They may end up just looking like petulant children. Another option, one that has already been signalled, is that the DUP will decide that it is time to heap all of the blame on Ian Paisley and dump him.
The TUV has done very well, but still remains essentially a protest movement. Whether it maintains its momentum until next year's elections is open to doubt. The DUP will work out a strategy to kill it off, and while the TUV is a one-man party it has few opportunities to argue its case.
On the nationalist side, while Dromore was never going to be a gain for either Sinn Féin or the SDLP, it provided a useful snapshot of their standing in a fairly middle-of-the-road country town. Worryingly for the SDLP, who put in a lot of canvassing before the election, Sinn Féin beat them, thereby strengthening their position as the senior nationalist party. The overall nationalist vote dropped to 17% (from19%), which is not too bad considering that this was a by-election for a single seat that a nationalist could not win.
The Alliance Party, who returned to Dromore's fray for the first time in 10 years, did quite well, taking both unionist and nationalist votes to reach 9,5% of the total. Their votes seem to have come from the SDLP (about 2%) and the UUP (about 7%). This should give their strategists some indication of where to seek gains in the future.
The UUP won the seat, but this was not a victory for them. In 1993 they got 63,5% of the votes in the DEA – in 2008 they got 24,2%. The spoiling tactics of the TUV handed them the seat, but they must know that it is only on loan.
In a previous blog on this election, we said that "if the TUV comes in third, its votes will also benefit the DUP"; but it seems that like many others we underestimated the antipathy of the TUV extreme unionists to the current political arrangements. The TUV, despite losing, will probably have a large impact on the future direction of the DUP, and thus ultimately on the success or failure of the whole Good Friday Agreement implementation.
While this blog is strongly anti-unionist, and relishes the sight of intra-unionist antipathy, vote-splitting and demoralisation, we recognise that the DUP will be unpredictable and therefore dangerous in the next 12 to 18 months. With the unenviable job of replacing Paisley and then facing into a series of elections, the DUP will be like a caged animal. Inevitably, to distract from intra-unionist disputes they will turn their fire on nationalism. It is to be hoped that the loyalist bigots who take their lead from the overall tone of unionist discourse will not feel in any way encouraged to revert to their habitual violence. For nationalism, the period may be a difficult one, but it should remain aware that this period will pass, and when it does, unionism will emerge weaker and nationalism stronger, than at present.
Update, 27 February 2008:
The Electoral Office has published the official result, and these show one tiny difference with respect to the results originally shown above. That difference (+327 to the DUP in the final round, to give a total of 1505) has now been corrected, and the figures above correspond to those of the Electoral Office.
In an area where the DUP had collected almost 50% of the votes at the 2005 District Council elections, and thus should have had little trouble winning the seat this time, they were beaten. The UUP's Carol Black took advantage of the split extreme-unionist vote to come through and retain the seat vacated by her party colleague Trevor Howe, who had resigned.
The main interest in the election was, of course, the performance of Jim Allister's new Traditional Unionist Voice, and how it would affect the DUP. And affect it, it did! The DUP scored 28,3% of the first-preference votes, down 21,5% from their 2005 score. The TUV picked up 19,6% – almost exactly the amount that the DUP lost. While other factors may have played a small part, the unavoidable conclusion is that a large chunk of the DUP vote abandoned it, and moved over to the uncompromising old-style tribal unionism of the TUV. In a sense, the TUV has done to the DUP what the DUP previously did to the UUP. By providing a place even further to the right, it could snipe at everything the DUP has done, especially sharing power with the hated nationalists.
The first round of votes went thus (all figures subject to confirmation by the Electoral Office):
DUP: 1069 (28,3%)
UUP: 912 (24,2%)
TUV: 739 (19,6%)
APNI: 357 (9,5%)
SF: 350 (9,3%)
SDLP: 290 (7,7%)
Green: 59 (1,6%)
Round 2: The SDLP and Green candidates were then eliminated, and their votes transferred like this:
DUP: +5 to make: 1074
UUP: +25 to make: 937
TUV: +3 to make: 742
APNI: +122 to make: 479
SF: +157 to make: 507
SDLP ---
Green ---
This round shows two things; firstly that 'moderate' voters find the unionist extremes fairly repellent, and secondly that Sinn Féin is not as transfer unfriendly as previously thought.
Round 3: The elimination of the Alliance Party candidate would normally benefit other 'moderate' parties, but these had already been eliminated, so a large number of transfers reverted to their natural home, the UUP:
DUP: +53 to make: 1127
UUP: +182 to make: 1119
TUV: +59 to make: 801
SF: +60 to make: 567
APNI ---
SDLP ---
Green ---
In this round, unexpectedly, the supposed moderates of the Alliance Party gave the right-wing bigots of the TUV and the DUP 112 transfers. Surprising, also, is the transfer to Sinn Féin, who previously received few if any transfers from the nice middle-class Protestants of the Alliance Party.
Round 4: Having survived miraculously until now, it was Sinn Féin's turn to be eliminated, and with a choice of only three unionist parties for their transfers!
UUP: +75 to make: 1194
DUP: +51 to make: 1178
TUV: +27 to make: 828
SF ---
APNI ---
SDLP ---
Green ---
On the face of it, these transfers are quite odd. However, it is likely that the 414 votes that did not transfer included most of the 'real' (i.e. first round) Sinn Féin votes, and that the transfers were actually votes for other candidates that were simply transiting through Sinn Féin. They favoured the DUP over the two other unionist parties, which is strange if they came from the 'moderate' parties. One would expect them to favour the UUP, but perhaps they were trying to be strategic to stop any possibility of a TUV victory.
Round 5: Now with only the unionist parties left standing, the TUV's turn as kingmaker came. It had to be eliminated, but with only 16 votes separating the other two unionist parties, the breakdown of the TUV transfers decided the outcome. And such was their antipathy for the DUP that they plumped for the UUP, giving Carol Black the seat:
UUP: +377 to make: 1571
DUP: +327 to make: 1505
TUV ---
SF ---
APNI ---
SDLP ---
Green ---
So what overall lessons can Dromore teach us? Firstly, that there is a large part of the DUP electorate that is unhappy with it. The semblance of good-natured cooperation with Sinn Féin sticks in many unionist throats, as indeed it was supposed to have stuck in Ian Paisley's in previous years. To recover these anti-republican votes the DUP will have to start talking and acting tough – but the nature of the mandatory coalition means that their room for manoeuvre is small. They may end up just looking like petulant children. Another option, one that has already been signalled, is that the DUP will decide that it is time to heap all of the blame on Ian Paisley and dump him.
The TUV has done very well, but still remains essentially a protest movement. Whether it maintains its momentum until next year's elections is open to doubt. The DUP will work out a strategy to kill it off, and while the TUV is a one-man party it has few opportunities to argue its case.
On the nationalist side, while Dromore was never going to be a gain for either Sinn Féin or the SDLP, it provided a useful snapshot of their standing in a fairly middle-of-the-road country town. Worryingly for the SDLP, who put in a lot of canvassing before the election, Sinn Féin beat them, thereby strengthening their position as the senior nationalist party. The overall nationalist vote dropped to 17% (from19%), which is not too bad considering that this was a by-election for a single seat that a nationalist could not win.
The Alliance Party, who returned to Dromore's fray for the first time in 10 years, did quite well, taking both unionist and nationalist votes to reach 9,5% of the total. Their votes seem to have come from the SDLP (about 2%) and the UUP (about 7%). This should give their strategists some indication of where to seek gains in the future.
The UUP won the seat, but this was not a victory for them. In 1993 they got 63,5% of the votes in the DEA – in 2008 they got 24,2%. The spoiling tactics of the TUV handed them the seat, but they must know that it is only on loan.
In a previous blog on this election, we said that "if the TUV comes in third, its votes will also benefit the DUP"; but it seems that like many others we underestimated the antipathy of the TUV extreme unionists to the current political arrangements. The TUV, despite losing, will probably have a large impact on the future direction of the DUP, and thus ultimately on the success or failure of the whole Good Friday Agreement implementation.
While this blog is strongly anti-unionist, and relishes the sight of intra-unionist antipathy, vote-splitting and demoralisation, we recognise that the DUP will be unpredictable and therefore dangerous in the next 12 to 18 months. With the unenviable job of replacing Paisley and then facing into a series of elections, the DUP will be like a caged animal. Inevitably, to distract from intra-unionist disputes they will turn their fire on nationalism. It is to be hoped that the loyalist bigots who take their lead from the overall tone of unionist discourse will not feel in any way encouraged to revert to their habitual violence. For nationalism, the period may be a difficult one, but it should remain aware that this period will pass, and when it does, unionism will emerge weaker and nationalism stronger, than at present.
Update, 27 February 2008:
The Electoral Office has published the official result, and these show one tiny difference with respect to the results originally shown above. That difference (+327 to the DUP in the final round, to give a total of 1505) has now been corrected, and the figures above correspond to those of the Electoral Office.
Thursday 24 January 2008
A simple handshake
[From Wikipedia]
Yesterday (24 January 2008) the media was full of images of Greek Prime Minister Kostas Karamanlis shaking the hand of his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan:
[image removedv temporarily]
Anyone with even a fleeting knowledge of the history of those two countries would understand the significance of the act, and of the visibility of the act. It brought back memories of the famous White House handshake between PLO leader Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin on 13 September 1993:
[image removedv temporarily]
This famous first handshake was followed in 2001 by another between Arafat and the then Prime Minister of Israel, Shimon Peres:
[image removedv temporarily]
Again, the history of enmity between Israel and the Palestinians dwarfs anything that Northern Ireland can offer.
So why does the First Minister of Northern Ireland refuse, both publicly and privately, to shake the hand of the Deputy First Minister? The conflict/war/troubles is over, the IRA has declared and maintained a ceasefire, and destroyed its weapons, there is an internationally recognised Agreement between the two governments and the Northern Irish parties, and Paisley and his party are voluntarily participating in all of the institutions established by the agreement.
And yet, despite co-operating with Martin McGuinness in the government of Northern Ireland, despite giving tacit support to the notions of reconciliation and rebuilding, and despite calling himself a Christian, Ian Paisley consistently refuses to carry out the one simple act of shaking Martin McGuinness's hand. His refusal to do something so simple, yet so symbolic, speaks volumes about his commitment to peace, to reconciliation, even to Christianity. It is a disgrace and utterly indefensible.
"We could shake hands 24 hours a day, but if we don't get this province of ours into a ship-shape economic condition what good's the handshaking?" asked Paisley in May 2007. The answer is simple, Mr Paisley – the 'good' of the handshake lies in the simple symbolism of trust and co-operation than it encapsulates. A simple short meeting of hands will take years off the period needed for some of your supporters to come to terms with the new realities of Northern Ireland. As such, it will add immeasurably to the process of getting Northern Ireland 'into a ship-shape condition'. Your refusal to do it calls into question whether you really want Northern Ireland to enjoy a peaceful and prosperous future, or whether your main motivation is simply hatred.
A handshake is a short ritual in which two people grasp each other's right or left hands, often accompanied by a brief up and down movement of the grasped hands. Its origins are unclear, although Philip A. Busterson's seminal 1978 work 'Social Rituals of the British' traces its roots back to Sir Walter Raleigh, claiming he introduced the custom into the British Court during the late 16th Century.
The handshake is initiated when the two hands touch, immediately. It is commonly done upon meeting, greeting, parting, offering congratulations, or completing an agreement. Its purpose is to convey trust, balance, and equality. Handshakes possibly originated as a gesture showing that the hand holds no weapon.
In Anglophone countries, shaking hands is considered the standard greeting in business situations. In casual non-business situations, men are more likely to shake hands than women. It is considered to be in poor taste to show dominance with too strong a handshake; conversely, too weak a handshake (sometimes referred to as a "limp fish" or "dead fish" handshake) is also considered unseemly due to people perceiving it as a sign of weakness.
[ … ]
Generally it is considered inappropriate, if not offensive to the initiator side, to reject a handshake.
Yesterday (24 January 2008) the media was full of images of Greek Prime Minister Kostas Karamanlis shaking the hand of his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan:
[image removedv temporarily]
Anyone with even a fleeting knowledge of the history of those two countries would understand the significance of the act, and of the visibility of the act. It brought back memories of the famous White House handshake between PLO leader Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin on 13 September 1993:
[image removedv temporarily]
This famous first handshake was followed in 2001 by another between Arafat and the then Prime Minister of Israel, Shimon Peres:
[image removedv temporarily]
Again, the history of enmity between Israel and the Palestinians dwarfs anything that Northern Ireland can offer.
So why does the First Minister of Northern Ireland refuse, both publicly and privately, to shake the hand of the Deputy First Minister? The conflict/war/troubles is over, the IRA has declared and maintained a ceasefire, and destroyed its weapons, there is an internationally recognised Agreement between the two governments and the Northern Irish parties, and Paisley and his party are voluntarily participating in all of the institutions established by the agreement.
And yet, despite co-operating with Martin McGuinness in the government of Northern Ireland, despite giving tacit support to the notions of reconciliation and rebuilding, and despite calling himself a Christian, Ian Paisley consistently refuses to carry out the one simple act of shaking Martin McGuinness's hand. His refusal to do something so simple, yet so symbolic, speaks volumes about his commitment to peace, to reconciliation, even to Christianity. It is a disgrace and utterly indefensible.
"We could shake hands 24 hours a day, but if we don't get this province of ours into a ship-shape economic condition what good's the handshaking?" asked Paisley in May 2007. The answer is simple, Mr Paisley – the 'good' of the handshake lies in the simple symbolism of trust and co-operation than it encapsulates. A simple short meeting of hands will take years off the period needed for some of your supporters to come to terms with the new realities of Northern Ireland. As such, it will add immeasurably to the process of getting Northern Ireland 'into a ship-shape condition'. Your refusal to do it calls into question whether you really want Northern Ireland to enjoy a peaceful and prosperous future, or whether your main motivation is simply hatred.
Friday 18 January 2008
The strain is starting to show
Liam Clarke, writing in the Sunday Times on 13 January, echoed a theme already alluded to in this blog on a number of occasions – the willingness of the DUP to actually enter into the spirit of the Good Friday (and St Andrews) agreements, rather than just the institutions. This blog has argued that the DUP neither wants to, nor is capable of, co-governing on behalf of all of the people of Northern Ireland.
In his article, Liam Clarke notes that "until now the mood in the DUP seems to be that it is safest to say no to anything Sinn Féin wants unless there is a clear self interest in playing along", which is a polite way of saying that the mood in the DUP is to give nothing whatsoever to Sinn Féin unless there is no alternative. While for reasons of salonfähigkeit this is often argued as being a reaction to "terrorism", in truth it stems from the much older, deeper, and more persistent anti-Catholic, and anti-Irish bigotry of the DUP's members and supporters. This bigotry seems to be as strong as ever, and calls into question the DUP's ability to give as well as to take. It is a fact that for the government of Northern Ireland to work, both sides have to give, and to receive. Up to now, the DUP has consistently refused to give – a fact noticed by both Gerry McHugh, former Sinn Féin MLA for Fermanagh-South Tyrone, and by Clarke.
How long the one-sided approach of the DUP can last is uncertain. Sinn Féin cannot force the DUP to do anything, and vice-versa. But the corollary is that the DUP can block any proposals that it perceives as favourable to Sinn Féin. To date they have blocked the Irish Language Act, and they are making loud noises about the Maze redevelopment, the Bill of Rights, and the reorganisation of the district councils. As Clarke also points out, "it is becoming increasingly difficult for Sinn Féin to support the DUP line without receiving something in return".
For the DUP to give anything meaningful in return, it would have to be something that Sinn Féin can publicly point to as a success. The backwoodsmen of the DUP would then choke on their cornflakes.
This year may see a semi-public battle within the DUP for the leadership post, and 2009 will almost certainly see several heated election battles, so the DUP has very little room for manoeuvre in terms of visible concessions to Sinn Féin.
Sinn Féin members, while not yet choking on their cornflakes, are at least starting to feel the frustration of having their aspirationss blocked by an immobile DUP. Gerry McHugh spoke for many when he criticised the control that unionism appeared to have within the Assembly structures. So it is perhaps no surprise that, feeling their aspirations blocked by intransigent unionism in the Assembly, they start a low-level fight-back in the District Councils. In Limavady District Council Sinn Féin has fired a warning shot over unionist bows by drawing up a list of the items that must be removed in order to create a neutral working environment.. These items are, of course, the type of totems that unionists appear to be obsessed by – a fact not lost on nationalists and republicans. The underlying message seems to be, "equality is our right – either give it voluntarily, or have it forced upon you". The almost complete absence of any official nationalist (let alone republican) symbolism in public places is, of course, irrelevant to unionists – their position seems to be no further advanced that it was 50 years ago. To unionists, Northern Ireland is rightly theirs and only theirs. The actions of the DUP in the Assembly stem from this misguided belief, and their outrage at any proposal whatsoever to give recognition to the nationalist 45% of the population echoes this.
So is Northern Ireland heading for a cold war? One in which unionist intransigence will lead to nationalist intransigence, crippling government, and condemning yet another generation to the pointless and futile hatreds of the seventeenth century? The one single light at the end of this depressing tunnel is the fact that this generation may be the last to be condemned to the stagnation of unionism, as unionism is in relative decline and will soon be a minority creed. The irony for unionism is that its inability to mature, and to become a more pluralist and tolerant movement, will hasten its decline, as moderates steer clear of it. As this blog has pointed out before, the very 'success' of the DUP may be the catalyst of unionism's ultimate and unlamented defeat.
In his article, Liam Clarke notes that "until now the mood in the DUP seems to be that it is safest to say no to anything Sinn Féin wants unless there is a clear self interest in playing along", which is a polite way of saying that the mood in the DUP is to give nothing whatsoever to Sinn Féin unless there is no alternative. While for reasons of salonfähigkeit this is often argued as being a reaction to "terrorism", in truth it stems from the much older, deeper, and more persistent anti-Catholic, and anti-Irish bigotry of the DUP's members and supporters. This bigotry seems to be as strong as ever, and calls into question the DUP's ability to give as well as to take. It is a fact that for the government of Northern Ireland to work, both sides have to give, and to receive. Up to now, the DUP has consistently refused to give – a fact noticed by both Gerry McHugh, former Sinn Féin MLA for Fermanagh-South Tyrone, and by Clarke.
How long the one-sided approach of the DUP can last is uncertain. Sinn Féin cannot force the DUP to do anything, and vice-versa. But the corollary is that the DUP can block any proposals that it perceives as favourable to Sinn Féin. To date they have blocked the Irish Language Act, and they are making loud noises about the Maze redevelopment, the Bill of Rights, and the reorganisation of the district councils. As Clarke also points out, "it is becoming increasingly difficult for Sinn Féin to support the DUP line without receiving something in return".
For the DUP to give anything meaningful in return, it would have to be something that Sinn Féin can publicly point to as a success. The backwoodsmen of the DUP would then choke on their cornflakes.
This year may see a semi-public battle within the DUP for the leadership post, and 2009 will almost certainly see several heated election battles, so the DUP has very little room for manoeuvre in terms of visible concessions to Sinn Féin.
Sinn Féin members, while not yet choking on their cornflakes, are at least starting to feel the frustration of having their aspirationss blocked by an immobile DUP. Gerry McHugh spoke for many when he criticised the control that unionism appeared to have within the Assembly structures. So it is perhaps no surprise that, feeling their aspirations blocked by intransigent unionism in the Assembly, they start a low-level fight-back in the District Councils. In Limavady District Council Sinn Féin has fired a warning shot over unionist bows by drawing up a list of the items that must be removed in order to create a neutral working environment.. These items are, of course, the type of totems that unionists appear to be obsessed by – a fact not lost on nationalists and republicans. The underlying message seems to be, "equality is our right – either give it voluntarily, or have it forced upon you". The almost complete absence of any official nationalist (let alone republican) symbolism in public places is, of course, irrelevant to unionists – their position seems to be no further advanced that it was 50 years ago. To unionists, Northern Ireland is rightly theirs and only theirs. The actions of the DUP in the Assembly stem from this misguided belief, and their outrage at any proposal whatsoever to give recognition to the nationalist 45% of the population echoes this.
So is Northern Ireland heading for a cold war? One in which unionist intransigence will lead to nationalist intransigence, crippling government, and condemning yet another generation to the pointless and futile hatreds of the seventeenth century? The one single light at the end of this depressing tunnel is the fact that this generation may be the last to be condemned to the stagnation of unionism, as unionism is in relative decline and will soon be a minority creed. The irony for unionism is that its inability to mature, and to become a more pluralist and tolerant movement, will hasten its decline, as moderates steer clear of it. As this blog has pointed out before, the very 'success' of the DUP may be the catalyst of unionism's ultimate and unlamented defeat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
