Fermanagh District Council, Enniskillen DEA – by-election

Following the death of Joe Dodds, a district councillor for Enniskillen DEA in Fermanagh (and father of Nigel Dodds, currently Finance Minister in the Executive), the District Council were last night unable to agree to a co-option, and must now proceed to a by-election.

A co-option is basically an agreement by all the other members of the Council that the party of the deceased member can pick his or her replacement, and nobody will stand in their way. Given the fraught state of Northern Irish politics such an agreement would always have been difficult to get. Some observers, however, believed that the circumstances of the vacancy (the death of Joe Dodds) should have allowed his party, the DUP, to co-opt a replacement. But it seems that the UUP disagreed, and so there will be an election.

The timetable for the by-election in Enniskillen is slightly flexible, within legal limits set out in the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962:

• Last night the council failed to choose a person to fill the "casual vacancy", and so the clerk of the council must, within 7 days of the meeting, notify the Chief Electoral Officer of this; i.e. by 14 July.
• Publication of the notice of election must take place within 21 days from the date on which the "casual vacancy" is deemed to have occurred; i.e. by 28 July at the latest.
• Delivery of nomination papers takes place "on two consecutive days, the second of which shall not be earlier than the 4th day, nor later than the 7th day after the day of publication of the notice of election"; i.e. by 4 August at the latest.
• And polling must take place on a day "which shall not be earlier than the 18th nor later than the 21st day after the last day for delivery of nomination papers", i.e. between 22 and 25 August, if all other steps occur at their latest date.

These are the maximum periods. The timetable can be shortened if the council notifies the Chief Electoral Officer immediately, or if the notice of election is published in less than 21 days from notification.

As this blog previously pointed out, although Enniskillen has slightly more unionists than nationalists (48.6% to 46.7%), the election will be extremely interesting, and may lead to surprises.

Issues that will play a part include:

• The opinion of local unionists to the DUP's agreement to share power with Sinn Féin.
• The vote that Traditional Unionist Voice will receive, if it stands.
• Who will stand for the various parties (the DUP's large share of the vote in 2005 was thanks largely to Arlene Foster, who cannot stand again)
• Whether there will be a split in the unionist vote sufficient to result in Sinn Féin winning the seat.
• Whether the changing demographics of Enniskillen will lead to a nationalist majority in the DEA (no guarantee of the seat, of course - that would depend upon the transfers).
• Whether Sinn Féin will suffer from the recent resignation of Bernice Swift.
• Whether the SDLP will recover from its recent decline to pose a credible threat to Sinn Féin for the nationalist vote.

This blog will follow this election with interest.

Anger management?

The reaction of unionists to almost everything that they do not like is to lash out. The media is full of headlines like:

Fury over INLA display at funeral
Orange fury over Belfast march restrictions
Fury over PM's £6m for Irish language
Sinn Fein slammed for laurel wreath plan
Sinn Fein attacked over 'brinkmanship'
DUP fury at 'savage attack' by Sir Reg

Jim Allister, TUV MEP, excels at blasting and slamming:

Allister blasts sanitisation of IRA
Allister slams Executive over Crossnacreevy blunder
Allister slams Executive over water rates for Orange Halls and Churches
Allister lashes DARD over fishing fuel crisis
Allister slams Absentee MPs in Abortion votes
Allister pummels de Brun in Strasbourg

But his old colleagues in the DUP can do a bit of slamming themselves, too:

Dodds slams Parades Commission Chairman over Parade Ruling
Spratt slams failure of PSNI to tackle burglary in South Belfast
DUP anger at new Portglenone group

Unionists in general have been angry for years, about all sorts of things:

Unionist anger at calls to rewrite history and call the Troubles a war
Unionist anger at Finucane inquiry
Unionist anger over wearing of 'Old IRA' medal
Unionist anger at axing of over half North's police reserves
Unionist anger at ruling on flowers
Unionist fury at Dublin veto on Queen

And on, and on, and on ….

It seems that unionists are the Mr Angry's of northern Irish politics. They lash out, slam and blast, when things don't go their own way, like children in a tantrum.

But this is perhaps a natural reaction. One of the current theories of the grief process suggests that "whenever one's identity and social order face the possibility of destruction, there is a natural tendency to feel angry, frustrated, helpless, and/or hurt. The volatile reactions of terror, hatred, resentment, and jealousy are often experienced as emotional manifestations of these feelings".

So perhaps non-unionists should feel sympathy rather than annoyance at the stream of 'anger' and 'fury' stories coming out of unionism. It is, after all, only their way of coping with the inevitable and progressive destruction of their political world.

Irish passports for Irish people

The Irish Independent has reported that increased demand for Irish passports in the North has resulted in 400,000 passports being approved since the Good Friday Agreement.

The Good Friday Agreement recognises the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both as they may so choose, and accordingly confirms their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship.

The number of passport applications from people born in Northern Ireland rose by over 20% in 2007 to 60,000; since Irish passports last for 10 years, this represents a number of at least 600,000 people in the north who identify themselves as Irish. Since children often travel on their parents' passport, and since not every person has a passport, the figures show that a very significant proportion of the population in the north identifies itself as Irish – probably close to half, and rising. More bad news for unionism!

Unionist Academy – yet another front organisation of the rearguard

DUP leader Peter Robinson has unveiled plans for a 'Unionist Academy' to be formally launched in September to "fight back against republican attempts to erode the British identity in Ulster [sic]".

His plans include two linked organisations:

1. A Unionist Academy, to promote "the unionist culture" and the "advantages of the union"; encourage "unionist learning in the community" and provide a forum for unionist strategising and policy-making; it will be a think-tank – as opposed to a bricks and mortar establishment, and will offer a forum where DUP "policies can be formulated" but it will also be an educational vehicle.

2. A British Cultural and Equality Unit to provide legal advice to the public on fighting the removal of British emblems from Northern Ireland society. This body will "specifically monitor and respond to attacks on unionist culture"; "offer support and legal advice"; and "will have a professional group of people with a strong legal input available to be used by anyone in the unionist community".

So, stripping away the jargon, what the DUP is planning for its Unionist Academy is yet another pro-unionist pressure group, to add to the myriad of others. Since there is no such thing as a 'unionist culture' apart from sectarian marching bands, it is probable that it will simply join the chorus of organisations seeking to defend controversial and unwelcome Orange Order marches. The unionists already have a squadron of pro-marching pressure groups, pro-Ulster-Scots groups, and (real) think-tanks. So precisely what Robinson thinks that this new one will do is hard to understand. Still, he may succeed in splitting unionism even more, and wasting its resources on multiple parallel organisations, so his initiative is good from a nationalist point of view.

TUV MEP Jim Allister sees through the DUP proposals, which he calls window dressing aimed at distracting DUP supporters unhappy with the Stormont regime.

The second of Robinson's organisations – the 'British Cultural and Equality Unit' – has the clear intention of using legal channels to challenge, and where possible, block all moves by nationalists and others to promote cultural fairness and parity of cultural identity in the public sphere.

If this 'unit' ever gets off the ground, it will provide a 'non-partisan' vehicle for aspiring unionist solicitors and barristers to launch divisive and reactionary court cases against decisions taken by local and central government bodies. It will try to maintain the overwhelmingly unionist symbolism of the north, despite the Good Friday Agreement's commitment to equality, and the Assembly's commitment to a 'shared future'. In launching this body, Robinson is saying quite clearly that he and the DUP do not support equality of cultural identity, or fairness and sharing of public space. And yet, in his statement, he insisted that the 'fight back' would not destabilise government. He said: "There has been something of a cultural war in Northern Ireland. We intend to fight back. Our unionist way of life will not be put in some drawer in the back of an office".

From this 'unit', we can thus expect such 'progressive' actions as; challenges to every expression of the Irish language in public, challenges to funding for the Irish language or the GAA, campaigns against memorials to the republican dead, challenges against decisions of district councils to remove unionist paraphernalia, challenges against limits to the flying of unionist flags, etc. The courts may well become clogged up with vindictive and petty cases, some of which this 'unit' may win, to their delight, but many of which they will lose.

Community relations will, of course, suffer; the Assembly and Executive will become more polarised; the image of Northern Ireland in the wider world will revert to that of the past; and all of this will be in vain, because, as Robinson himself admitted: "the party … needs to address what I think is a major failing of unionism, which is the fall-away in the unionist vote. At every election there are fewer unionists coming out to vote." So his latest rearguard actions will merely sour relations, and confirm the belief that unionists are incapable of fairness or equality, during the long slow decline of unionist power. As such, they will help to ensure the kind of community polarisation that will ensure that nationalists, once their numbers are sufficient, will vote to abolish unionism's nasty little statelet.

Fermanagh, Enniskillen DEA – By-election?

The death took place in the Royal Victoria Hospital in Belfast on Thursday 5 June of Fermanagh DUP Councillor, Joe Dodds. He was the father of Nigel Dodds, the North's new Finance Minister.

Joe Dodds was a councillor for the Enniskillen District Electoral Area (DEA) of Fermanagh District Council. This ward is almost evenly split between unionism and nationalism: in the 2005 election the outcome was;

Total Unionists: 4,239 (48,6%)
Total Nationalists: 4,070 (46,7%)
Total others: 406 (4,7%)

The Alliance party did not stand – the 'others' were, in fact, a single candidate, Paul Dale, standing for the Socialist Party (NI).

Of the unionist total, the DUP got the greater share (28.2% of the total vote), while the UUP got 20.5%. Sinn Féin, however, with 28.5% of the total vote, were the most successful party in the DEA.

Over the past few years this DEA has been steadily becoming less unionist and more nationalist. In 1993 the combined unionist share was 58.5%; in 1997 this was 56.6%, and in 2001 only 47.9%. The DUP was traditionally the smaller unionist party in the DEA, but when Arlene Foster (now Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Investment) left the UUP and joined the DUP she took a large part of the old UUP vote with her. Of the DUP's 28.2% in 2005, fully 23.6% was Foster's personal vote. Joe Dodds, with a paltry 400 first preference votes (4.6%) was elected with her transfers.

The nationalist vote has been progressively increasing; 29.5% in 1993, 32.1% in 1997, 43.1% in 2001, and 46.7% in 2005.

Will a by-election take place? If the parties agree, a councillor may be replaced by co-option. The relevant legislation states that, between 14 and 42 days after the 'casual vacancy' occurs (through death, in this case), the council must meet and try to agree on a co-opted replacement. If even one member disagrees, then the vacancy is reported to the Chief Electoral Officer, who presumably must organise a by-election within a particular period.

One of the other parties might insist on an election, for a variety of reasons – the UUP might feel that they could recover the seat that the DUP took from them in 2005 – Sinn Féin might see it as an opportunity to steal the seat from unionism. To some extent, this latter situation may depend on the behind-the-scenes relationship between the DUP and Sinn Féin, which remains unclear.

However, is a by-election possible? The new Minister of the Environment, Sammy Wilson, also of the DUP, is apparently planning to remove the possibility of by-elections, as part of the preparation for the switch-over to 11 District Councils in 2011. This has not yet been passed into law, however, so there is still a legal possibility for a by-election to be held.

If a by-election is held to replace Dodds there will be considerable interest, for several reasons:

1. Will the demographic tide in this DEA have continued to flow in nationalism's favour, to the extent that a nationalist candidate will win the seat?
2. If so, can Sinn Féin retain its lead over the SDLP, in order to take the seat?
3. Can the DUP, without Foster's personal vote, remain as the larger of the unionist parties?
4. Will the TUV take a large chunk of the DUP vote, and perhaps deny it the seat?
5. Will other smaller parties stand, and if so, what will their effect be?

The main interest amongst the unionist parties will be the relative performances of the DUP, UUP and TUV, and whether the TUV's result in Dromore was a flash in the pan or a real indication of lasting support. On the wider stage, the interest is whether the relentless 'greening' of Fermanagh will continue, and whether either nationalist party can take another once-unionist seat, thereby helping to ensure that unionism never again can misrule Fermanagh.

C'mon over ... but not 'up'

The outflow of Protestant students from Northern Ireland has been noted before by this blog (here and here and here), as well as by unionists including Reg Empey, Minister of Employment and Learning. Now the Minister, in a rather pathetic attempt to stem the hemorrhage of young educated Protestants, is trying to organize a reverse flow by persuading graduates from Britain to move to Northern Ireland. He is, of course, particularly interested in Scottish graduates, who can be relied on to reinforce the stagnant unionist population.

The Minister, through his department, has launched a campaign called C'mon over, aimed at encouraging "suitably skilled people to consider Northern Ireland as a place to live and work". What the campaign is really aimed at, of course, is encouraging British Protestants to move to Northern Ireland, in order to bolster the numbers of pro-British voters.

The Minister's department – Employment and Learning – attended the Edinburgh Graduate Fair on 22 May 2008 and the Glasgow University Graduate Fair on 28 and 29 May 2008 to promote their campaign.

One wonders, if his aim is simply to encourage skilled graduates to move to Northern Ireland, why his department is not organising a parallel campaign, called C'mon up, in universities in the south? If, as he has claimed, he is trying to encourage Northern Irish graduates to return to Northern Ireland, then why is the campaign not called C'mon back?

This is clearly a sectarian and politically motivated attempt by a unionist minister to abuse his office to try to reinforce the unionist population of Northern Ireland. It is a sign of his, and his party's recognition that the numerical battle is being won by nationalism.

Giving the DUP enough rope to hang themselves with

This blog has never had any faith in the DUP's ability or willingness to share power or to co-govern in the interests of all of the people of Northern Ireland. In September 2007 this blog said that "the DUP is busy painting itself into a corner – by publicly sniping at suggestions from Sinn Féin, they are limiting their own room for manoeuvre". In October 2007 we asked whether the DUP was capable of governing: "the real ability of the DUP to cooperate, to share power, and to govern in the interests of the whole of Northern Ireland has been tested, and is increasing found wanting. Their flaws are becoming more visible, and are combining to give the impression of a party that does not know how to share power, and may not even be able to keep its own supporters happy". And in January 2008 we noted that the strain was starting to show, and that their "bigotry seems to be as strong as ever, and calls into question the DUP's ability to give as well as to take".

Since the restoration of the institutions over a year ago, Sinn Féin has been remarkably quiet, and apart from the storm-in-a-teacup over the nomination of Peter Robinson as First Minister on 5 June 2008, it has barely reacted to the oft-repeated gloats of the DUP that they 'control Stormont'.

Yet it is clear that the leopard has not changed its spots. Following the nomination of Peter Robinson there were rumours that a deal had been done to ensure the required Sinn Féin support. Indeed, unless something had been promised, it is likely that Sinn Féin might indeed have blocked the nomination. The DUP press room sprang into action, and within two days five separate statements were released that tried to deny that a deal had in fact been made: David Simpson MP, Willie McCrea MP, Ian Paisley Junior MLA, Maurice Morrow MLA, and Peter Weir MLA. Each of the statements repeated aspects of the same message – that the DUP had blocked, and would continue to block, any movement on Sinn Féin policies. In essence, therefore, the message was that the DUP was not 'power-sharing' but simply 'Sinn Féin blocking'. The doubts that this blog had expressed earlier were shown to be valid.

Worse, however, was to come.

On Friday 6 June Iris Robinson MP MLA, wife of the newly nominated First Minister, made a series of blatantly intolerant anti-gay comments on a radio show. This lead to a storm of protest, both from organisations representing gay people, and from political opponents. Needless to say, of course, the Christian right, and especially the fundamentalist wing of the DUP, supported her anti-gay bigotry. Jeffrey Donaldson, the DUP's junior minister responsible for equality, said Mrs Robinson was entitled to express her views, but that the Executive would seek to ensure that no-one was discriminated against. Even Iris Robinson's husband, First Minister Peter Robinson, was forced to state that "there is a legal obligation to ensure that no-one in our society is discriminated against".

Then, on Monday 9 June Peter Robinson re-shuffled the DUP Ministers in the Executive. Amongst his appointments were Gregory Campbell, a renowned opponent of the GAA, to replace Edwin Poots in the very department that oversees sport, and a renowned environmental sceptic, Sammy Wilson, to the Department of the Environment. Rumours circulated that these appointments were made to reward loyal supporters for their part in ousting Ian Paisley senior and allowing Robinson to take over the DUP. Whether this is true or not, the impression given by these appointments is of a party that either lacks appropriate talent, or that simply does not take its responsibilities seriously.

Which brings this blog to its point: is Sinn Féin's silence on the DUP, and its actions and statements, a clever tactic that allows the DUP to be damned, not by its enemies, but by itself?

It is entirely possible that Sinn Féin, having known the DUP for over 30 years, and knowing the mentality of its members intimately, knew that given enough rope the DUP would eventually hang themselves. In opposition the DUP could snipe and sabotage, whilst keeping their own powder dry. They could, and did, develop a reputation as a canny party, well-disciplined and committed. But exposed to the harsher glare of attention that office brings, the underlying weaknesses of the DUP are becoming clearer.

Power corrupts, they say, and almost as soon as the DUP had attained some power the allegations of corruption started, thanks to Ian Paisley junior's relationship with property developer Seymour Sweeney, and DUP Minister Arlene Foster's defence of Sweeney. While the DUP had managed to brush off complaints about its homophobia in the past, when it became clear that that homophobia stretched as far as the First Minister's wife, liberals recoiled with distaste. And on the very basic requirement of a power-sharing administration – sharing power – the DUP is showing itself to be hopelessly incapable or unwilling, and thus calling into question the very continuation of the experiment.

The myth of the disciplined and all-conquering DUP is taking quite a battering, and for the first time in its history the party is facing a real threat from its right – the TUV. Despite the media belief in a 'modernising wing' within the DUP, the party is still being steered by its religious right wing, even though this is precisely the group most likely to desert it for the TUV. If it's so-called 'modern' wing also starts to desert it – back to the UUP, perhaps – the DUP might implode, and revert to being a small extreme-unionist protest party.

Is Sinn Féin's relative silence aimed at achieving this outcome?