A hung parliament may make voting pacts obsolete

One of the highlights of the current Westminster election campaign so far has been its focus on voting pacts – largely on the unionist side, but more recently also on the nationalist side. There is no doubt that the existence of voting pacts can (and probably will) influence the overall outcome of the election in Northern Ireland.

However, in Britain the media attention is focussed more on the possibility of a hung parliament, and on what the outcome of such a situation might be.

One very obvious outcome is that one or other smaller party may hold the balance of power, and thus be in a position to extract benefits from its position. The DUP have hopes in that direction, as do the SNP. But the most obvious candidate for 'king-maker' is the Liberal Democrats (LibDems).

Today the LibDems published their election manifesto, and although it barely mentions Northern Ireland (and why would it, the LibDems are an exclusively British party), buried deep within its 112 pages is a commitment that may turn out to be highly significant to Northern Ireland's electoral future, should the LibDems be in a strong bargaining position after May 6.

On page 87 the LibDems return to an issue that has motivated them for years, but which they have never yet had the power to change – the inherent unfairness of the First-Past-The-Post electoral system. This is the system which famously gave the overwhelmingly nationalist voters of West Tyrone a unionist MP in 1997, gave the marginally unionist-majority South Belfast an SDLP MP in 2005, and may well give the marginally nationalist Fermanagh and South Tyrone an 'independent' (but Conservative affiliated) unionist on May 6.

The LibDem manifesto states that:

Liberal Democrats will:
• Change politics and abolish safe seats by introducing a fair, more proportional voting system for MPs. Our preferred Single Transferable Vote system gives people the choice between candidates as well as parties. Under the new system, we will be able to reduce the number of MPs by 150.

This promise also forms part of the LibDems headline '4 steps to a fairer Britain'.

Leaving aside for the time being the issue of reducing the number of MPS (though this is interesting in itself), the possibility of introducing STV proportional representation (PR-STV) in Westminster elections would revolutionise them in Northern Ireland. PR-STV would mean that voters can vote for whatever first preference candidate they want, knowing that if s/he is not elected, their vote will transfer to their second preference, and so on.

Voting pacts would be obsolete, as would calls for 'unionist unity' or 'nationalist unity'. Two, three or ten unionist or nationalist candidates could contest each seat, and as long as their votes transferred within their own blocks, the outcome would be fairly proportional to the votes. If, as would be logical, the PR-STV system was used in multi-member constituencies (as is the case in all other elections in Northern Ireland), then the outcome would tend to represent the share of the overall vote received by the parties or blocks.

In the currently controversial case of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, the LibDems proposal, if taken to its logical conclusion, would see the seat as merely one of, say, three in the west of Northern Ireland (e.g. FST, West Tyrone and Mid Ulster combined into a single three-seater). In such a constituency the outcome would be two nationalists and one unionist, which is close to the actual share of the vote in that area.

If the number of seats is reduced, perhaps to 15, the whole of Northern Ireland could be divided into four constituencies; three 4-seaters and a 3-seater. Depending on the shape of these constituencies the outcome would vary, but it would certainly be fairer than the current outcome (in Belfast, for instance, where nationalists and unionists are almost equal in number, May 7 might see three unionists and only one nationalist – or the reverse. Under PR-STV that would be a fairer 2-2 split).

At this stage, of course, the LibDems promise is merely a promise – they may not get to hold the balance of power, and even if they do, they may not be able to force the main governing party to accept their plans for PR-STV. But it certainly would make more of a long-term impact on Northern Ireland than the tired old arguments about voting pacts. This is an issue worth watching.

Unionist unity, nationalist unity

Yesterday this blog suggested that nationalists should copy the unionists, who have selected a 'unity' candidate for Fermanagh and South Tyrone – and thereby beat them.

It seems that this blog was not alone in that line of thinking. It was revealed that Sinn Féin had suggested voting pacts to the SDLP and were shot down. Margaret Ritchie, SDLP leader, called such pacts 'sectarian'. She may be right, or she may also be mistaking constitutional preference for religious affiliation.

While the lack of affection between Sinn Féin and the SDLP is evident, the fact remains that they are closer to each other than either is to any other party, and both compete for the nationalist vote. How the nationalist voters will react to the loss of FST, thanks to the SDLP's hopeless candidacy, will not be seen until the next Assembly election.

It is clear, though, that if unionism is to coalesce around 'unity candidates' in sensitive constituencies, a divided nationalism will suffer. It is true, of course, that such 'suffering' is fairly limited since Westminster has less and less direct control over people's lives as time goes on, but the psychological impact of unionist gloating should not be underestimated. Even if Westminster is of marginal importance – and the power of Northern Irish MPs is negligible – the mere fact of seeing a proportionate number of nationalist MPs elected is important. The proportion of MPs that are nationalist is a sign of the proportion of Northern Ireland's people who are nationalist. When nationalism has 8 MPs and unionism has 10 MPs, it is difficult for unionism to pretent that it is the 'voice of Northern Ireland'. If both blocks had 9 apiece, the impact would be enormous. But if the current unionist scheming bears fruit, May 7 could dawn with 12 unionists and only 6 nationalists – leading unionism to claim, incorrectly, that they represent a large majority of Northern Irish opinion.

This blog is not beholden to any one party, and sees them as mere vehicles towards an end – the reunification and independence of our country. So if one, or both, of the current nationalist parties disappears, this blog will not shed a tear. However, reality demonstrates that nationalists are a diverse people – some are socialists, some capitalists, some big farmers, some unemployed, some students, some Catholics, some Protestants, many atheists … As such, no single party could reflect their diversity, and so the need for different parties remains – Sinn Féin for the more radical, the SDLP for the more conservative. But these parties, as long as they still exist, should recognise that the possession of Westminster seats is symbolic – not just for them as parties, but for nationalism as a whole. Where seats are clearly marginal, they should be able to come together to agree a common position, and the weaker party in each constituency should stand aside. This, if agreed amicably in advance, should not be seen as weakness, but as a way of ensuring strength. The Assembly election results should be the guide to whether such 'standing aside' is necessary, and to which party should stand aside. As such, Assembly elections should be fought without fear or favour, and both parties should compete against each other.

In such a way nationalist confidence can be maintained, and the result of all elections, local, Assembly, Westminster and European, could reflect real nationalist strength. Pacts between nationalist parties are not 'sectarian', but political, as their goal is not related to any religious objective, but to a clearly political one.

This blog has frequently remarked that unionist disunity is nationalism's friend – the TUV being a particularly close friend – but the corollary of that is that nationalist disunity is unionism's friend. This election may show up the cost of nationalist disunity – but it is to be hoped that the two nationalist parties will survey the damage after May 6 and come to their senses.

Connor poses a long-term risk for nationalism

The agreement by the DUP and UCUNF to withdraw their candidates in Fermanagh and South Tyrone in favour of a 'unionist unity' candidate poses long-term challenges for nationalists in the constituency.

Unionists in the constituency, despite having proved that David Cameron is a liar, will be ecstatic about the outcome, which is an almost certain win for them. The Tories, despite having to mumble half-excuses about how "Fermanagh and South Tyrone has characteristics that are unique within the UK" will, at the end of the day, probably have another vote to count on in Westminster – and that is all they really care about. The DUP have eaten the most humble pie, though. Despite being the largest unionist party in the constituency in recent elections, they have had to stand aside for a man who will lend his support to their opponents. Whether the 'recapture' of the seat for unionism as a result of their pressure for a pact will adequately compensate them, we may have to wait another year to see.

The 'unionist unity' candidate, Rodney Connor, is himself part of the problem for nationalism. He is apparently a decent man and quite well thought of by nationalists in the area. How strong his unionism is, is open to question – the unionist parties think that he is 'one of theirs', but he has joined neither party, and insists that he will act in the interests of the whole constituency. Given that that constituency is majority nationalist, it will be interesting to see how he does that.

But potentially more damaging for nationalism will be the loss of the constituency. History shows us that when the seat is held by a nationalist – especially a 'nationalist unity' individual like Frank Maguire (MP from 1974-1981) – the nationalist vote is high, but when a unionist wins the seat – usually as a result of a split nationalist vote – it seems that some nationalists withdraw from voting. After Ken Maginnis won the seat in 1983 thanks to the decision by the SDLP to stand again, the number of nationalist votes tumbled. Maginnis retained the seat thanks to his role as 'unionist unity' candidate in 1986, 1987, 1992 and 1997. In all of these elections both Sinn Féin and the SDLP stood, and nationalists knew that they could not win the seat. The nationalist vote dropped as a significant proportion simply didn't bother to turn out.

Although the constituency lost the heavily nationalist Coalisland area to Mid Ulster in the 1995 boundary revision, and FST became a more evenly split constituency, it remained winnable for nationalism. The result in 2001, when Sinn Féin finally took the seat, thanks to a split in unionism – proved that there were more latent nationalist votes in the constituency than unionist votes. They had just failed to turn out between 1986 and 1997.

And therein lies the problem for nationalism. Faced with a 'unionist unity' candidate and a nationalist split, many voters may again fail to turn out. If Connor wins, subsequent Westminster elections may see the effects of nationalist demoralisation in the constituency, and this could last a decade or more. FST contains a significant number of hard-line republicans who are probably less inclined towards 'constitutional politics' than others, and they are more likely to withdraw from active participation if they feel that it is a waste of time, with a 'unionist unity' victory inevitable.

So Connor has the possibility of not just taking the seat in 2010, but retaining it with increasing majorities for years to come. Only when nationalism senses that it has a good chance of winning, either through a 'nationalist unity' candidate, or a unionist split, will it return to the ballot box in force. The lessons that unionism will draw from the Connor experience are that they must never again split their vote in FST, so nationalism has only three possible hopes in the constituency: either a unity candidate in the short term, or the decimation of one of the nationalist parties, or the slow option of waiting for demography to whittle away the unionist numbers.

The first option – a unity candidate, is not likely in 2010, and barely likely even at the next election. The mutual dislike between Sinn Féin and the SDLP is such that neither would happily give way to the other. The best option in this case would be a 'non-political' unity candidate – someone popular through sport or the media, for example. Fearghal McKinney may have been such a man, but he was seduced by the SDLP's pointless lure.

The second option – the decimation of the SDLP – seemed quite likely in recent years, but the SDLP has made efforts to revive itself, and certainly is not out of the race yet. If it fails badly on May 6, either in terms of votes or seats, its days may be numbered – but that will be too late for FST this time.

The last option - demographics - though slow, is more certain. The graph above shows the number of actual votes received by unionism and nationalism in Westminster elections in FST since 1970. The nationalist number is quite volatile, and includes a decade of demoralised underperformance. The unionist number, however, is less volatile and more consistent. And it is consistently declining – the trend is clearly downward, reflecting Protestant demographics in the constituency. In brief, Protestants are a declining proportion of the constituency's population – from over 50% of the population amongst those aged over 60 (in the 2001 Census) (on the right hand side of the graph), to below 40% of those aged 25 and younger (in the 2001 Census) (on the left hand side of the graph):

So it is likely that demographics will return FST to nationalism in the future, if Connor takes it in 2010. But a quicker and better route would be for nationalism to play unionism at their own game – unity – and beat them.

About that other election

Forgotten in the excitement and clamour over the May 6 Westminster election is the other election – the May 6 by-election to replace Iris Robinson on Castlereagh Council.

The names of the candidates in the Castlereagh East by-election were published last week:

• Alliance – Jonathan Simpson
• DUP – Sharon Skillen
• Green Party – Martin Gregg
• TUV – Ann Cooper
• UUP – Hazel Legge

So, unsurprisingly, the nationalist vote will be zero – as it always is, since no nationalist has stood in the area recently (if ever).

The candidates themselves are, to be kind to them, of very mediocre stature – two, the UUP's Hazel Legge and Alliance's Jonathan Simpson are both full-time workers for their parties, and two others are political virgins – the TUV's Ann Cooper and the DUP's Sharon Skillen. The fifth candidate is a Green, Martin Gregg, who stood as an independent – and in opposition to the Green party candidate – in Strangford in the 2007 Assembly election, but got barely 1.8% of the first-preference votes.

The result of the election will barely be noticed – it will be a mere footnote to the larger Westminster story. But while the result is an almost certain DUP win, the size of the TUV and UUP inroads into that victory will be interesting. With 59% in 2005, the DUP appears unassailable. The UUP in 2005 got less than a third of the DUP's total, and the TUV did not even exist. If the TUV take 40% of the combined DUP-TUV total (as they have done in the very few occasions when the two parties have gone head to head), then the DUP will still win handsomely. It will then have a young councillor with unexplained personal links to the UDA to explain.

The BBC just aren't trying

Yesterday this blog noted that the BBC's Election 2010 website takes for granted that religion is a political factor in Northern Ireland. Fair enough – this is something that is taken for granted by everyone in Northern Ireland – but it runs entirely counter to the polite pretence that it is not so. And this is a pretence that the 'liberal media', including the BBC, have been promoting for years.

But a closer look at the BBC's Election 2010 website reveals that its admission of the politico-religious fault line in Northern Ireland may not have been a deliberate change of policy – it may simply be because whoever is responsible for the site is not very clever.

Take, for example, the candidates that the site lists for each constituency;

In South Down the list (of two) includes Eddie McGrady, despite the fact that he has publicly announced that he will not re-stand – a fact that is, incidentally, reported on a different BBC site!

In West Tyrone the BBC's Election 2010 website ignores the formal announcement by UCUNF that Ross Hussey will stand there, and lists only Pat Doherty.

Fermanagh and South Tyrone lists Tom Elliott as a candidate, but not Arlene Foster, despite both having been announced by their parties.

And on it goes in a similar vein – no Paisley in North Antrim, no Overend in Mid Ulster …

If the BBC wants to be seen as a reliable reference tool for this election, it needs to up its game.

Poor start by UCUNF

Straight out of the starting blocks the ‘joint leaders’ of the UUP-Tory party alliance, UCUNF, have released a statement redolent of the tired old clap-trap that connoisseurs of ‘old politics’ are so used to:

“This election will be about change and the demand for something better for the people of Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom as a whole.”

Meaningless platitude.

“It will also be about restoring trust in politicians and in our entire political process.”

How? Is this an example of your ‘new politics’? How pathetic!

“In Northern Ireland we are offering people a clear choice.”

As does every single election.

“Five more years of the same, tired old politics in Northern Ireland or a change of direction to a new optimism with the Conservatives and Unionists.”

And selecting a bunch of the same old UUP politicians, plus a couple of ‘celebrity candidates’ is the way to do that? How stupid do you think the electorate is?

“Five more years of Northern Ireland stuck on the margins of UK politics with the local parties or back into the mainstream of UK politics with a Conservative and Unionist Government.”

Um, the UUP are a ‘local party’, and they got most of the UCUNF candidacies. The rare Tories are in no-hoper seats. Mind you, so are the UUPers.

“Five more years of Gordon Brown's discredited Labour Government and its neutrality on the Union, or change with a Conservative and Unionist Government that supports the Union and wants to govern for the whole of the United Kingdom.”

Every government governs the whole UK. Either you’re being stupid or you think the voters are stupid. Not good in either sense.

“This really is the most important election in a generation. The outcome will affect every single person in Northern Ireland.”

Every election ‘affects every single person in Northern Ireland’. See previous comment.

“For the first time in decades people in Northern Ireland can help decide who will enter No 10 Downing Street on the morning after 6 May.”

If there is a hung parliament this is true. But it has been true in every other election since democracy started (around 1918, despite the propaganda that claims otherwise).

“But they can't do it by backing any of the other local parties.”

Untrue. If the DUP hold the balance of power then they will decide. Ditto the SDLP, for that matter.

“Sinn Fein, the DUP and SDLP have one thing in common. None of them can form the government at Westminster, or have ministers in the UK government.”

What a silly statement – trying to pretend that Sinn Féin are a ‘normal’ party which would ever wish to play a role in ‘British’ politics. And if the DUP hold the balance of power, who knows what role they might exercise?

“The alliance between the Ulster Unionists and the Conservatives offers us the chance to end Northern Ireland's semi detached political status.”

Yes, by ensuring that it becomes fully detached.

“It gives us the opportunity to realise one of unionisms most cherished objectives - equal citizenship for all the people of Northern Ireland.”

Are you now admitting that Northern Irish people have been denied ‘equal citizenship’? Would you care to expand on that? Compare and contrast previous Tory administrations.

“At this election, it is only by backing the Conservatives and Unionists that you can vote to put Northern Ireland at the heart of the Union.”

At the heart? You’re joking, right? A marginal overseas possession with fewer seats than east London? You still think Northern Irish voters are stupid, don’t you, Cameron? After all, they’re just thick paddies, right? Some of them so thick that they’ll buy into your nonsense. But not enough, thankfully.

Electoral Office malfunction

Trusting the running of an election to a body that cannot tell the time is worrying, to say the least. Below is a screen-shot of the Electoral Office's web site, taken today:




Just above where it tells us that the Westminster election will take place on May 6, it also tells us that "All Electoral Offices will be closed for Easter on Monday 5 and Tuesday 6 May and will re-open at 9.00am on Wednesday 7 May. The Electoral Office Helpline (0800 4320 712) will be open on Monday 5 and Tuesday 6 May".






So the Electoral Office thinks that the Westminster election will take place during Easter? Despite the fact that Easter is, ... well, already over!

Hopefully they can count ballots better than they can read a calendar.

Update (7 April):

The Electoral Office have now corrected their calendar malfunction.