Tonight’s Spotlight programme on BBC1 Northern Ireland presented an excellent analysis of the state of “unionism”. The programme seemed to reach the conclusion that the Unionist brand was dying. In short unionist unity is hardly worth the effort when no-one – least of all the DUP and UUP – seem to know what unionism means any more. The electorate is none the wiser either.
This is, of course, true. Although I’d go further and suggest that Irish nationalism is also – increasingly – irrelevant as a means of describing ideology and policy.
The new politics that the electorate seems to yearn is one that focuses on improving this place. And that’s where the political battle-ground should take place – convincing voters of the merits of a right-of-centre or left-of-centre policy agenda.
(Oh and let’s not fixate on the interminable issue of Irish or British union – because most people couldn’t care less any longer. Frankly we’re bored with it).
Needless to say, I’d like to see the emergence of a right-of-centre political dynamic. But, for it to succeed, it’s clear that it will need to define itself in the following ways:
- It will need to have a strong, articulate and non-sectarian voice
- It will need to show a commitment to a secular political future
- It will require a strong (and worldly) leader
- It will focus on re-defining Northern Ireland as a confident and outward looking place
- It will help define a future built on hard work and a reduced role for the public sector
- It will establish this place as a great place to live
- It will give a voice to those who have been disenfranchised by the politics of Orange and Green
- It will define itself as a meritocratic movement – committed to social mobility
- It will not allow narrow-minded parochial interests to stifle its ambition to make Northern Ireland a player on the global stage
If it achieves all of these things then it will be worth supporting. And, needless to say, no political party that calls itself Unionist could achieve any of these things.
Hi Jeff,
Are you part of this?
http://nicentreright.wordpress.com/
No. I know Seymour though. Nice chap.
Could Mike Nesbitt, unencumbered by the politics of the past, intelligent, articulate, charismatic, and professionally successful, be the leader you describe?
I know you harbour great antipathy to the UUP Jeff, but I happen to think its the best vehicle in town for change in Northern Ireland. Its members are broadly up for it and its not the same party as you imagine from your youth, or even 10 years ago.
Change in Northern Ireland politics will best be delivered by using the tools at hand.
As surely we know from modern history in Northern Ireland, trying to deliver change by setting up your own party, or working outside the established political groupings, takes a VERY VERY long time to return even the slightest success or outcome (ref Alliance, DUP, and SDLP), or indeed, may be entirely unsucessful and fruitless (ref UKUP and Northern Ireland Conservatives).
To deliver the outcomes you seek Jeff, you’d be better getting on board the UUP change bus.
George we’ll have to agree to differ. I can’t see the UUP delivering anything in terms of change – way too much baggage and way too little talent. By the way, I’m much too busy to set up any new political party. I’ll leave others to do that.
“I can’t see the UUP delivering anything in terms of change – way too much baggage and way too little talent.”
With due respect etc, I don’t think that stacks up as a particularly strong argument.
ALL estalished political parties come with baggage, it goes with the territory. All established parties also go through peaks and troughs in terms of the talent pool, usually coorelated to electoral performance.
But both those problems can be tackled in quite straight forward fashion:
- rebrand to detoxify previous or current poor perceptions (isn’t PR your field?)
- following rebranding, attract new talent
Isn’t this what the Conservative Party in England and Wales (but not Scotland) did 1997 to 2010?
Why then couldn’t the UUP go through the same process?
I’m failing to see where the “impossible” is?
George, if the UUP want to commission me to undertake a re-branding exercise I’ll read the RFP. However, 1) they couldn’t afford me and 2) I’d insist on the removal of so much dead-wood I’m not sure there would be much left.
And would such a party do its looking outward towards the UK, the ROI or a bizarre combination of both? I take your point that unionism in Northern Ireland has become entangled with sectarianism. However, unless a centre right party is unambiguously committed to maintaining the United Kingdom’s integrity and supporting NI’s place within it, it won’t attract support from people like me. Whether you describe that as unionism or not is a matter of definition. But it is critical.
Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom in perpetuity and gets its entire budget from the United Kingdom. To witter on about Unionism or Irish nationalism is both pointless and irrelevant. Northern Ireland’s continuance within the United Kingdom has been enshrined in international agreement and people on both sides of the border have voted for it. So let’s move on from this groundhog debate. The focus that any right-of-centre party should have is on making this place thrive – and to seek a mandate from the entire community. Therefore it would need to work constructively with our nearest trading partner – the Republic of Ireland. Similarly it would need to ensure that Northern Ireland plays an effective role in the civil society of the United Kingdom – because Northern Ireland is a part of that Kingdom. It can do all of these things without waving flags or banging drums or protesting. We are where we are – let’s start behaving like citizens rather than downtrodden serfs.
Northern Ireland is not part of the United Kingdom ‘in perpetuity’. Its constitutional status as part of the UK is delegated to the will of the people here. If a majority are convinced that we shouldn’t remain part of the UK the situation will change dramatically.
You can’t form a political party by shirking first principles and one of the first principles is surely which state you want to be part of. If you’re happy with the status quo, and don’t want to change it, that’s still a political stance.
Naturally that needn’t be the focus, and if you say there is a problem of emphasis with the present ‘unionist’ parties I’d agree with you, but in Scotland and Wales, as in Northern Ireland, the parties all embrace some degree of unionism, nationalism or constitutional neutrality.
A party in Northern Ireland is no different however much you rail against sectarianism.
Taking a stance on the constitutional issue doesn’t necessarily entail flag waving and it shouldn’t entail sectarianism. But it’s simply a nonsense to ignore the constitution completely. Devolution has put the constitution into the spotlight, throughout the UK, whether we like it or not.
I am all for unionism going without saying, for it not to be an issue, but take your friend Seymour Major, for instance. He has a set of bizarre ideas about forming a single electoral block with Fine Gael. It doesn’t seem to me that that’s what you want. It seems to me that you want something that I would call essentially a unionist party. But I couldn’t touch, with John Taylor’s 40 foot barge-poll, a party which wanted to fudge the border issue by making party political alliances across it.
Seymour is a nice chap but the publication of my post with his ‘new Party’ initiative is a sheer coincidence. I haven’t spoken to Seymour in over a year and I, like you, vehemently disagree with his Fine Gael nonsense. I am, without question, in favour of the Union. I will argue the corner about the advantages of the Union. However, I say again, Unionism has been sullied by Unionist parties. It is a tarnished brand. Unionism – we all know – is a euphemism for protestantism. More than anything else a new centre-right party needs to define itself as secular and focused on the entire community. It must sit outside the sectarian gale that has swept over this place for too long. And I think you agree.
one of the first principles is surely which state you want to be part of
Only if you’re a nationalist. Of course, Unionism has long been a thinly-disguised form of nationalism.
I, like you, vehemently disagree with his Fine Gael nonsense.
The specifics of it, or the general principle?
I think Fine Gael has had some good policy ideas. However, the logic of two parties ‘partnering’ when they operate in different legislatures seems pointless. However regular exchange of ideas is something that needs to be encouraged. RoI – despite its economic woes – is well ahead of NI in terms of entrepreneurship and business start-up, for example. That’d be a good place to start in terms of sharing experience.
Only if you’re a nationalist. Of course, Unionism has long been a thinly-disguised form of nationalism.
Don’t be silly. Nationalism attempts always to make identity and allegiance coincide. Nationalism is not simply an advocacy of which structures of statehood you prefer.
Owen – but nor is Unionism. Unionism has traditionally been more about identity and allegiance – much more than participation in the state. I agree with Andrew that Unionism (in a Northern Ireland context) is defined within Northern Ireland. I remember moderating a focus group in Bangor and a respondent looked incredulously at me when I asked him if Unionism was about the Union. He answered, “No, it’s about Ulster.” People in Kent or Tunbridge Wells don’t ramble on about the importance of the Union. They take it for granted. Unionism is a siege mentality – a “what we have we hold” approach to politics. I know you have been keen to encourage a UK focused Unionism. But Unionism is itself the problem – it’s not an ideology. It’s a single issue – and it’s an issue that can only be resolved if we take the Union for granted. The problem is that too many Unionists regard that as counter-intuitive.
Unionists are like desperate teenagers that really want a boyfriend (or girlfriend). The more desperate they are the less likely they are to appeal to the opposite sex. They end up unloved and on the shelf. Unionists rant on so much about the Union that the Union – the Kingdom to which they so want to belong – has left them behind. The fact is that England is a melting pot of culture, sexuality, race…whereas Northern Ireland has become enervated and different – cut off from the national mainstream. Unionism is ignored, overlooked, different and irrelevant.
If your desire is to maintain the Union the greatest threat to it is Unionism. Unionism is, in fact, a paradox. The more likely Unionists here “defend the Union” the more likely it is that the Union will turn its back on Northern Ireland. Indeed Unionism has already failed – devolution has ensured that Northern Ireland’s politics are now essentially cut adrift from the national political debate. Even I, reluctantly, have to admit that the Conservative Party has stabbed the local Conservative organisation in the back – in its expedient hunt for “Conservative & Unionist” MPs.
Therefore we have to move the discourse on in a local context. The politics of Orange and Green no longer excites or inspires anybody (except the political Neanderthals). It’s time to transplant both with the politics of politics.
There is a party here,it is called the alliance party.all it needs is for all the people to think for a minute,before they put their X down.a vote for the past d.u.p./s.f./u.u.p./s.d.l.p.,e.t.c.or a vote for the future.if all the decent,law abiding people,from all parts of the six counties got behind them mabye we could live the dream.courage people!!…….
Brian, we’re discussing a party that has an ideological position here. The Alliance Party has none. While I was delighted that Naomi Long won East Belfast that was simply because she despatched Robinson. I have no idea what she stands for on anything. The Alliance Party stands for nothing other than non-sectarianism. That’s not enough. I’d hope that if a centre-right non-sectarian party did emerge most Alliance voters would vote for it – at least it’d be clear what they’d be voting for.
Firstly, just to eliminate the observation that was made about Fine Gael, the post which Owen refers to was written at a time when the Conservatives were in partnership with the UUP. The idea of voting block with Fine Gael was an idea to deal with the problem of the toxicity of the Unionist brand. I had reached the view then, which I hold now, that Unionism is a toxic brand which stood no chance of attracting significant numbers of votes from the Catholic Community. Under the initiative which I have launched, a new Centre-right party which has neither unionist identity nor unionist ideology would not require such a measure. That proposal is not on the table and nor will it be. However, a distinction needs to be made between that and the following
A new centre-right party which puts Northern Ireland’s interests at its heart should be exploring all ideas to promote that object, including improving / developing cross-border trade and if having links with a centre-right party across the border is the best vehicle for the new party to achieve that object, I would see no reason not to pursue links with Fine Gael.
I completely agree with Jeff’s last but one comment in reply to Owen. I would add two further observations.
Within the UUP, there are those on the left and those on the right. That is not surprising because the UUP has no ideology on the left-right spectrum. In Owen’s last post on his blog, he identified that as a problem in relation to promoting the Conservative election manifesto. If the UUP continues without adopting an ideology, then they will never be able to promote, let alone win, issue politics because unionism, being the only song on every member’s hymnsheet, will drown out the rest of the noise.
Owen’s post on Friday was actually a superb piece of analysis but it was so good that it would leave many readers concluding that there really was no point in having a Unionist Party.
The entire Raison d’être of the Unionist Parties was about defending the union after the Nationalists began to make progress towards home rule in the 19th Century. After 1921, the Irish Republic retained a claim in its constitution to Northern Ireland. With that having gone and the principle of consent permanently enshrined in the GFA, what exactly is the point of having a unionist party?
Brian.a,
Has it occurred to you that not everybody who would like to participate in a cross-community party agrees with the Alliance party’s policy on Academic selection and Grammar School?
I’d agree with Seymour, Owen, that your post on Friday was spot on. If I were a cynical person it might beg the question why you (and, initially, Seymour) were so enthusiastic about the UCUNF project when it was clear that it would be a disaster. The UUP is dysfunctional at best; neurotic at worst. There was never any possibility that the deal would be a useful one for anybody – least of all the Conservative Party. I’m amazed, frankly, that both of you were so duped.
However, at least both of you are on message now and that is to be applauded.
Hello All,
I just wanted to add my own thoughts to the debate.
The UCUNF project became unsustainable as soon as Conservative values and principles where causally jettisoned simply to keep the Pact going. What began as a strategy to end sectarianism within Unionist politics actually ended up doing exactly the opposite. As soon as this happened the Conservative Party should have had the courage to walk away.
There can be no excuse that people were not aware of UCUNF’s failings. The calamity was well forecast. Alarm bells within Conservative circles were being sounded for many, many months and were cynically ignored. Those who spoke out were ostracised and mocked by the ‘party faithful’. These ‘experienced politicos’ put greater value in ‘obeying orders’ than following their moral compass.
If UCUNF had adhered to non-sectarian and centre-right principles then the result of the election could have been very different.
UCUNF could and should have brought a realignment within Unionism. Something that would have been welcomed by a sizeable number of voters. Realignment is not, as has been portrayed by some, Unionist Unity. Unionist Unity is simply ‘them and us’ politics that is devoid of any mature or rational thinking. The realignment that is needed is something that redefines what it means to be pro-union. Pro-union is celebrating our links with and contribution to the UK. It must stand for civil and religious freedom, where all sections of society can participate – regardless of sex or sexual orientation; whatever religion or non-religion; it should not matter if you are able bodied or disabled – we must build a forgiving and tolerant society of equals. Any election campaign based on Conservative principles such as these would and should have been extremely uncomfortable for some within the UUP. It could well have prompted the defection of those not in favour of inclusive and non-tribal politics. Would that have been a bad thing? I don’t think so.
It is the right of any citizen to aspire to a United Ireland. Many have this aspiration yet also accept being within the UK is the best place to be. They willingly play a constructive and meaningful role within the UK – hundreds of thousands of our fellow countrymen and women do this every single day whether they live in Belfast or London or elsewhere in the UK. They are tax-payers. They are business owners, teachers, doctors, police officers, charity workers, voluntary workers. They have always placed helping their fellow citizen above their long-term political aspirations. The main Unionist parties have failed to embrace or even recognise this group. The Unionist parties are paying for this stubbornness when it comes to elections – the questions remain as to why politicians behave in this way and if they are capable of, or even want, change.
Each citizen has an equal contribution to make – the exclusion of any group or section of our society damages and weakens everyone. Any realignment must see the end of Green and Orange tribalism and allow the politics of the left and right to thrive. It is a world where our languages and dialects; music and culture and history belong to us all and we should celebrate them together.
Politics must rediscover its priorities. We live in a society where women are still treated as second class citizens. A world struggling with recession, where jobs are being lost and people are losing their homes. A country where ‘tolerance’ is purely used to cover-up sexism, sectarianism and racism. It is the duty of all politicians to work for those that are in most need. To defend and protect those without a voice. To eradicate intolerance and to support freedom. The election result showed that UCUNF failed to convince many that it was willing or able to do this.
UCUNF is rightly to be consigned to the dustbin of political history. The so called ‘unity candidate’ in FST and the eagerness to find a ‘unity’ strategy in South Belfast clearly revealed that the project had morphed into blatant seat grubbing. The fact that UCUNF tried to claim Rodney Connor’s vote as part of its 100,000 votes is as embarrassing as it is shameful. If the voters in FST elect an abstentionist MP that is their democratic right. The ‘Special Circumstances’ excuse was a sham, it was dangerous and undermined democracy. Come the Assembly elections next May Martin McGuinness could become NI’s First Minister. That too is democracy speaking and all democrats must accept the result. No politician should pretend to be a democrat and then actually work against the will of the people. To try and override democracy is falling into the trap of fascism.
If the Westminster election has taught us anything it is that the electorate wanted a real choice. UCUNF failed to provide it. You cannot tell voters they are being offered a new beginning when it was obvious that this was just a simple re-spray job – and a botched one at that. Those that willingly peddled this charade to the electorate must question their motives.
We are all still navel gazing and picking over the bones of what went wrong. We are foolishly looking for leadership from the very people who have serially failed to provide it. The NI Conservative Party’s reputation has been tarnished by this whole sordid affair. Can it recover – I am not sure. The UUP and its current leadership are either unable or unwilling to deliver the necessary vision for change. It is time they realised that just trying to be the ‘top-dog’ in Unionism is backward thinking. They need to offer a broader and inclusive vision to the electorate. I know a great many UUP members who have worked for years to make their party embrace modernism and inclusivity. It has been an uphill struggle for them and I continue to wish them luck. The coming months may force them to decide if their future is staying inside the UUP or creating a new political home.
Tens of thousands are not even on the electoral register. Of those who can vote fewer and fewer are bothering to turn out. There is an obvious message in these facts for all political parties.
Whether as a society, a community or a neighbourhood it is only by working together that we will find solutions to our greatest problems. We can’t expect any sustainable political, economic or society fixes to be imported. It might be difficult for some of us to work together but that is democracy. We have all been on a difficult journey to mend our society and fix our problems. It is a journey that is without end and one that has taken courage from all sides to even begin. No one said it would be easy – giving up or going backwards is not an option.