Should Jim Allister not just lead UUP?

It is clear – and to some extent understandable – that the Ulster Unionists are close to completing the transition to the “right” (i.e. more extreme) of the DUP. From trying to block the Education Bill in the Assembly, trying to stop the “Maze Shrine”, and trying to stop DUP health policy on the back of the care homes debacle (all of which may or may not be legitimate policies in themselves), the Ulster Unionists are undeniably harder line and, in practice, “anti-Agreement”.

This is understandable partly because it is what the DUP did to them, and partly because the geography for their remaining vote. Drawn from predominantly rural, border areas where Protestants are a minority, if Ulster Unionists listen to their own voters and potential voters that will inevitably shift them to take a harder line.

All of this leaves, however, the obvious question of the Leadership. Mike Nesbitt has become a joke, weaving about in the wind, refusing to let anyone else have any spotlight at all, and becoming rabidly sectarian – all without improving the party’s fortunes at all. Yet anyone else within the party who may take over is either a past Leader, too new to the game, or too unwilling.

That leaves it to someone outside the Ulster Unionists to be the new Leader. Someone charismatic; someone with a political brain; someone with experience of high office; someone who opposes the DUP on education, the Maze and health at every turn; someone with razor-like analytic skills. Someone like Jim Allister…

DUP/SF deliver nothing by Groundhog Day on Community Relations

Sinn Fein accused the “usual naysayers” of opposing their and the DUP’s new “Together Building a United Community” (ex CSI (ex Shared Future)) strategy, or even simply told opponents effectively to shut up (“So what?”) – both of which were revealing, as the “naysayers” are actually right and Sinn Fein and its similarly authoritarian DUP chums know it.

I may want peace walls down by 2023; indeed I may want Northern Ireland to win the World Cup by then; but that isn’t worth anything without a clear plan to achieve it. No such plan exists. Sinn Fein and the DUP know that too.

This is just “Groundhog Day”. There is nothing of any real substance in the document at all. They didn’t show it to anyone else – even their Executive colleagues – in advance because they knew that too.

The other three parties, of course, face a resultant challenge of their own. If the Ulster Unionists are so opposed to care home closures, the SDLP so opposed to Welfare Reform, and the Alliance so opposed to no movement on a Shared Future, what are they doing accepting collective responsibility for them? On the other hand, a supposedly “new” process gives them an opportunity to contribute once more.

Regardless, the fact remains that this Executive is both fundamentally incompetent and fundamentally sectarian. It is not one with which I would be accepting collective responsibility, except if I wished to be complicit in the on-going breakdown of community relations, the on-going ignoring of the Rule of Law, and the on-going decline of the local economy. But so what, eh?

Nesbitt’s UUP sides with protesters against democracy

Mike Nesbitt once claimed he sought Catholic votes

A rally organised by Carrickfergus United Loyalists (a group which endorsed road blockages which caused significant disruption to many people going about their daily lives in East Antrim  and which, well, seemed unconcerned about an arson attack on an elected representative’s office which forced a neighbouring family to move temporarily) gained notoriety for an address by DUP Councillor Ruth Patterson this weekend.

Perhaps more notorious, however, was the decision by Ulster Unionist Leader Mike Nesbitt to announce that his party would be campaigning alongside Ruth’s in her constituency at the forthcoming General Election at the same rally. That the Unionist parties want single candidates across Belfast is not news to those who follow Northern Ireland politics closely – but to make the announcement at a Loyalist protesters’ rally also attended by anti-Agreement Leader Jim Allister and UVF-linked PUP Leader Billy Hutchison was highly noteworthy. Don’t forget, this is the same Mike Nesbitt who said his party should try to get Catholic votes less than a year ago…

“Ah, but it’s only Unionist cooperation” claim Ulster Unionists. That is not the point, it is the location and backdrop of the announcement which is the point. That said, as one correspondent frequently of this parish put it in response to this ridiculous cooperation-not-unity argument: “Aye, in the same way chickens cooperate with foxes…”

Conservatives still fundamentally misunderstand UKIP challenge

“Once we get our EU Referendum Bill through that’ll sort them out“, Conservatives say to each other, albeit in a consoling rather than determined fashion, after UKIP’s latest successes in England. It is a total nonsense, because UKIP’s vote has nothing to do with Europe.

The problem is one driven primarily by the media which operate only with an outrageously simplistic linear analysis of politics – in their analysis: a) from left to right you have “Labour – LibDem – Conservative – UKIP”; b) UKIP is gaining votes; therefore c) those votes are “centre-right” votes and must be coming from the Conservatives as that is the only possible source. How on earth, then, did UKIP get 24% of the vote in South Shields?!

I have long argued that the “left-right” division in politics no longer meaningfully exists. The choice is really to do with “tribe”, with swing voters (the ones who decide elections) making their decision based on perceived competence.

The situation in England was summed up recently by a poll showing the most common single-word response by people to each of the three main party leaders – to Cameron it was “privileged”, to Clegg “confused”, and to Miliband simply “no”. The sense is that all three essentially believe in the same things, most notably on the economy and immigration, to the extent that these have moved beyond serious debate. A charismatic friend of the working man who drinks ale down the pub and allows people to talk about immigration without being accused of bigotry and racism is what many people are looking for as an alternative to all three - step forward Nigel Farage.

The issue is not that the English have suddenly all become closet racists – they are in fact the most tolerant people in Europe. It is that they are not even being allowed to talk about the issues which affect them. If your factory job has been taken by a foreigner who, unlike you, doesn’t have a family to support and can thus afford to work longer hours at lower wages than you can, that is a very real issue for you – and not even being allowed to raise it, for fear of being branded a racist, is extremely galling. That is the sentiment UKIP is basing its appeal upon.

The very fact people believe the UKIP threat can be seen off with a “Referendum Bill” just goes to show how out-of-touch the Government and the main parties are with the real issues driving the UKIP vote. What working people right across England want – Conservative voters in Essex and Labour voters in Northumbria alike – is a reasonable debate on jobs and immigration. Can any of the “main parties” generate one?

Happy Europe Day tomorrow, by the way…

Irish Cup Final anthem farce shows DUP still doesn’t get it

The DUP (incorporating the Ulster Unionists) continues to stir up trouble where there was none otherwise to be had. The latest example was its weasel words about the lack of an anthem being played – something which is not new, by the way – at this weekend’s Irish Cup Final.

To be clear, this latest attempt at raising tensions followed on from the DUP raising tensions over parades, then over flags, and then over a football match involving one of the teams which was in the Final. It also just happened to coincide with the First Minister coming under pressure over his failure on a Shared Future stategy, the Health Minister coming under pressure over his U-turn on care homes, and the Social Development Minister coming under pressure over the delay in Welfare Reform. Just happened to coincide, mind…

More than this, it is further evidence that the DUP, just like Sinn Fein, is continuing to sell the people it represents a lie. In 1998, most of us signed up to an Agreement whereby the people of Northern Ireland may opt, by nationality, to be British or Irish. In other words, unlike anywhere else under UK sovereignty, its citizens may opt not to be British and still be good citizens loyal to Northern Ireland – in other words the administration has a single sovereignty, but its people have dual nationality. Whatever its representatives like to claim, the DUP signed up to the precise same deal on citizenship, with no modifications whatsoever even attempted, in 2007. Any DUP representative and any of the people he or she represents has to deal with the straightfoward fact that many of their fellow citizens are not British, while still perfectly good citizens of Northern Ireland.

This brings us to the Northern Ireland football team. The role of an international football team is nothing to do with sovereignty (otherwise there would be no separate England/Scotland/Wales teams, or Palestine or Montserrat or whatever), and everything to do with nationality – hence qualification for a team is determined by nationality/citizenship, with understandable caveats to stop players essentially being bought to compete for a certain association (the way athletes are). Long before 1998 it was clear that a player with either British or Irish nationality may play for Northern Ireland, provided that player qualified by birth, ancestry or residence link. The whole point here is that FIFA made a mistake when it allowed people with Irish citizenship to opt to play for the Republic of Ireland on no grounds other than citizenship – in 1998 (and 2007) we signed up to a deal which makes it absolutely clear that Irish citizenship may come by virtue of a link to Northern Ireland just as much as it does by a link to the Republic of Ireland. If someone is from Northern Ireland, they may be British or Irish (there is no guarantee which); likewise, if someone has Irish citizenship they may be from the Republic of Ireland or Northern Ireland (there is no guarantee which). Whatever the sovereignty of Northern Ireland, it is clear that to tie Irish citizenship directly to the territory of the Republic of Ireland is wrong under the terms of the 1998 Agreement; as is tying British citizenship alone to Northern Ireland.

The long and the short of it is this: affiliation to the football association of a particular territory is about nationality not sovereignty. Thus the IFA may select players of either British or Irish nationality because those are both nationalities of Northern Ireland. And thus, my friends, there is no reason to assign the anthem of only one of those nationalities to the IFA. Most of all, there is no reason to stir up tensions where none exists – and every reason to provide leadership and explain to people the country they are living in and who their fellow citizens (the ones who play for the same international team) really are.

Of course, they don’t actually play “God Save the Queen” before the Scottish Cup Final either – and indeed when Cardiff City reached the FA Cup Final the (English) FA agreed to play the Welsh anthem despite the fact it does not represent Wales. But, as ever, the DUP was obviously too busy being British to notice…

Irish number plates point to chaos

Oh dear.

New number plates in the Republic of Ireland contain far too many digits

To do a post on vehicle registration plates is slightly depraved. But here is the thing: if there is one thing wrong with modern Ireland it is some of the crazy, insular decisions made in public administration.

Irish vehicle registration plates (those used in the Republic) used to have the value, at least, of simplicity – two digits for the year, one for cities or two for counties, and then a number. Even then, this wasn’t perfect – it resulted in too many digits to be easily memorable, because even assuming you remember the year and the city/county, you have still a five- or even six-digit serial number to remember in most cases.

That system, simple though it was, still breached the European norm which has always been no more than eight digits in total, and preferably no more than seven. France and Italy, countries with high car ownership at over 60 million people, have recently introduced systems which have seven (rather than eight as previously); the Netherlands, with close to 20 million, makes do with just six. Only Germany (82 million) really now allows eight digits, and even that is infrequent. The only exception to all of this, already, was Ireland, which typically had eight (plus two hyphens, where even Germany makes do with one) despite a population of just 4.5 million. So the system was simple, but not particularly memorable or user-friendly.

Politicians and car dealers got agitated, however, by the prospect of the two-digit plates for 2013, starting as they would with ’13′ and then the city/county code. This would not do, decided the authorities – and promptly added another digit, and worse still had it added to the year code! So now, where even France and Italy are making do with seven digits, Ireland (population half of Greater Paris and about the same as Rome) will frequently have nine! Not only that, but the simplicity of the system is wiped and the memorability limited – and to make matters truly awful, the extra digit may only be a ’1′ (for January-June) or a ’2′ (for July-December). If the above plate looks bad, imagine what it will be like in the second half of 2020 with fewer ’1s’!

This is just a quirk, surely? Yet sadly it seems to typify too many public administration decisions. No one sat down and thought what a good number plate system would do and what was important about it (say, by comparison with other countries); no one gave any consideration to the memorability of the system (the whole point of the plates to start with); no one thought of the legibility of a plate with nine digits and two hyphens; and I daresay no one thought of the aesthetics of it either. If that is what happens with vehicle numbering systems, we have to wonder what is going on with the system for giving out prescription drugs, or assessing education standards, or ensuring efficient policing? That is the real issue.

Carelessness, insularity and laziness typified the decision to make Irish number plates look so daft – an example of two many aspects of public decision making. The public should demand much better.

Loyalists have not been “neglected” at all

It is not quite what Jonathan Powell said, nor what he meant, but there is an on-going development of a nonsensical narrative that in the decade and a half since the Agreement working-class Protestants, often referred to simply as Loyalists, have been “neglected”. This is not only untrue, it is fundamentally part of the very system of political self-empowerment of the few at the expense of the many which has resulted in many inner-city majority-Protestant areas becoming increasingly isolated. As ever, leftie voluntary sector types should know better than to buy into this false narrative!

On the contrary, inner-city areas of NI have received more spending per head than any other part of the UK; masses of extra funding came through EU Regional Aid, other European programmes, US and international funds, and from elsewhere. As a result, new community centres, IT suites, sports facilities and so on have sprung up; and many activities have been provided by taxpayers’ money (and not always even UK taxpayers at that), typically free of charge in majority Protestant areas (in fact, these usually attract a charge in majority Catholic areas). This is a serious peace dividend – the fact it hasn’t really turned around any communities is because, by and large, it was misdirected and wasted. It is not because it didn’t exist!

Inner-city majority-Protestant areas suffer much the same type of social isolation as any other across the British Isles, particularly in post-industrial cities. Family and community breakdown, lack of education, worklessness, indebtedness and addiction play out in much the same way in the estates of Greater Belfast as they do in Liverpool or Glasgow or Newcastle upon Tyne. One fundamental barrier to the problem is gangsterism (what we call “paramilitarism”); another barrier is well-meaning people diverting heaps of resources in a sporadic, untargeted way; and a third barrier is less well-meaning people (typically seeking votes or funding) deliberately creating “client communities” of people by promising them the world, citing a “bogey man” (all too easy in NI), but never actually doing anything to reverse the community’s decline.

Note that none of this constitutes “neglect”. In all post-industrial cities, the first barrier is the elephant in the room – by buying into the gangs rather than seeking to break them up, funders (most obviously the government) ended up feeding part of the problem. The second barrier is the way funding is distributed – in an essentially completely haphazard and short-termist way in which even the best third sector organisations end up spending half their time filling in funding applications (or subsequent audits) rather than actually doing the work; and the third of course is the deliberate way in which people who benefit from having poor communities in their midst (not least politicians) have sought to create “issues” (such as flags) while ignoring the real fundamental challenges – such as an ill-fitting education system, absence of skills, inability to budget effectively, and rising levels of addiction.

How will we turn this around? As I have written elsewhere, we probably won’t bother. Most of those who are genuine about turning it around get alienated by people (often politicians) whose position would be endangered if people worked out how truly ineffective they are.

How should we turn this around? Firstly, we need to identify that gangs are fundamental to the problem, not the solution; community representatives must be elected or appointed on merit. This isn’t likely – it is too sensitive. Secondly, we need to change (and de-bureaucratise) our funding system completely, so that organisations are assessed on merit but allowed to operate in the long term (and so that all an organisation’s funding streams are audited together, once). This isn’t likely either – it would cost a few administrative posts. Thirdly, we need to elect politicians with a comprehensive grasp of the problems (and how they are interlinked), throw out all those who talk in simplistic terms of how it’s all the fault of ‘themmuns’, and actually bring some intellectual rigour (rather than sectarian hearsay) to how we tackle social isolation. You can guess how likely that is!

The narrative that Loyalists have been “neglected” is an enticing one for the very politicians and civic leaders who have failed to deliver. But it isn’t actually true – and people who really care should realise they are doing immense harm by buying into such a falsehood.

SDLP shows true colours on pro-Catholic discrimination

For all the focus on Unionists’ exclusive tendencies in recent months – and rightly so given their political leaders have been so overt about it – perhaps the most disappointing form has been shown by the SDLP. Yesterday, it openly voted for a continuation of sectarian discrimination – which even Sinn Fein opposed!

The SDLP likes to play all innocent on such things. “Oh, but anyone can go for the Catholic teaching certificate, you don’t have to be Catholic” – yet it is an obvious advantage to be Catholic. “Oh, but that’s like saying it’s an advantage to be Spanish to be a Spanish teacher” – there wasn’t a conflict costing nearly 4,000 lives in NI along Spanish/non-Spanish lines, nor is contemporary NI so divided. “Oh, but it’s about religious freedom” – no one is stopping churches providing classes for Holy Communion and such like, but I don’t see why the atheist, agnostic, Protestant or Muslim taxpayer should be funding it.

The real madness here is that clearly many of the SDLP’s own representatives couldn’t possibly hope to defend this line in reality. At the very same moment SDLP MLAs were voting on this issue, SDLP Councillors were arguing for same-sex marriage – in direct and blatant contravention of the Pope’s position. So it is important for children to be brought up Catholic, as long as they give it all up in adulthood…

The SDLP was also the only party to back an Alliance motion calling for the promotion of integrated education to be an expressly stated objective of the Department of Education’s area planning policy. That would be integrated education sans Catholic teaching certificates.

Fundamentally, we are back to the old maxim that the SDLP will tackle anything except the Catholic Church, Catholic schools (and teaching certificates) and the GAA. What kind of self-respecting social democratic and republican party would be so in thrall to religious and sporting institutions along sectarian lines? The SDLP is social democratic and republican in word, but fundamentally traditional and communal in deed.

Whatever happened to commemorating the “Belfast Blitz”

This week marks the 72nd anniversary of the “Belfast Blitz”, which was, by most reckonings, the most deadly Luftwaffe attack in the British Isles outside London during World War II. It went almost unmarked.

It had a significant impact. In addition to hundreds killed, thousands were displaced – including my own mother, then a small child, who was forced from Fortwilliam to Doagh and ultimately to Cookstown for the rest of the War.

At the weekend some people thought it a good idea to put up flags commemorating Carson, Craig and the UVF. A few weeks ago, it was the Easter Rising. A few months before that, it was the Ulster Covenant. Some or all of these may be legitimate, but they are nevertheless innately sectarian, one-sided commemorations celebrating something which some other fellow citizens do not see as cause for celebration.

The ‘Belfast Blitz’ was different. For the thousands affected, it mattered not if they were Protestant, Catholic or dissenting. So, why no commemoration?

It could be that the ‘Belfast Blitz’ isn’t worth commemorating because it doesn’t provide an opportunity to ‘annoy the other side’. It could be that it isn’t worth commemorating because in fact it is somewhat embarrassing – emphasising the callous incompetence of much of the Unionist administration while at the same time highlighting Nationalists’ willingness, in too many instances, even to endorse fascism on the grounds of ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’ (neither of these exactly fits neatly with Unionists’ ideals around efficiency or Nationalists’ ideals around human rights).

Perhaps that is too cynical – perhaps it isn’t worth commemorating because it isn’t an especial anniversary. However, 2016 will be the 75th anniversary. We shall see…

SF hypocrisy exposes DUP lack of leadership as much as its own

We were treated yesterday to yet another pathetic bun flight between the DUP and Sinn Fein, as both continue to deflect attention both from the fact that they are in government together and that, contrary to their own reading of the situation, there was never any other option other than power-sharing of such a nature from 1973 on. With time taken up on such sham fights, very real damage is done to Northern Ireland as proper business gets missed out altogether.

The focus of this particular bun fight appears to have been a survey revealing that 26% of Sinn Fein delegates believe the “armed struggle” is still legitimate because Northern Ireland remains in the UK. This is indeed a remarkable figure – remarkably low. Remember, just 16 years ago, all delegates at Sinn Fein ard fheiseanna believed in “armed struggle”! This figure has now reduced to barely a quarter – at that rate, by 2016, not only will Northern Ireland still be part of the UK, but almost all delegates at Sinn Fein events will tolerate this being the case while rejecting “armed struggle”.

Yet again, Unionists just don’t get it, do they? If anything speaks for the success of the “peace process” David Trimble embarked upon, it is the fact that Unionism’s constitutional opponents have given up the “armed struggle” to which they were once innately wedded. This is a remarkable triumph both for democrats and for Unionists.

Of course, what is becoming increasingly apparent is that “democrat” and “Unionist” are two distinct terms, with very little overlap. At best, too many Unionists are merely “conditional democrats”.

This matters for many of reasons, one of which is this: the real scandal of the Sinn Fein ard fheis was the sale of “Sniper at Work” T-shirts (which I assume to be an accurate report since no one has corrected it). This is an outrageous attempt at justifying an “armed struggle” which, on their own terms, the vast majority of Sinn Fein members now reject. The “armed struggle” was to “remove the British presence in Ireland”, yet with Northern Ireland still part of the UK and UK troops still stationed within it, the “armed struggle” is now rejected. This calls for “Sniper at Work” T-shirts to be burned; and for Sinn Fein to work towards an outright apology for an IRA apology which was unnecessary, illegitimate and destructive.

The problem now is that Unionists cannot call Sinn Fein out on any of this because they themselves apply democratic norms only conditionally. Only at the weekend, illegal paramilitary flags were erected on a major thoroughfare – illiciting not a single response from any Unionist public representative (not even Basil McCrea, who was more concerned about being besmirched when not elected Deputy Speaker). In December, a democratic decision was followed by disruption, mayhem and violence – egged on by Unionist public representatives. In the summer, Unionists endorsed people breaking Parades Commission determinations, even though such determinations have legal force. All of these represent blatant opposition to the Rule of Law – the very Rule of Law Unionists call on Sinn Fein to stand by.

The fact is, both “sides” are much, much more similar than they care to admit. They spend most of their time demanding the other “side” live up to standards they themselves deliberately do not live up to. They spend most of their time talking to their own community about how the “other side” is at fault for everything. And they spend most of their time doing everything they possibly can to avoid actually governing – lest anybody notice they’re not actually very good at it.

“Lack of political leadership” is a dreadful cliche – but an entirely accurate one.