Labour leadership contender ANDY BURHAM outlines his hopes for a peaceful Northern Ireland in which the Labour Party fights elections here.Well, well, well.
A PIECE of Labour Party history will be made in Northern Ireland today – and I feel very proud indeed to be part of it.
People in Northern Ireland can now join the Labour Party and so, for the first time, will help decide our new leader. I am coming to meet them today – the first Labour representative to make a campaign visit of this kind – and already have the great honour of receiving the Northern Ireland Labour Party's leadership nomination.
Historic indeed and a justified honour for all those persistent souls who fought so hard over the years to have the basic and fundamental and democratic right to play their part in the Labour Party. The rest of the article, to be honest, doesn't quite live up to that barnstormer of an opener but:
Whilst devolution has put power in the hands of local politicians, I believe passionately in the United Kingdom....is not too bad a way to finish at least the first half.
As economic and political issues become increasingly global we will gain strength by standing together.
21 comments:
Wow. Go Burnham! Hope he gets a decent role in the Shadow Cabinet.
My blood pressure is just fine O'Neill. Viz-a-viz your post on the other thread; I love the notion that the whole of the Union had to agree to the exit of the 26 Counties. I would be delighted if the "constitutional question" were put to the whole of the UK, alongside the costs of keeping the funny little men in bowler hats happy (known as the block grant). Do you really think that a majority of people in the UK want Northern Ireland?
The key point remains democracy. It was not undemocratic for Sinn Fein to want to exit the Union in 1918; the Union had been imposed on Catholics, who were the overwhelming majority on the island. The foundation of the Union in 1801 was undemocratic.
To give you an example (far fetched, but you will get the point), if China invaded the UK and incorporated it into China, it would not be democratic for the Chinese to claim that a majority of Chinese (1 billion) supported the "Union" and it was only people in the UK (60 million) that were opposed to it.
As regards this thread, the Tories (from Tóraidhe, an Irish word meaning "raider" or "outlaw")
tried this before. As you know it was a resounding success!
More anon.
"My blood pressure is just fine O'Neill.
Pleased to hear it;)
“Viz-a-viz your post on the other thread; I love the notion that the whole of the Union had to agree to the exit of the 26 Counties.”
Technically under international constitutional law it did. The UK parliament possibly may have agreed to a Home-Rule style parliament for the majority of Ireland, it would not at that stage agreed to full independence for the whole island. And under international constitutional law it was up to the parliament of the whole nation, not the representatives in one part of that nation to make that decision...but my original comment and your response leads onto my main point. You’re arguing Ireland as a whole was justified in unilaterally pushing for self determination from the bigger whole, I’m arguing that once that happened, Ulster as whole (and I would have gone for the full 9 counties) was likewise justified in pushing for the right to determine its future for itself, independent of the larger whole.
I would be delighted if the "constitutional question" were put to the whole of the UK, alongside the costs of keeping the funny little men in bowler hats happy (known as the block grant). Do you really think that a majority of people in the UK want Northern Ireland?
Interesting question. I would be delighted if the "constitutional question" were put to the whole of the ROI, alongside the financial, social, cultural and political costs of (not only) keeping the funny little men in bowler hats happy. Do you really think that a majority of people in the ROI want Northern Ireland? 100% confident of that?
A majority of the SE of England in a referendum may well vote to stop subsidising Tyne and Wear-side; in a modern democracy should they be given that option, or should it be left to the democratic choice of inhabitants of the region in question?
The key point remains democracy. It was not undemocratic for Sinn Fein to want to exit the Union in 1918; the Union had been imposed on Catholics, who were the overwhelming majority on the island. The foundation of the Union in 1801 was undemocratic.
See my point above. I think genuinely that the UK should have cut the 26 counties adrift politically, culturally and economically post the 1918 result, despite that result resulting in SF being very much (potentially if they'd taken their seats) a minority voice in the overall nation’s parliament. Unionists were a majority in the 9 counties of Ulster, why would you have denied them that same right of democratic self-determination?
As regards this thread, the Tories (from Tóraidhe, an Irish word meaning "raider" or "outlaw")
tried this before. As you know it was a resounding success!
The reason it failed this time is that too few of the UUP realised the true consequences of what such a link-up should have meant. The morality and logic behind the idea was sound. Surely, you’d welcome the normalisation, decontamination of politics in NI that the introduction of secular, non-communal parties would bring? What on earth is the danger in that from an Irish nationalist pov?
Finally, we agree on something. Secular non communal parties are no danger from a nationalist pov.
Btw, fancy a border poll for the 9 ulster counties? ah go on. Go on, go on, go on, go on, go on. GO ON!
Mmmm. . .
A 9 county poll might surprise a few people.
The three ROI counties have a population of only 246k, NI has 1,561k.
In the most recent survey (2009) 69% in NI want UK link *. Say 5% in the 3 ROI counties? That will give 1,089k v 718k. Should the 3 counties be forced into the UK if that is the result??
And yes it would depend a lot on the phrasing and process of the referendum.
* Source NI Life and Times Survey, see here: http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2009/Political_Attitudes/NIRELND2.html
As always, unionists take comfort in polls, not election results.
Interesting that the question didn't ask for a view of devolved government within the ROI (ie a continuation of the Good Friday institutions, but within the ROI)
Do you think the long-term policy for Northern Ireland should be for it…
%
to remain part of the United Kingdom with direct rule 18
to remain part of the United Kingdom with devolved government 51
or, to reunify with the rest of Ireland? 21
Independent state 4
Other answer 3
Don't know 3
Only 18 percent looking for direct rule from London, only 21 percent looking for direct rule from Dublin? No surprises there.
"only 18 percent looking for direct rule from London, only 21 percent looking for direct rule from Dublin? No surprises there."
You think some "devolved from Dublin" fans may be lurking in that 69% "stay British" figure?!!
It is only an opinion poll but there is a further proof of where we stand presently. The BELfast Agreement gives the option to the SOS to call for a Border referendum *if* he feels there is a good chance it would vote in favour of the 32 Cty State. There is no pressure whatsover on the part of the SDLP or SF to push the issue- think about it even a 55-45% vote in favour of the Union would give nationalism an impetetus but despite there not being much between the two main blocs at elections, there is no call from within NI, the ROI or even Irish America for such a referendum.
SF vote is around 25%
you really think around 20% of SF voters will vote to be British, along with all SDLP voters and all Alliance voters? Get real.
A newspaper poll question now is a nothing. The issue is not going to get real until the number of nationalist voters exceeds the number of unionist voters. That is going to take a few elections more. Even at that point the nationalist parties may judge that a campaign over several years may be preferable to an instant poll, because some of the "neutrals" may vote, and the nationalist parties would need to have a good idea how that vote would split.
I know you are going to tell me that the SOS calls the border poll, but that is not realpolitik. if the SOS calls a poll prematurely to drive home a unionist point, the nats will just boycott.
This issue has been going around since the 1700s and isn't going away.
SF vote is around 25%
you really think around 20% of SF voters will vote to be British, along with all SDLP voters and all Alliance voters?
Where did I say that? The opinion poll is based on everyone entitled to vote, not necessarily those that do actually exercise that choice.
SF vote is 25% of those that vote not the total electorate which at the last election turnout was only 58%, so all we know for sure is that 14-15% of the electorate voted for SF, add on the SDLP figure and you're looking at a pro-32 cty figure of less than 30%. That's all we know for certain. SF voters probably wouldn't vote for pro-Union option, a proprotion of the SDLP and Alliance vote will.
A newspaper poll question now is a nothing.
The fact that neither SF or SDLP are pressing for the referendum (and instead are wasting time on wooing those who already sympathise with their aims in Irish America and leftist Uk politics) surely proves that they are not confident of winning that referendum (or as I said above even within 10% of winning it).
The issue is not going to get real until the number of nationalist voters exceeds the number of unionist voters. That is going to take a few elections more.
Interestingly enough the gap between the two blocs has stabilised since 2001, that's not to say it will continue to do so but considering the inability of the Unionist parties to attract beyond their trad voter base that inertia should be a matter of concern to Irish nationalists.
I know you are going to tell me that the SOS calls the border poll, but that is not realpolitik. if the SOS calls a poll prematurely to drive home a unionist point, the nats will just boycott.
Technically it has to be the SOS and thye won't touch such a referendum unless they think it would have a good chance of producing a pro-32 cty majority.
This issue has been going around since the 1700s and isn't going away.
Despite all the predictions at the time of its creation and at the time of the Belfast Agreement NI remains within the Uk because that is a will of a clear majority of its population (if it were less than 10%, nationalists would be pushing for the referendum).
History isn't a linear concept where certain outcomes are pre-ordained, if I were to try to disprove your point I'd show that drop in electoral turnout. The constitutional issue simply isn't a hot enough issue to make them vote for almost 40% of the population. That increasing apathy is a problem for Nationalism not Unionism.
The gap isn't "stabalised". Unionism is decling, "others" is growing and Nationalism is holding its own. The gap between unionism and nationalism contiues to close.
Don't get me wrong, in elections, nationalism may score a higher % than the combined forces of Unionism in the future but check the stats, compare especially the figures against 10 years ago:
http://www.ark.ac.uk/elections/
The gap has stabilised, what's growing is not "others" but the "can't be bothereds". It's the last group which needs to be energised by Irish nationalism because the continuing of the status quo suits Unionism nicely.
And...there are no new or innovative ideas whatsover emerging from nationalism has to how to energise that segment.
I think we may be referring to different things. You seem to be referring to people who don't vote in elections. I am not convinced they will vote in huge numbers in a border poll either.
I am referring to those voting for parties like Alliance and others who are agnostic on the union. Yes, those who voted against Swish Family Robinson are still unionists, but not all of this demographic are closet unionists by any long shot.
First up, the unionist parties' will lose their majority status. Some time later, the nationalist parties will eclipse the unionist parties. Then things will get interesting...
Don't forget. Nortern Ireland was set up to be a protestant state for a protestant people. It was never unconditionally loyal to Britain. It was set up to avoid having any real power excercised by catholics.
Powersharing, fair employment and equality legislation have removed its raison d'etre. The real challenge for unionism now is to ensure that loyalists do not drench us all in blood again. You have less than 20 years to prepare. Best make a start now.
"You seem to be referring to people who don't vote in elections. I am not convinced they will vote in huge numbers in a border poll either."
If there is going to be inevitably a change in their pension and health provision and quite possibly employment prospects I think they a fair percentage will. I don't think a majority are conviction Unionists but I think a a majority are happy with the status quo otherwise they would be already voting against it.
"First up, the unionist parties' will lose their majority status. Some time later, the nationalist parties will eclipse the unionist parties."
Check that last link I gave you especially the election results from the start of the decade and now. Despite demographic change the % have remained constant. That's the data, not supposition.
But...
"Then things will get interesting..."
It might if we can finally get, somehow, politics here moved beyond the communal. Labour or Conservatives having any kind of success will (I think) tip the sectarian ballot box towards the nationalists. I'm comfortable enough with that, it wouldn't impact on a Border Poll and the normalisation/stabilisation of politics is a worthwhile end i itself.
"Don't forget. Nortern Ireland was set up to be a protestant state for a protestant people. It was never unconditionally loyal to Britain. It was set up to avoid having any real power excercised by catholics."
Do you believe in the "inevitability of history"? I don't, times change, people change, places change. NI 2010 is not NI 1921. Ignoring the sectarian demographics, I think conviction Unionists may even be less than 50% of the electorate now- those who are happy enough to continue with the economic and social benefits would make up another 15/20% Counterintuitively that is actually a positive for Unionism (once its leadership wakes up the reality), continuing to sell the Union on a mere cultural ticket and it's dead.
"The real challenge for unionism now is to ensure that loyalists do not drench us all in blood again. You have less than 20 years to prepare. Best make a start now."
Speaking hypothetically (unless there's a major game-changer and contingent on the caveat at the end of the last paragraph the Union is as safe as it can be)for a number of reasons, the loyalists wouldn't be your main problem.
Satisfying the unrealistic expectations and triumphalism of the Irish nationalists of NI however will keep the ROI's hands full.
"You seem to be referring to people who don't vote in elections. I am not convinced they will vote in huge numbers in a border poll either."
If there is going to be inevitably a change in their pension and health provision and quite possibly employment prospects I think they a fair percentage will. I don't think a majority are conviction Unionists but I think a a majority are happy with the status quo otherwise they would be already voting against it.
"First up, the unionist parties' will lose their majority status. Some time later, the nationalist parties will eclipse the unionist parties."
Check that last link I gave you especially the election results from the start of the decade and now. Despite demographic change the % have remained constant. That's the data, not supposition.
But...
"Then things will get interesting..."
It might if we can finally get, somehow, politics here moved beyond the communal. Labour or Conservatives having any kind of success will (I think) tip the sectarian ballot box towards the nationalists. I'm comfortable enough with that, it wouldn't impact on a Border Poll and the normalisation/stabilisation of politics is a worthwhile end i itself.
"Don't forget. Nortern Ireland was set up to be a protestant state for a protestant people. It was never unconditionally loyal to Britain. It was set up to avoid having any real power excercised by catholics."
Do you believe in the "inevitability of history"? I don't, times change, people change, places change. NI 2010 is not NI 1921. Ignoring the sectarian demographics, I think conviction Unionists may even be less than 50% of the electorate now- those who are happy enough to continue with the economic and social benefits would make up another 15/20% Counterintuitively that is actually a positive for Unionism (once its leadership wakes up the reality), continuing to sell the Union on a mere cultural ticket and it's dead.
"The real challenge for unionism now is to ensure that loyalists do not drench us all in blood again. You have less than 20 years to prepare. Best make a start now."
Speaking hypothetically (unless there's a major game-changer and contingent on the caveat at the end of the last paragraph the Union is as safe as it can be)for a number of reasons, the loyalists wouldn't be your main problem.
Satisfying the unrealistic expectations and triumphalism of the Irish nationalists of NI however will keep the ROI's hands full.
So good you said it twice, eh?
You may not believe history repeats, but we have been here before.
In the 1790's the solution was the Union. In 1910 the proposal was to split off the 4 Unionist Counties. In 1920 that became 6 counties. These options are no longer available to those Irish protestants who wish to keep themselves separate from the rest of us (lets call a spade, a spade).
We are probably going to see the following desperate calls in the future:
1. "Normalisation of politics" (ie lets all vote for British political parties together)
2. Greater involvement for catholics/nationalists/the Irish Govt. (no need for re-unification, sure haven't you got a say in your future now)
3. Joint sovreignity. (this is a special place after all)
4. Independence for NI (don't we know best for ourselves)
5. Re-partition. (Yes there are some areas where nationalists/catholics are in a majority. They should probably have never been brought in to NI, best to let them join the republic, isn't that what they wanted?).
Some of these could have been a temporary fix if offerred years ago. Right now, republicans and nationalists would not agree to any of the above. By the time protestants/unionists wake up to the fact that NI's days are numbered, catholics/natonalists/republicans will have lost patience, and will not be in the mood for face saving concessions.
Double posted to make sure you read the original link (you didn’t though, did you?!)
Elections in NI over the last decade:
Westminster 2001: Combined SDLP/SF vote- 42.7%
Westminster 2010: Combined SDLP/SF vote- 42%
Euro 2009 Combined SDLP-SF vote: 42.9%
Euro 1999 Combined SDLP/SF vote: 45.4%
Assembly Elections 2007: Combined SDLP/SF vote: 38.7%
Assembly Election: Combined SDLP/SF Vote: 39.60
See the pattern? Their vote as a percentage of the voting electorate is dropping, albeit gradually but still dropping. That is not guaranteed for the future (see my point below) but it surely makes the premise the rest of your argument is based on very dodgy indeed.
“You may not believe history repeats, but we have been here before”
That’s not really my argument. I believe that there isn’t a pre-ordained path which history will take, eg merely because someone says that a United Ireland is inevitable it doesn’t necessarily make it so>
The theory is explained a lot better than I can do in this article by Arthur Aughey
http://tinyurl.com/38xn8gx
Endism
And in Karl Popper’s “Poverty of Historicism” (available v cheap at the Unionist Lite Bookshop!)
http://tinyurl.com/33w2n9z
And re the first of your “desperate calls for the future”, I though you’d agreed that “normalisation of politics” is a worthy goal in itself? If nationalism's case is strong enough, then surely a normalisation which creates saner and more rational forums to debate our future shouldn’t damage it?
O'Neill,
Have a look at the second preferences of Alliance/Greens for the results you have quoted. (no second prefs in Westminster, so you'l have to look ar the euro's). Of the second prefs going to nationalist/unionists ( the majority), the split in 2005 was 47/53. The late (great) Horseman did the numbers on 05 a while back.
What is happening is some nationalists (predominantly former SDLP voters) are voting Green and Alliance. This is depressing the SDLP vote by more than the SF gain. There is no reason to believe that these MOR voters have become unionists. The same is happening on the unionist side.
These are people who vote. These people are in play. These people are persuadable. A goodly proportion of these people are background nationalists. At worst, their parties are currently agnostic on the union.
"Of the second prefs going to nationalist/unionists ( the majority), the split in 2005 was 47/53."
I have read and reread that several times. If the gap between the pro-Union and Irish nationalist parties is constant, I don't see how a 6% gap (in the pro-Union's favour) strengthens your case. If it were the other way round, then sure.
The gap isn't contant. Unionism (or more precisely votes for pro union candidates as a percentage of votes cast) is declining at a rate of knots. Nationalism is also declining, but marginally. The centre is growing, but with voters from both sides of the divide. As I have said before, the nats will soon outpoll the unionists. When that happens, unionists will be looking to the centre for hope. What they will find is that there are too few true blue voters to stave off reunification for very long.
But if nationalism has been stuck on the low forties for almost a decade now, where do you see the gamechanger coming from which will push the pro-Unity vote over the 50?
Several points to think about:
1. The centre may be growing because of many reasons but obviously less people are worried about deserting their communal camps. You can't predict how they will vote in a referendum BUT if people are happy enough with the status quo to abstain/vote elsewhere which constitutional argument does that benefit the most?
2. The Union, thank God, does not rely on the Unionist parties doing well. It's quite capable of standing on its own two socio-economic feet aloft from the sectarian bunfight. In fact, I'd even go as far to say that perhaps there is now an inverse relationship between how well the Unionist parties perform and support for the Union.
3. You can't ignore the motivations and wishes of those presently not voting and assume they will naturally not vote or fall in behind the 32 county solution. Almost everyone has a UK pension, just to take one example- that's not to say it would automatically make them vote to retain the Union but it will certainly make them more interested in the argument than the typical dross presented at election time.
In summary, the Union is presently sold and only ours to lose in the future through our own stupidity or short-sightedness. SF and the SDLP need to up their game 100% to provide any kind of challenge to that fact and quite frankly I don't think they are capable of moving out of the communal/sectarian comfort-zone to achieve that.
You've got last word (this time!)
"In summary, the Union is presently sold..."
Freudian slip, "presently solid".
Post a Comment