|
STORMONT ELECTION 2007 Election results – a vote for power sharing? 12 MARCH 2007 The conventional view, propagated by the mainstream media and from the British and Irish governments, is that the electoral endorsement of the DUP and Sinn Fein represents a vote for power sharing. For example, the Minister for Foreign Affairs Dermot Ahern said that it was "a clear validation" of the St Andrews Agreement. However, it is not at all clear that this is what the people who supported the DUP were voting for. Statements from party officials and supporters suggest the opposite. Immediately after the result Ian Paisley claimed that it vindicated his opposition to sharing power with Sinn Fein. He dismissed the St Andrews Agreement and stated that it was only now that the “hard negotiations are now going to start”. When asked about power sharing with Sinn Fein Paisley said that they needed “to repent and turn from their evil way”. He also said that his party wouldn’t be bound by the March 26 deadline for the restoration of devolution. While commentators pointed to the poor performance of the explicitly anti-agreement unionists, such as Bob McCartney, as a positive omen for power sharing, in a sense the battle within unionism hasn’t yet begun. For the most part the opposition is still within the DUP. There is no reason for them to split as the party hasn’t yet committed itself to anything. Indeed, many of them are still convinced that there is no prospect of the DUP going into government with Sinn Fein. The most rabid elements broke ranks early and paid the electoral price, but their views are shared by many who remained with the DUP. In the post election period, as pressure mounts for a deal, these divisions are likely to come to the fore. Within this period the DUP will be negotiating for a mechanism with which they can expel Sinn Fein from any executive. Power sharing can be presented to its supporters as a short cut back to majority rule. This is why the DUP’s Peter Robinson has argued that power sharing “cannot be a lasting and enduring form of government”. He has also promised that is they do go into government with Sinn Fein it will be "a battle a day". This is not because they disagree on a programme for government, a glance at tier manifests shows many points of agreements on the so called bread and butter issues, but because the DUP will have to prove to their supporters that unionists are the top dogs. Nationalist ministers will have to be humiliated and slapped down every day to demonstrate that while they may be in government they are not there as equals. However, even this is unlikely to satisfy
the base of the DUP. The very fact that fenians are in government at all
is offence enough to them. They may want Paisley as First Minister, but
the sight of Martin McGuinness standing beside him as deputy is not a price
they are prepared to pay. If this happens there will be convulsions within
the DUP. Rather than heralding a period of peace the election result is
likely to usher in even greater sectarian polarisation and instability.
The shape of things to come 3 MARCH 2007 On a recent trip through the Beechmount area of Belfast I came across a grotesque and unbelievable sight - a pile of Sinn Fein election leaflets abandoned on the road. Further investigation showed a large number of further leaflets thrown on garden paths rather than put through letterboxes. One further piece of evidence presented itself - The complete absence of Sinn Fein canvassers. At one stage there would have been a Shinner on every doorstep! One simple explanation for these phenomena
presents itself. There are fewer Sinn Fein canvassers. These are less enthusiastic
about their mission. They are least enthusiastic about approaching the
voters of Beechmount and discussing the recent changes in Sinn Fein policy.
The real meat of the article, however, lies in the claim of a maximum turnout of 6O% - this in an area where traditionally even the dead vote! The signs are there. Sinn Fein are past their peak in the heartland. Workers are not willing to accept the RSF offer to run the movie again or the SWP's assertions that 'its the water stupid!'. The result is a sullen apathy, hopefully a stage on the road to recovery. A lot to read into a pile of leaflets at
the side of the road, but, as Dylan said long ago, you don't have to be
a weatherman to know what way the wind blows!
Sinn Fein lay out strategy on water charges 27 FEBRUARY 2007 Following on from the TV debate on the main parties’ position on water charges, it was interesting to note in the Andersonstown News a letter on the subject from West Belfast Sinn Fein candidate Jennifer McCann. Most of the letter is a recap of how the vulnerable will be hit by charges, the investment that is needed to bring the service up to scratch and the dishonesty of Direct Rule ministers. There isn’t much to disagree with, and nothing that isn’t already known to activists around the water issue. The points Jennifer makes are however worth making at every opportunity. However, the solutions Jennifer puts forward do not inspire much confidence. We are told that Sinn Fein is putting proposals to the Treasury for a £1.6bn package to improve water infrastructure, and that SF will press in the Assembly and Executive for the charges to be halted and a commitment given never to privatise the water service. But the previous Assembly drew up the detailed plans for water privatisation via the Reform and Regeneration Initiative jointly launched by the Treasury and the Northern Ireland Executive in May 2002. This puts into some context the claim of all local parties to oppose the charges. But what really jumped out was Jennifer’s
claim that SF “are opposed to the privatisation of public services.” That
wasn’t the case the last time the Executive was up and running, when the
SF ministers of health and education pushed through PFI/PPP schemes like
they were going out of style. So did ministers of all other parties, and
when challenged on the fact they simply replied that they had to work within
Treasury restrictions. And we are supposed to believe that Gordon Brown
will fork out £1.6bn out of the goodness of his heart, when he rejected
a “peace dividend” package only a few months ago. This is just another
sign that the major parties are not remotely serious about the issue.
Gordo privatises the rates 23 FEBRUARY 2007 The shock announcement of a 20% rates rise in Belfast, which followed a 17% increase last year, has gone almost unnoticed in the frenzy of electoral apathy that is sweeping the North. Yet it’s a real eye-opener about the nature and goal of politics in the colony today. First it shows up the comic-opera nature of the virtual Stormont the Brits are trying to resurrect. Even if the outcome of the election, by some miracle, was to result in an executive, it would make no difference to a bill that will hit many hard. The reality is underlined by the emerging position of the parties on water charges. Most are very sad but will do nothing about it, hardely surprising when they agreed the evonomic package under the Good Friday agreement. The DUP, true to form and reactionary on everything, want water meters. The stoops are true to form yet again, with a grovelling SDLP proposal that that they would appoint an independent reviewer to tell the Brits when they have gone too far. A clear confession that the local politicos would never have the nerve to do it themselves! Why the big bill? Gordon is privatising the rates. He promises £50 billion over 10 years but the money, which used to come from the treasury, will come from private finance. All that will have to be paid is the whopping interest rates. Guess who pays these? So much for the new prosperity, along with
the new equality, new democracy and new stability.
What else would it do but stick it to the
workers?
DUP moves on to Plan C – majority rule 22 FEBRUARY 2007 Hopes of a restoration of the Assembly and power sharing executive have been dealt another blow with the launch of the DUP’s election manifesto. The most positive spin media commentators could put on it was that it did explicitly not rule out the prospect of power sharing. But the contents of the manifesto and the rhetoric that accompanied its launch demonstrate clearly that the DUP has effectively have ruled it out. The tone was set by North Belfast MP Nigel Dodds who said that it was all about “delivery, delivery, delivery”. In rhetorical terms this matches with the Sinn Fein election slogan of "we deliver”, but in political terms they are miles apart. Ian Paisley dismissed the deadline set for the restoration, saying that Sinn Fein had still not satisfied his party’s conditions for going into government. He dismissed Sinn Fein’s endorsement of the PSNI, saying that they had to sign up to all aspects of policing. His party wasn’t going to allow Sinn Fein to have the fig leaf of its dubious distinction between “civic” and “political” policing. It had to be stripped bare and completely humiliated. While all the indications are that Sinn Fein would willingly prostrate themselves before the DUP to get into a Stormont government, even their complete capitulation is unlikely to satisfy. Ian Paisley admitted that his party was against power sharing, and would only accept it grudgingly for a temporary period. It would be have reviewed after a while and then “proper democracy” (majority rule) restored. It was to this end that the DUP are negotiating a Plan C. This centres on building into devolution a mechanism that would allow the DUP to expel Sinn Fein from the executive once they are deemed to have breached “democratic standards”. However, Sinn Fein is not the only target of the DUP. It is also demanding that an executive should be able to continue even if it has no nationalist representatives within in. This deals with the possible scenario of the SDLP withdrawing from the executive and there by causing it to collapse. What would be left after a Sinn Fein expulsion and SDLP walkout would be a majority unionist Government. DUP have described this as move to the “next phase” - replacing mandatory enforced power-sharing with a voluntary coalition in which majority parties would rule rather than minority parties having an equal say. Of course, voluntarily sharing power with nationalists has never been appealing to unionists. Their nature compels them to maintain inequality and Protestant patronage. The DUP’s manifesto gives a taster of this with its demands for the Loyal Orders to have an unfettered right to parade and more funding for “loyalist community festivals”. Alongside sectarian triumphalism the DUP manifesto trumpets a whole range of reactionary and regressive polices. These include the installation of water meters, a cap on industrial rates, a cut in corporation tax and the continuation of selection in education. Anybody that thinks the restoration of a devolved Government led by the DUP will provide a panacea to the ills of society is gravely mistaken. The response by Sinn Fein to the DUP’s
demands has been pathetic. Its spokesperson Mitchell McLaughlin said that
if the DUP rejected power sharing then the British and Irish government
would have to go ahead an implement their “joint management proposals.”
However, there is no indication that Blair and Ahern are going to challenge
the DUP. Their whole strategy has been based on accommodating the demands
of Ian Paisley. When deadline for the restoration of devolution is inevitably
breached there will be no negative consequences for the DUP. The most likely
scenario is a new round of negotiations the basis of which will be the
DUP’s Plan C.
Parties debate water charges and rates 19 FEBRUARY 2007 A lot of the media commentary on the election campaign so far has talked up the growing importance of “bread and butter” issues. In this rosy scenario sectarianism is being left behind as a new era of issue led politics opens up. Unfortunately, this does not reflect reality. The major dynamic of this election, like all others before it, is sectarian rivalry and the battle within nationalism and unionism over which party can best represent “their” community. While parties produce manifestos that cover the whole range of issues these are really no more than empty gestures towards “normal” politics. They are not intended to be taken seriously. This was illustrated in the first of BCC Newsline’s election debates which focused on the issue of water charges and rates. A live debate from the Clotworthy Arts centre in Antrim it featured a panel made up of representatives of the four biggest parties. It was proceeded by a recorded piece in which a reporter canvassed the opinion of people in Antrim on water charges. Not surprisingly all those asked were opposed to the charges. However, their response to the follow up question on whether they believed that the establishment of a local assembly and executive would make any difference, was overwhelmingly negative. As the debate commenced the reasons for this lack of confidence in local politicians soon became apparent. First up was Ian Paisley Jnr of the DUP, who was asked how a future executive would pay for the upgrade of the water system. He answered this by pointing to the DUP’s record in local government of being “prudent with the public’s pound”. This is a reference to DUP councils striking the lowest rates. He omitted to say that they are only able to do achieve this through cutting back services to the bare minimum and racking up huge debts. When pressed on how the DUP would raise the funds necessary for the water serve he fell back on the familiar rhetoric about cutting waste and bureaucracy. He said that the DUP had established an “efficiency commission” (this is a gimmick borrowed from the Tories) to look at all areas of public spending. In terms of specific cuts he suggested a reduction in the number of MLAs and government departments. However, once DUP members are ensconced in the Assembly and the executive such proposals are likely to disappear. Ian Paisley also omitted to mention that one of the conditions his party negotiated for restoration of devolution was a one million pound tax rebate for the 2,500 wealthiest households in NI. Where will the money come from to pay for this? Next up was Francie Molloy of Sinn Fein. In response to the same question he said that the upgrade of the water system should be funded through a peace dividend form the British Treasury. He obviously has a short memory for in was only late last year that Gordon Brown rejected such an appeal from a delegation of local parties. The peace dividend he announced amounted to zero addiction expenditure, and was also based on the assumption that people would be paying water charges. Brown’s peace package was welcomed by Sinn Fein. Basil McCrea of the UUP was asked if water meters should be installed. He answered this by telling a story of how he was assailed by elderly ladies at a tea dance demanding water meters. Hiding behind the fictionalised old ladies his answer seemed to be yes, although it was hard to tell. At any rate he was putting his faith in the restoration of devolution to produce a solution to water charges. He assured the audience that politicians would “get the right answers by working together”. This was echoed by Declan O’Loan of the SDLP who urged people to “just think of the position we would have been in if the Assembly had been up and running”. This ignored the fact that it was his college Sean Farren, who as finance minister in the short lived exertive, signed up to Gordon’s Brown last peace dividend, the Reinvestment and Reform Initiative, which contained a commitment to the introduction of water charges. In the next round of questions Francie Molloy was asked where people should refuse to pay water charges. He said that a non-payment campaign was unlikely to succeed and cited the experience of the rent and rates strike of the 1970’s. While such criticism is legitimate, from Sinn Fein it is not an argument for a different strategy but an excuse for doing nothing. He said that the issue of water charges issue could only dealt with by a future executive. Interestingly, Francie Malloy suggested that people should pay for water on the basis of “usage”. Is Sinn Fein now in favour of water meters? Basil McCrea was then asked about whether the rates should be based on the market value of people’s homes? His answer to this question was even vaguer than the last one, admitting that he wasn’t sure, yet restating his faith that if politicians were in an assembly “we would come up with a proper solution.” Declan O’Loan’s response equally bland, saying that the SDLP supported a “system that is fair”. The last word went to Ian Paisley Jnr who said it was important “that local politicians get their hands on the levers of power” to make the decisions that affect local people. What this debate made clear is that the
so called bread and butter issues are marginal to the election campaign.
The local parties have no serious proposals on rates and water charges,
and are happy for the British government to do the dirty work and take
the blame. If by some miracle the executive is restored the polices it
implements are unlikely to differ from those of the NIO. The scepticism
of the people of Antrim is well founded.
Come off it, Brian 14 FEBRUARY 2007 Today’s Irish News carries the usual opinion column from leading nationalist commentator Brian Feeney, on the subject of the upcoming election and the prospects for a restoration of devolution. Feeney, a former leading member of the SDLP, has in recent years been a staunch exponent of the Sinn Fein line, and has often been more articulate in expressing that line than Sinn Fein themselves. Feeney’s theme today is that the DUP may be puffing up their hard-line credentials ahead of the election, but after the polls have closed they will do a somersault and willingly share power with Sinn Fein. He bases this on the idea that the DUP are basically corrupt and dishonest, and when their manifesto sets a series of conditions for republicans to meet, that this is all smoke and mirrors and Paisley is trying to hoodwink his base. The assumption is that Paisley works in the same way as Adams, who has been hoodwinking the Sinn Fein base for years. The facts don’t bear out this assumption. The DUP are corrupt in small things, and have been willing to deal with Sinn Fein in the toothless local councils. But they aren’t corrupt in the big things, and, given serious power at Stormont, the two main factors driving the DUP would be their ideological commitment to Protestant supremacy and their fear of critics like Robert McCartney calling them Lundies. Nor have the DUP the same culture of systematic political lying that sustains Sinn Fein. There is no way the DUP would accept power-sharing on the basis of equality. Many DUP supporters don’t want any power-sharing, even with the SDLP, and most of the rest would only accept the form of power-sharing if it had the content of second-class status for nationalists. Feeney has another argument, one that he regularly resorts to and that can often be heard from Sinn Fein. That is that if the DUP refuse to do a deal the British will punish them. Blair, says Feeney, wants success in Northern Ireland to crown his premiership and will not allow Paisley to take this prize away from him. Again, the evidence doesn’t bear this out. Blair has never yet faced down unionism. His track record throughout the whole peace process has been one of throwing unionism a bone in times of crisis. Besides, with the slaughter in Iraq, a likely electoral meltdown for New Labour in May, the cash-for-peerages scandal and Blair’s inability to even discipline his own cabinet over gay adoption, does Feeney seriously think that Blair will be in any position to face down Paisley? The chances of a devolved government being
up and running on 26th March are virtually nil. Feeney’s show of optimism,
and the Sinn Fein position that it reflects, are little more than wishful
thinking. And what they are wishing for, we must remember, is that the
sectarian monster Paisley will consent to be prime minister.
DUP rebels give Paisley a rough ride 12 FEBRUARY 2007 The rebellion amongst unionist grassroots against the prospect of the DUP sharing power with Sinn Fein is continuing to grow. First there was the statement by seven Ballymena councillors that they would not campaign for Ian Paisley during the Assembly election. They included some of the DUP leader’s closest associates such as evangelical Christian Roy Gillespie and former rugby international Davy Tweed. Gillespie is the man who wouldn’t allow ELO to play at the Ballymena Showgrounds never mind Sinn Fein in the Stormont Government. He said: "I cannot go out to canvass and ask people to put Sinn Fein into power. I cannot ask people to vote for that." The day after the councillors’ rebellion, George McConnell, described as a one of the “founding fathers” of the DUP, appeared on the front of the Belfast Telegraph announcing that he had resigned from the party. A party branch chairman for more than 20 years, he said he would not even vote for the DUP in the March 7 election. He was joined in his protest by veteran Larne councillor Jack McKee. Ian Paisley tried to dismiss this opposition a result of them being "got at". However, in a two hour meeting with the Ballymena councillors the following day he was unable to persuade them to come back on board. Such events really expose as a myth the commonly held view that Paisley’s hard line reputation can deliver unionist support for power sharing. Wasn’t this the same thing that was said of the “Hero of Drumcree” David Trimble; and look what happened to him. There is also opposition from outside the DUP with Bob McCartney trying to put together a slate of anti-agreement unionist candidates. He has even gone so far as to nominate himself in six constituencies. This might be one way of avoiding the split in the UKUP which occurred in the first Assembly when his four colleagues alarmed at his threat of a boycott, and the prospect of their salaries going down the drain, deserted him to create their own party. While the Magnificent Seven and Six Gun Bob can appear as clowns, they do articulate the views of a solid block of unionist opinion that is opposed to power sharing. Traditionally it is this block that has held sway in unionist politics. Paisley may now be fêted as the elder statesman of Ulster politics, but for most of his career he was dismissed as a lunatic. There is also some evidence that the DUP
leadership is bending towards the opposition within unionism. It has been
reported that the DUP manifesto was revised at the last moment to include
the thrust of the party Executive's statement of last November calling
for an indefinite testing period of Sinn Fein’s support for policing and
the judicial system. This rules out any possibility of a power sharing
executive being formed by 26 March. Indeed, given the strength of unionist
opposition, and the political instincts of Paisley not to get into a position
where he can be denounced as a Lundy, it is difficult to see power sharing
being established at anytime. Even if by some miracle Paisley can lead
the unionist horse to water he won’t be able to make it drink.
|