Constructive ambiguity has created its very own predictable process. We have seen it, again and again. The period of pretending the issue is just not there. The crisis. The trip to Downing Street, the hard talk, the threats of disaster/breakdown/the end of devolution, the IMC report, the opinion research that just happens to support the… Prime Minister’s visit… Chief Constable’s pennyworth… the deal.

The current ‘crisis’ arises from the ambiguity within the St Andrew’s paperwork, where it says that, roughly speaking, it would be a good idea if ‘Policing and Justice’ were transferred to Stormont by May or thereabouts, 2008. It was left for the Parties to agree on the detail: the same parties who found it impossible to appoint a single ‘Victims Commissioner’ – instead we have four.

The wording at St Andrews around the transfer of Policing and Justice was the same sort of wording around Decommissioning in the Good Friday documentation. Of course Sinn Fein would do all they could to bring about decommissioning, but it was up to the IRA to do the act. Similarly, now, of course May was a target, but there was nothing to say that May was a fixed deadline for the transfer of Policing and Justice.

The disquiet around the transfer of Policing and Justice is very real. It is easy to point to Jim Allister’s ‘Traditional Unionist Voice’ and suggest that this is the only vocal dissent to the transfer of Policing and Justice. But he is not a lone voice.

David Adams writing powerfully in the Irish Times describes the prospect of giving Sinn Fein power over policing as “just madness” in the wake of the acquittal of three men charged with offences related to the murder of Robert McCartney. Hugh Jordan in the Sunday World shared similar thoughts (July 6th). A month later the Editor of the Church of Ireland Gazette, Canon Ian Ellis questioned whether there was ‘adequate confidence in the Stormont administration for the devolution justice and policing to proceed.’ Emer O’Kelly suggested that the ‘Frightening men haven’t gone away’ in the Irish Independent.

While there is both nationalist and unionist concern on the transfer of policing and justice, it is the Unionist community that is most obviously nervous, and massively suspicious, about Sinn Fein’s notion of ‘policing’ and ‘justice’. There seem little movement undertakenby Sinn Fein over the past ten years that could be described as clear-cut, unambiguous, decisive.

While there has been decommissioning by the IRA, the verification of that process was never entirely satisfactory to the unionist population. Over this past summer, the use of IRA semtex in an explosive device in Fermanagh once again raises the question of just what was decommissioned, and how much?

The Independent Monitoring Commission, which collates information from PSNI, Garda Síochána and other sources of intelligence, wants us to believe its assessment (rather than factual evidence) that the IRA is no longer engaged in activities for the purpose of terrorism.
Stormontgate revealed IRA tentacles reaching into Stormont (Castle/Buildings), the Parades Commission, the Police Ombudsman’s Office, as well as reporting on community activists working at local interfaces. Has this information gathering ceased, or has it been simply re-designated as non-military? More recently the IMC suggested that IRA intelligence gathering is to provide information on so-called dissident republicans: is this altruistic or self-serving?

While Sinn Fein would have us believe that the IRA has been decommissioned sufficiently to be no ‘threat’, actions in respect of loyal order and band parades over the summer has shown that there has been little decommissioning of cultural exclusionism and demonisation. Far from an accommodation with Protestant neighbours, the politically driven ‘resident’ committees have been hyperactive in areas across Northern Ireland – though nothing to hit the headlines.
Local Protestant communities and organisations have watched with alarm as thugs seem to act with impunity, and orchestrated protests act beyond the law. Sinn Fein has been intimately involved in ‘resident’ groups, which have operated within a campaign framework unchanged this past fifteen years – with the threat of violence turned up and down, depending on the level of pressure Sinn Fein desires to exert in the broader political process.

Devolution of policing will not change Sinn Fein’s ambiguity towards law and order on local matters such parades or on addressing republican violence (Kearney/McCartney/Quinn), which itself feeds ‘dissident’ justification that they act within the broad framework of republican ideological morality. The IRA ‘Army Council’ provides legitimacy to all, as no government that is not United Ireland Government on its terms has ultimate legitimacy in policing and justice.

The typical unionist is a rational being, instinctively doubting any romantic or institutional pleas to believe. Unionists look at the politicians, the police, the ‘independent’ Commissions, and the track record of all of these. For in among the smoke and mirrors of the political process they have learned to discern the shadows and the distorted reflections of reality.

For Sinn Fein/IRA to be considered as having substantially changed over the past ten years, it will have to appear more than changed by way of tactical emphasis.

The role that Sinn Fein would have through OFMDFM will not be ignored: in the appointment of the Attorney General (who appoints the Director of Public Prosecutions); and the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commissioner, and Commission (which makes all judicial appointments up to High Court Judges, Tribunal Chairmen and Coroners). OFMDFM may well also take responsibility to appoint the ‘independent’ members of the Policing Board. The notion that devolution of Policing and Justice would be OK if Sinn Fein does not have Ministerial responsibility will be examined closely, and ambiguity will not be acceptable.

Constructive ambiguity may have created the space to allow the first power-sharing Executive, because this was what enough of the electorate wanted to believe. Enough unionists were initially prepared to suspend their instinctive rationality in the hope that a democratic, peaceful future was possible. But process after ambiguous process has stretched belief to breaking point. Unionists have process fatigue and see no current crisis over devolution of policing and justice – only a protracted period of dealing with no definitive outcome other than a pregnant pause before the next ‘crisis’.

The Ulster Unionists in Fermanagh questioned the proposed co-option of a DUP nominee to replace a recently deceased DUP member of the Council. The point appeared to be a fair one. The Ulster Unionist concern rested on the nominee being a student, studying in Belfast. In a council were votes count, it is not unreasonable to desire a councillor who is more readily available to attend to council duties.

More cynically, however, the Ulster Unionists also may have sensed a chance to pick up a seat at the DUP’s expense. Without consensus, a by-election is to be held.

The DUP had every right to make its own choice of nominee for co-option. The Party is also to be commended for putting forward a young person who would gain valuable experience of political life, even in the small world of Northern Ireland local government.

Shame then that once the Ulster Unionists had forced a by-election the young man was unceremoniously dropped. The by-election candidate is to be Arlene Foster, a popular local politician and current Minister in Northern Ireland’s Stormont administration. An ex-Ulster Unionist, Mrs Foster is likely to be the DUP standard bearer for Westminster when a General Election is called sooner or later.

The DUP would be credited with some principle had they stuck by their nominee in the face of a by-election. That the DUP lacks the confidence in the electability of their nominee in an open contest makes the Ulster Unionists look as if they had a point in challenging the simple co-option.

In not running a candidate, the only Party to score a positive political point is the Traditional Unionist Voice (TUV). TUV points to the UUP and DUP spat as an ‘unseemly dispute’ and the by-election as a ‘venture capable of strengthening Sinn Fein’. The by-election result will tell.
Leaving Fermanagh, a wider perspective might consider the actions of the DUP showing deep uncertainty in its forward path. Bringing in a big hitter for the role may prove a winning tactic, but it lacks longer-term strategy. Mrs Foster is not just seeking a dual mandate, her Party’s ambition would have her hold three political roles.

Along with its own established heavy-hitters, the defection of a small number of high profile and electable Ulster Unionists (of which Mrs Foster is one) has provided the DUP with a near monopoly of political personalities within Unionism. With little political difference between the DUP and UUP this matters greatly. The move by the UUP to create ties with the Conservatives may be an effort to seek some differentiation, but little on the main point of sharing power with Sinn Fein etc: tactical nuances rather than any points of principle separate the two.

The reliance on personalities is not a Northern Irish phenomenon. Mick Hume in spiked identifies an international trend: “we are entering an era, not of two- or even multi-party politics, so much as no-party politics.” In this context, personalities matter. Hume also points to the downside of this for political life: “As the gap between the public and the political class widens, political loyalties become more arbitrary and uncertain.” Northern Ireland is not immune to such trends.

Add the volatility and uncertainty of unionist unease at Sinn Fein in Government and it is easy to see why the DUP places reliance on personality over principle. The DUP is not strong enough to proceed with any candidate in Fermanagh at a local council level; it must use the political capital of the popular Mrs Foster.

The spat between the DUP and UUP on the rights and wrongs of a by-election is a distraction from the fact that there is little to separate the two parties. Neither is currently addressing the considerable unease among unionists on the subject of transfer of policing and justice responsibilities from Westminster to the local administration.

In the short term the continued reliance on big personality may deliver another win for the DUP. But being big is not enough in an arbitrary and uncertain political world. Winning is good; but winning comes with a price. While the two main Unionist Parties squabble, the question being increasingly asked by unionists is ‘who’s paying?’

The Ulster Unionist Party and Conservative Party will talk on a more formal basis about the potential for a structured formal relationship at some point in the future.

David Cameron’s timing in the countdown to an election within the next eighteen months is entirely right. Whatever the outcome of the talks that are due to start later in the year, any output from those discussions would be at least a further year or two before anything concrete would be in place. This places the Tories being more than an English party, and a leadership with a Unionist position.

Doing something that practically articulates the Union is in stark contrast to Gordon Brown’s inability to articulate a vision on ‘Britishness’ that the Prime Minister sought to make his own. David Cameron may be doing little more than talk at this point, but he has clearly stolen another political march Labour.

For the Ulster Unionist Party there is nothing wrong with talking. Being able to engage with a political ‘winner’, as David Cameron increasingly appears to be, is a positive step for the Ulster Unionists. Furthermore, it draws a stark contrast with the modern Conservative message of liberal social and economic policy that contrasts abruptly with Iris Robinson.

DUP comment to the joint announcement of mutual interests by David Cameron and Sir Reg Empey seemed sulky. The short term benefits of saving Gordon Brown in the House of Commons is fine if those benefits are clear, certain and immediate. The DUP says there was no deal, which means they have upset the people who might well be in charge within eighteen months and gained nothing. Maybe they’ve just realised their error?

Nor, with Iris Robinson’s recent outbursts, could the Conservative Party even think about talking in the same way to the DUP as they intend to do with the Ulster Unionists.That is not to say that the lines are clear.Jeffrey Donaldson built a positive relationship with many Conservative MPs while an Ulster Unionist and no doubt has carried those over to the DUP.Such relationships are built on being personable as well as politic, though there is no doubt a meeting of minds to make such relationships endure.

Others in the DUP might be less keen on building such relationships. Equally, some in the Ulster Unionists might be wondering where a formal link to the Conservative Party might leave them, particularly in the absence of an active or coherent Labour movement in Northern Ireland.

On the face of it, the announcement of the intention to talk can do no harm in itself. Others, however, might look at the ground on which those talks are built. The common ground is a good place to start. The only point of reference we have on this is the Daily Telegraph article from which two points immediately arise.

First there is the quick gloss over history. True, the Conservatives have links to Irish Unionism back to the late 19th Century. If a week is a long time in politics then we can expect considerable change over 120 years. More recent history shows scant regard for Unionist sensibilities and principle by the three most recent Conservative Prime Ministers. Name the Conservative Secretary of State for whom Unionists have a kind word?

Would David Cameron any different? The Anglo-Irish Agreement came at a time when inside the Unionist Party there was a firm belief that relationships with the Conservative Party were improving and that the Union was safe with Margaret Thatcher. At the same time, it was the grassroots of the Conservative Party, against the wishes of the Party Leadership, who demanded Conservative organisation in Northern Ireland.

Second, it is declared that the Conservative Party ‘supports the devolution settlement’.It is not clear whether this means that the Conservative Party accepts that there will be devolved government in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, or that it sees the Good Friday Agreement as a ‘settlement’.There is wriggle room in the ambiguity of the wording, to cover Scotland and Wales as well as Northern Ireland.That suits David Cameron.

If the reference to devolved settlement is a confirmation of Conservative Party endorsement of devolved government in the UK, it is a clever political move by David Cameron. Again, the Telegraph announcement serves the purposes of making a broader policy statement of how his leadership and thinking is shaping the Conservative Party. Effectively, the Conservative Party will act locally within a universal framework defined by either policy or principle.

On the other hand, David Cameron and Sir Reg Empey may be saying that the Good Friday Agreement is written in stone and that this is the devolution settlement, end of story. Its hard to see this would be the case, given that Sir Reg Empey has spent much of the summer pointing out that the Executive government is not working.Nor is the present Executive Government in anyway accountable or democratic in a ‘normal’ sense of the word.The electorate cannot vote out the government – shuffle the cards, yes, change the pack, no.

It is the lack of normality in the political process that undermines the key proposition of the Daily Telegraph piece.The entire piece is centred on the opportunity for ‘normal’ politics.Confirming belief in a settlement that entrenches sectarian politics is hardly a foundation on which to build a ‘normal’ future. It remains to be seen if the working party to be established continues to gloss over inconvenient history and current realities, or starts by addressing the democratic deficit and real policy issues that will make a ‘normal’ body politic reasonably possible.

Whether or not the working party of Conservatives and Ulster Unionists will find a mutually beneficial way forward remains to be seen. More later. For now, David Cameron has achieved a positive outcome already and anything more is win win. Sir Reg Empey has a short term gain of grabbing some media attention and being seen to be taken seriously by a big national player. However, failure to progress these tentative first steps will be viewed as retrograde. It makes no difference to David Cameron, who has already made his points. For Sir Reg Empey, the stakes are higher.

Gordon Brown’s efforts to ‘defend the Union’ continue to define Britain in his own image, Gordon Britannia, much like the Blair rebranding of Cool Britannia. He will ultimately fail if his government continues to act in such a way as to undermine the very values he purports to defend.

The Prime Minister dismisses anti-unionists as ‘those who argue for Scottish Separatism’ or ‘English Votes for English laws’. He assumes that we must all agree what a threat these people must pose to the Union. But neither of these groups appear to have plans to bomb the City of London.

The Union is not under attack. Pragmatic Scots are more likely to wish to have their cake and eat it, while the Scottish National Party are certainly enjoying their cake at the expense of the strategic and tactical ineptitude of ‘opposition’ parties.The demand for English votes for English laws is a consequence of Labour’s largesse to its voting heartlands, which, despite the investment, remain the most unproductive regions of the UK.

The Prime Minister is right to laud the Union. Its most outstanding value is that Scots, Irish, English and Welsh, and all myriad of communities in Britain, need not be unhappy to be described as British while defining themselves also by religion, ethnicity or country of origin. This is certainly at the heart of Gordon Brown’s own instinctive sense of Britishness.

The problem for Brown lies in the lack of an agreed definition of ‘British’. It is reasonable to suggest Britishness it is an evolved and deep-rooted sense of freedom (from government or rude interference by others), fairness and tolerance (in a live and let live way) and fickleness (protective of personal space and defensive of encroachments, whether that be to territory or lifestyle). Against which we would have to rate Gordon Brown’s government generally as quite un-British – though he is for the most part only following were Blair first led.

It is not just the 42 day detention: it’s the poor woman sent back to Ghana to die. It may be right, but it’s not British. It’s not the need for anti-terrorist legislation; it’s that Labour’s legislation has been used by local authorities to spy on where you live and the school your child attends. It may be right, but extends beyond its purpose; it’s not British. While taxation is surely justified for education and health, the Government raiding the Lottery to pay for the Olympics smacks of a) the Dome b) taking from the poor to pay for vanity (the Dome again). It’s just not British.

Gordon Brown would do better in defending the Union by leading his Government with intellectual honesty. Policy delivery of universal application, rather than selective promotion of favoured groups or projects, would be a start. Showing greater concern for freedoms, fairness and diversity in the practical implementation of policy would underpin Britishness and regain much of what was lost under the Blair premiership.

The problem for Gordon Brown is that because he has defined Britain in his own image, it’s not an image that Britons want to share.

In the end it came down to “7, 11 or 15?” Not a choice between rugby ‘7’s, association football or the full union code, rather “how many councils?” At least the new Minister at the Department of the Environment Northern Ireland (DENI) has been spared a Review of Public Administration (RPA) every bit as tedious and uninspiring as its precursors.

When the most recent RPA was first mooted it was sold as the chance of a lifetime to correct the horrendous mess that constitutes the ‘public sector’ in Northern Ireland. With 11 government departments, over 100 quangos, how ever many Commissioners for this and that, and 26 local councils we would have a right to feel a tad over-administered – though poorly governed for all that.

And yet the ‘Executive’ review of public administration seems to have concentrated on the area that covers the least in terms of public expenditure – the councils. Still, it is to be guessed that civil servants hidden away in the depths of Education, Health, Planning and Roads will be breathing a collective sigh of relief. Not for them the trials of exposure to local accountability – the Assembly committees I hear you say? Try a yet another cold, dark, wet Monday night in front of 20 or so angry, though rather well informed, local Councillors.

Sadly for all the posturing, twisting and obfuscation of groups such as the NI Local Government Association, local government in this part of the world remains incredibly weak. The review announces that the 11 new councils will have ‘some parts of planning’; in the rest of the UK local councils are the ‘place shapers’. Here they will be given ‘local economic development and tourism’; activities they have been engaged in for over 20 years already. There is still talk of the mythical ‘power of wellbeing’; what power, whose wellbeing? Still, it will be a little more that the ‘3Bs’ – bins, bogs and burials?

Even after review, what passes for local government in Northern Ireland will hardly be unrecognisable to a Mancunian, a Londoner, a Glaswegian, or a New Yorker and, yes, even to a Dubliner.

So, why is it likely that this latest review is, ultimately, likely to deliver so little? Is it that the 50 or so Councillors/former Councillors who are now MLAs recognise the dangers in their erstwhile colleagues having increased powers? Or is it that the civil service want to keep things cosy in Belfast? Perhaps there is a bit of both involved. Mostly however, it is hard to find substantial gains for effectiveness or efficiency in public administration from this review. Gains, perhaps, but none amount to effective or efficient local government.

From a Unionist perspective, the configuration is the best possible available; there is a Unionist council west of the Bann (Limavady/Coleraine/Ballymoney/Moyle) and a Unionist council on the border (Armagh/Craigavon/Banbridge). It means the first election is the European challenge of 2009, which marginalises smaller parties and maximises the significant voting blocs, which suits both the DUP and Sinn Fein. For all Parties it maximises the number of councillors: a little something for everyone.

There’s the rub. If it really was about effective, efficient, value for money local services we wouldn’t have over 100 quangos, multiple education systems and enforced coalition government with a Ministry for all. We wouldn’t be focusing on how there is a little something for everyone – all gain and no pain means little deviation from the status quo.

The UK economy is currently hovering on the edge of significant slow-down and perhaps even recession. Public spending is forecast to rise to almost 40% of GDP – over 40% is the UK Treasury’s definition of failure and the trigger for corrective action. In Northern Ireland public spending accounts for over two-thirds of our GDP – what does that say about the economy of Northern Ireland? Public Sector funding in the Republic is below 40%. If Northern Ireland is to be competitive in a global world, Corporation Tax should not be slashed without a similar slash made to the ‘public service’.

Arlene Foster reviewed local councils within her Ministerial remit. If there had been a substantive and serious review of public administration in Northern Ireland, it would not have stopped at local councils.

Submitted by Ardmachian

Many balk at the suggestion of a merger of the DUP and UUP into a single party. For most the single biggest issue was the ever present and ever divisive Ian Paisley. With Ian Paisley being the subject of a very internal coup, showing his weakness and irrelevance to the future, the two parties must now look seriously at the prospect of coming together. There are a number of reasons for this.

First, from the DUP perspective. Paisley was pushed. This can be said with some certainty because the reason behind the timing was so fundamentally flawed. How does the replacement of the ‘hard man’ of Ulster politics likely to save the DUP from Tradtiional Unionist Voice (TUV) led by ex-DUP Jim Allister MEP.

From a UUP perspective, hoping that voters will flood back to you because the others have arrived ten years too late is wishful thinking. There is nothing in the past year to make the electorate believe that voting UUP is a better bet – a better bet than what? Which is why a convergence of the two parties is almost inevitable.

The current signals from Sinn Fein indicate that it recognises the potential to be the largest party in any forthcoming election and taking the prized First Ministership. Sinn Fein has looked at the Dromore by-election and noted that where the DUP had previously swept the UUP off the board, the DUP did not achieve the vote it expected. They will have noted that the TUV took votes from both DUP and UUP. Which would suggest that in an election, the TUV would represent a significant minority voice and take a number of seat in the Assembly’s multimember constituency, PR election.

Widening the prespective, Sinn Fein anticipates that the failure of the Assembly to perform positively on any issue will impact much more negatively on Unionist parties than nationalist ones. They are probably right.

In recent months Sinn Fein has been markedly increasing its green rhetoric, and has been vociferous in blaming Unionists for lack of movement on issues close to the heart of its own constituency – reinforcing a victim mentality has always worked in the past.

A quiet summer will be more to do with tactics to convince Unionists of the safety in transfer of policing and justice than any sincere intention to resolve the parades issue.

Sinn Fein will most certainly not want to enter an election following Conor Murphy’s Ministry announcement of water charges – for which Sinn Fein will most certainly not be able to shift the blame. An election and Ministry reshuffle is about the only face-saving circumstance where Sinn Fein would allow itself to dump the disaster that is Catrina Ruane in Education.

There is every reason for Sinn Fein to see advantage in an election before the full term of this Assembly – sooner rather than later would no doubt be its preference.

For either the DUP or UUP to fail to perform as the largest party following an election would send Unionism into a tailspin of recrimination and self-doubt. Any groups emerging would be based on personality. The debate would focus on who has the biggest claim to be the leader of Unionism, when in fact no-one would be giving a lead at all.

Any suggestion that a DUP and UUP merger of some sort would provide a single Unionist Party is too late. Although the appeal of TUV is currently narrow and serves principally as a magnet for dissent, it has all the hallmarks of a credible political movement that will in time transform itself into a political force. There are now two Unionist groupings in Northern Ireland – those in the house and those without a key to the door, just yet.

In truth, there is now little political difference between the DUP and UUP, other than ego, personality, and history. With the departure of Ian Paisley there is no good reason to remain apart. Electorally, there is every good reason to join together.