Alliance for P&J talk grows
Both the DUP and SF have comfirmed that Alliance taking the Policing and Justice Ministry is one of the options being examined. This option had previously been ruled out by Sinn Fein. However, the piece identifies two barriers, the SDLP are next in line for a Ministry under D’hondt and Alliance are demanding changes to the operation of the Executive. Whatever the ins and outs of the negotiations and whether this is the easiest way to achieve a deal, does it make longer-term electoral sense for the parties?
Alliance had a good election in 07 but have had difficulty maintaining any sort of profile. Giving them a ministry could be a substantial boost (provided the person appointed does not make a hash of it). The SDLP have their eye on two Alliance seats in East Antrim and Strangford. Unionism should be targeting 2 if not 3 of the remaining 5 seats. The UUP should be worried if Alliance’s strongest electoral performer Naomi Long gets the position. In the last Assembly election, she took Alliance to within 3% and 933 votes of putting the UUP into 3rd place in East Belfast, what impact would a successful term as P&J Minster have? Pretty much only SF have no direct electoral interest now they have their seats in South Antrim and Lagan Valley. Although they would probably prefer that Alliance remain an East Ulster electoral force as it does more harm to Unionism and the SDLP.
“Ah well, I may be stupid but at least I am happy.”
It was never about you.
DC,
”Shove your traditional ethno-religious stuff…” and “Mick Fealty needs his head looked at for continuing to place a part of Slugger up the anus of the rotting corpse of ultra-Unionism, despite your attempt to be learned using Shakespeare and World War analogies.
Go take a course on democracy and recent NI history and instead steal some quotes from that, which actually might inform you better as to sincere attempts to build peace and a form of democracy, albeit a poor one as currently is, but it is still better than ‘no surrender’ and ‘not a bullet’ nonsense.”
That seemed about me. It was on my thread about things I had written and bore no relationship whatsoever to the subject of the blog (except I had used Shakespeare and WWI analogies).
So actually it was about me.
Regarding mergers, rebrands and such like I’ve an idea for a bit of retro-chic. What we need is five parties;
1) A party that represents British capital and it’s attachment to empire/the UK. We would call this the Conservatives. It’s flag is the Union Flag.
2) A party that would welcome Home Rule for Northern Ireland (with the consent of the majority of its people) within a voluntary commonwealth. At the same time this is unashemdely a party fashioned in the enlightened British political tradition; a party fond of internationalism, emancipation, free trade, personal autonomy and suchlike. We could call this the Liberal Party (or maybe the LibDems). It’s flag is the yellow canary of freedom or the flax flower of Ulster trade and industry if you prefer (as sketched by David Ford IIRC).
3) A party of outright uncompromising Irish republicanism, unashamedly laying claim to The United Irishmens’ inheritance (although it probably belongs to the party that actually represents the decendents of the United Irishmen located immediately above). We could call this Sinn Fein. It’s flag is the Irish Tricolour.
4) We also need a party of non-sectarian international socialism, championing the trade union cause. The Irish Labour Party’s Northern Constituency Council should to pull their fingers from their arses and set up with cross-community trade unionist northern involvement an NI Labour Party, supported by the all-Ireland party but also fraternally linked to GB’s and accepting their whip. This may be the price of representing the working men and women of all parts of Northern Ireland. I propose that we call this the Labour Party in Northern Ireland. It’s symbol is the Red Flag of revolution and the red rose of democratic international socialism.
5) Finally we need a constitutional, traditional catholic, chistian democratic/social democratic/nationalist party, constructively engaging with British political society in the cause of Ireland, ready to prove a loyal and honourable friend in times of trouble, a champion of the church’s role in education and the rule of law. To keep things simple we could just call this The Irish Party. It’s flag could be the Harp on a Green field – the flag of the Irish Volunteers.
I don’t know who the DUP think they take after.
There you are – back to the future. Who said Victorian values were dead?
DC
The problem is also that among the baffling long words, there are also pure fallacies… for example, an Alliance Education Paper was presented to Assembly Committee before recess. I should know, I drafted it!
Perry
Ah come on now, that’s most unfair to David Ford. It was Stephen Farry…
I have video evidence Ian
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/2637139.stm
It’s in the blue link top right.
I think the Liberal thing works for Alliance. As good-hearted Mr Gladstone said of Ireland in 1886;
“She asks a blessed oblivion of the past and in that oblivion our interest is deeper than even hers. My right honourable Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Goschen) asks us to-night to abide by the traditions of which we are the heirs. What traditions? By the Irish traditions? Go into the length and breadth of the world, ransack the literature of all countries, find, if you can, a single voice, a single book, find, I would almost say, as much as a single newspaper article, unless the product of the day, in which the conduct of England towards Ireland is anywhere treated except with profound and bitter condemnation. Are these the traditions by which we are exhorted to stand? No; they are a sad exception to the glory of our country. They are a broad and black blot upon the pages of its history; and what we want to do is to stand by the traditions of which we are the heirs in all matters except our relations with Ireland, and to make our relations with Ireland to conform to the other traditions of our country. So we treat our traditions — so we hail the demand of Ireland for what I call a blessed oblivion of the past. She asks also a boon for the future; and that boon for the future, unless we are much mistaken, will be a boon to us in respect of honour, no less than a boon to her in respect of happiness, prosperity, and peace. Such, Sir, is her prayer. Think, I beseech you, think well, think wisely, think, not for the moment, but for the years that are to come, before you reject this Bill.”
Sounds like Alliance’s attitude to me.
“When I was involved in Alliance I recall putting it to a fairly senior member about the possibility of discharging down the two blocs. I was told very abruptly: ‘where are you going to put me’. With such a sharp response I sat and said nothing, but thought to myself it isn’t about you.”
Does discharging down both blocks mean every other Alliance member taking a position at either end of the the nationalist/unionist declaration see-saw?
I don’t understand this d’hondt thing. Would that help somehow?
I am beginning to feel a bit bad for starting a bit of a group against DC.
DC, your views are as valid as anyone elses but in all honesty it is difficult to understand what you are saying.
I am not a stupid person, but I am not a political scientist. You need to understand that most of us are interested in politics and ideas but if it is too complex to understand people just ignore it.
I suspect “Discharging down the two blocs” means taking the good ideas from both sides rather than finding a compromise position on each idea. That is a valid critique of how Alliance does things and might have some merit as an alternative strategy for them. However, it took me most of my drive home and tea tonight to work out that is what I think you mean.
Remember that we all read slugger in our leisure time or in tea / lunch breaks etc. As such comments need to be easily intelligible.
I am sorry to target you in this way but thinking about it I suspect you have some interesting things to say: just think about how you are saying them.
“Does discharging down both blocks mean every other Alliance member taking a position at either end of the the nationalist/unionist declaration see-saw?”
I’m sorry if I didn’t make myself clear.
Key decisions (for example budget allocation) are put to the green and orange sides of the house, you need to designate Nats/Unst to be counted. Alliance has said it is ‘Other’ and is opposed to the current system and has gone into the constructed Opposition because: a) their vote base = no office b) the sectarian nature of it, roughly speaking.
But in my view, Alliance should have said we will split our vote share into both the Nationalist and Unionist designation. Perhaps they could do it on an equal basis. If for example Alliance won 10 seats, maybe do it 5 Nats 5 Unionists giving the party voting influence. The more positive influence you have the more votes you should receive, more votes more creative disruption, if you like. Designating ‘Other’ means nothing to me at all, when difficult decisions need to be taken ‘Other’ means exclusion. AP votes don’t count then. They have no influence and cannot shape the agenda.
I believe it is easier to turn negatives into positives rather than turn nothing, such as ‘Other’, into something. It’s about public perceptions, people realise that turning up and voting along nationalist / unionist lines is negative and divisive, but a party in both might be seen as uniquely positive. But I think the picture would develop better if the Alliance party had from the outset said we will work the system best that influences decisions. I think it is easier to accept existing perceptions, as the public does, attempt to work the system to change those perceptions. The public would probably understand better a split Alliance team into nationalist / unionist designations that either gave the vote if it was worthy of it or withheld the vote if it wasnt. Better understanding then of party stances, decisions and direction.
There is also something symbolic and recognisable if Alliance were to build up a larger electoral force. As it grows in cross-community support it can shape policy better and influence decisions more. So that they played a part rather than, as I gather, saying we’re right you’re wrong, so we are staying as ‘Other’. Hypothetically speaking if support grew strong enough it might be democratically possible to gain so much cross-community support to do away with the designation system.
Alliance have constantly been looking for this big knock out whereas continuous poking in the eye can sometimes achieve the same effect with less effort.
“Discharging down both blocks” is a horrible expression.
DC,
Credit where it is due, that is well explained. It is a very interesting idea. I am unsure how well it would work in practice but thank you for explaining it. It is worth at least thinking about as an interesting suggestion.
Thanks DC.
I guessed right! What do I get? A balloon or a cigar?
Perry
Bloody awful!
Good thing that was before I joined the party really, wasn’t it?!