The DUP’s Shared Future- Protestants and the (unidentified) pro-Union Catholics need only apply
Mick has already linked a thread to Alex Kane’s article in the Newsletter regarding Peter Robinson’s Conference speech at the weekend. But the focus of that thread is on Kane’s observation regarding the importance of the DUP’s vocabulary in delivering on their ‘catholic’ project.
However, the most significant aspect of the unfolding DUP strategy is what it reveals about the nature of the shared future and society which the main political leadership of unionism is advancing.
Here’s the relevant paragraphs within Kane’s article:
You will have noticed that Robinson didn’t talk about sharing with Sinn Fein. His idea of sharing is within and between that majority of people in Northern Ireland who tend towards the United Kingdom rather than a united Ireland. Yes, of course, he will “respect” the views of those who want Irish unity; in exactly the same way that he wants them to “respect” his views. But he doesn’t want a shared future with them, because he knows (and I have argued it for years) that you cannot build a genuinely shared future between those who believe in a united Ireland and those who want to remain in the United Kingdom.
If there is to be a shared future and a shared society it must begin with those – from whatever religious or social background – who have the same response to the constitutional question. People who are content to remain within the United Kingdom will find it much easier to build common bonds and platforms than people who have different and contradictory responses to the question. So Robinson, starting from the premise that there is a comfortable majority for the Union (including a significant number of Roman Catholics) wants to prepare the shared future ground by encouraging the DUP and others to become “persuaders” for the Union (something else I have argued for years).
So, to summarise, the DUP’s shared future involves not seeking an accommodation with Irish nationalists and republicans, just pro-Union catholics.
This is interesting because it effectively amounts to a strategy which sees as the end objective the pitting of catholics against their fellow co-religionists, asking those disposed towards favouring the status quo to stand against Irish nationalists and republicans.
What is fascinating is that the DUP clearly believe this is achievable in spite of the overwhelming force of evidence indicating that this short cut to the realisation of Unionism’s Utopia is not only naive but illustrative of a rejection of the idea of a genuinely shared future and society, founded on mutual respect and equality.
It is a strategy which stands in direct contradiction to the Irish nationalist/ republican one of seeking to articulate an all-Ireland vision which finds a place for unionists as unionists, complete with a British and protestant identity, within that objective.
It is also a strategy which has the benefit of not compelling the leadership of political unionism to begin a process of educating the grassroots about the need for a society based on genuine partnership- indeed, the narrative remains one reflective of a conflict mentality.
This allows us to examine the actions of the DUP Leader in recent times through the prism of this unfolding strategy.
Following the local government elections some months ago, the DUP in Robinson’s heartland of Castlereagh wasted literally no time in moving to form a pan-Unionist alliance to prevent the Alliance Party and/or SDLP from gaining any influence within the overwhelming unionist council. It was classic control politics, utterly at odds with the notion of a shared society based on mutual respect and legitimacy. At the DUP leadership’s behest, this unionist bastion would so remain untainted.
Similarly, the DUP Leader’s response to the UVF’s sectarian assault on the Short Strand in his own constituency in June did not prompt an immediate vocal rejection of the sectarian attacks on the catholic minority in his constituency in such terms. Rather, Robinson sought out a meeting with the UVF leader allegedly responsible for orchestrating the attacks and, whilst keen to portray himself as primarily interested in stopping the violence, made no effort to act in a conciliatory manner towards the minority community in an area where unionism’s electoral and political dominance is a mirror reflection of that existing in Derry city for nationalism.
Furthermore, Robinson’s decision to align himself with the Loyal Orders in their row with the Parades Commission regarding the choice of band music to be played whilst passing St. Matthew’s Catholic Church only a matter of days after loyalists had launched the attack on catholic homes and the church in the Short Strand suggested a contempt for the plight of his constituents of a catholic persuasion.
But the reasoning behind those actions has become much clearer now. The DUP have essentially declared a business as usual approach to their dealings with those catholics whom they believe it will never be possible to persuade round to their way of thinking. Thus there will be no thought given to altering the party’s openly sectarian approach to dealing with educational underachievement (affecting only the working-classes after all), nor should we expect the DUP to begin a process of seeking to convince the broader unionist community of the merits of devising a more tolerant unionist vision.
On another thread, a senior DUP strategist (Fair Deal to Slugger readers) agreed with this sketch of the typical DUP target catholic voter by ‘Carnmoney guy’:
- Why is everyone missing the whole point of who the DUP are targeting – it is not nationalists – of whatever hue – it is Catholics.
Typically – middle class home owners, kids in Catholic grammar / integrated or Protestant grammar like B.R.A.
Professional / semi professional careers.
Currently non-voters, Alliance supporters.
As a north Belfast-based teacher, I immediately laughed aloud at the mention of the ‘typically middle-class catholic home owner’ who sends his kid to BRA.
This is because I know many such individuals and their rationale for so doing (which for many essentially is that they fear that the catholic grammars are a bit, ahem, ‘rougher’.) Yet electorally, this demographic has shifted decisively away from the SDLP and towards Sinn Fein in the past decade, buying into the Gerry Kelly strategy pretty clearly in that local area.
But the inference remains clear: the economically prosperous catholics should be less into their nationalism and more enamoured to buy into a unionist vision.
In one sense, it reflects perfectly the old nationalist narrative which suggested hopefully that the protestant businessmen would buy into the all-Ireland economic potential once it was brought to their attention and waste no time in working within a united Ireland once achieved. Following this through to the next logical step, nationalist parties should really just have to camp out at the garden centre to begin the process of persuading the non-voting prods to see through the green-tinted glasses being sold.
The major flaw in that analysis- and the one being offered by the DUP- is that it ignored the significance of the political and cultural identity of ‘the other’ which continues to ensure that voting preferences are limited to the parties whose views are reflective of our own regarding the constitutional issue.
As the DUP are likely to find in the time ahead, history has ensured that there will be no short cuts in this game.
Most people’s experience of power sharing is that it is a method of ensuring that neither the Unionists nor the Nationalists get anything done at all.
Very, very true.
Actually my piece was not about outbreeding, but the hypothetical question of how many Protestants would need to change their mind to ensure Nationalist victory. I stressed that I never believed that this change would happen, or the opposite, that Catholics would become DUP voters.
The outbreeding you speak of has already happened: Catholics outnumber Protestants in all age groups under 35. It’s just a matter of waiting till the older generation dies off. But this is merely religious outbreeding, I must stress.
The question of reunification I do not see as important. If there are more Nationalist MLAs than Unionist in Stormont, then Unionists have lost power, as far as I am concerned. They may say that they treasure the connection with Britain above all things, but what they really wanted was power in their hands: the British connection merely enabled this to come about.
Good luck with the new plantation: does the peace dividend not bring in anyone from down South? The idea that English people would flock to Northern Ireland strikes me as ludicrous. It’s mainly Poles as far as I can tell: some Roumanians and Bulgarians, admittedly.
Decimus,
But we weren’t talking about any DUP rearguard
My point was that so long as the DUP remains a broad-church big-U Unionist party, it will always have to keep one eye on its rearguard, if only to ensure that a new Paisley doesn’t emerge to challenge it. That will hamstring it in any “unionist outreach” programme.
Your theory was that this would perversely lead to soft nationalists becoming more er, nationalist
I said nothing of the sort. What I did say was that in the unlikely event that soft nationalists did fall for Robinson’s charms, it would further harden attitudes amongst the hardcore, who would feel betrayed by their former comrades. But this will not happen, because soft nationalists will not let it happen. Not out of fear of reprisals, but out of solidarity.
Attempting divide-and-rule tactics on nationalists by separating the soft and hard vote would be futile, as nationalist solidarity would kick in. That does not mean that soft nationalists would become more nationalist, just that they are going to turn up their noses at the thought of voting unionist. You have to remember that “Unionist” in NI politics does not mean “in favour of the Union”, it means “representing the section of society that tends to be in favour of the Union”. Those are two completely different political positions. One can be an Irish Catholic and in favour of the Union, or at least agnostic, but never dream of voting Unionist – because Unionist politicians can’t be trusted to look after either Irish or Catholic interests, which are not limited to the constitutional position.
If pro-union politicians truly want to leave behind their anti-Catholic and anti-Irish past then they need to publicly and permanently purge their movement. Take on the scourge within like Kinnock took on Militant. Find a Clause Four and use it to demonstrate that they have truly repented. That means facing down the hardliners and taking risks, but unionism has always been a risk-averse political philosophy.
If there are more Nationalist MLAs than Unionist in Stormont, then Unionists have lost power, as far as I am concerned.
Paddy,
The threat of that happening is of course what keeps the DUP in the top dog position. I am intrigued though by your theory that unionists would ‘lose power’. Does that mean that nationalists are currently powerless?
The idea that English people would flock to Northern Ireland strikes me as ludicrous.
Apparently, and please don’t ask for confirmation as this is second hand information, 80,000 of the people in the 2001 census were born in England and Scotland.
Catholics outnumber Protestants in all age groups under 35.
The very age group which is emigrating. Hence the GAA clubs with not enough members to play games.
Paddy,
If there are more Nationalist MLAs than Unionist in Stormont, then Unionists have lost power, as far as I am concerned.
Then you have shown yourself concerned with getting one over themmuns rather than substance. Unionists have already lost power. One more or less MLA on either side of the house will make absolutely no practical difference. What might make a practical difference is if SF become the single largest party, and can therefore nominate the Finance Minister ahead of the DUP, but that is a separate issue and can happen (or not) no matter which designation is more numerous.
Apparently, and please don’t ask for confirmation as this is second hand information, 80,000 of the people in the 2001 census were born in England and Scotland.
Returnees, probably. The children of emigrated GAA men. Pearse Doherty, TD for SW Donegal, was born in Glasgow. Your piece, I must say, bears a certain resemblance to the hand-rubbing of the Times over the potato famine- Irish in Ireland as rare as Indians on the banks of the Potomac. You seem to think that everyone emigrating is Catholic and everyone immigrating is going to be Protestant. I would suggest that they are equally balanced, so this movement is not electorally significant.
What might make a practical difference is if SF … nominate the Finance Minister
I still think you are confusing power with office. Somewhere along the line a matter has to be decided by a show of hands, and when that happens it will currently be in the Unionist interest.
Paddy,
I tend to try and avoid bursting the republican bubble where possible. It is after all the ‘certainty’ in their minds that a united Ireland is inevitable that helped convince them to stop butchering people.
If you read back over this conversation you will find that the hand rubbing over head counts was started by you. Despite the fact that said hand rubbing was based entirely on false assumptions.
I’m not aware of any hand rubbing over head counts by me. Perhaps some neutral party would be good enough to point it out.
Paddy,
Couple of things:
They may say that they treasure the connection with Britain above all things, but what they really wanted was power in their hands: the British connection merely enabled this to come about.
It’s not a “connection” with Britain that I value or even the more abstract joy of feeling “power in my hands”, it’s a British identity which for me personally nestles in quite comfortably with its Irish, Ulster and European colleagues. I only speak for myself but that’s the point- you are classifying everybody in NI as to falling into two easily identifiable boxes- Brit or Irish, settler or native, Rangers or Celtic, DUP or SF.
Which would bring me onto the second point- the biggest demographic in NI by a long way now, is the “don’t cares” and “happy enough as it is-ers” (43% at the last election) and that being the case, the sectarian birth/death ratios don’t matter a jot.
That’s not necessarily a bonus for Unionism but it makes it all a battle which is easier for them to lose than for their opponents to win (if you know what i mean).
The Biggest Demographic
This is a recurring rhetorical trope by which the non-voters are enlisted on the side that the rhetoric comes from. We do not know why people don’t vote: quite possibly they are dead, or terminally ill, or have moved, or were wrongly registered in the first place, or have two residences, etc, etc. One important reason is that they perceive that as things stand in that area, their vote is unlikely to make any difference.
For myself, I can only state that I was unable to vote in the last referendum because I had recently moved: I would have been quite happy to change the UK’s electoral system to give the Liberals a fair crack of the whip, though if I had looked at the opinion polls, I would probably have realised that my voice was ineffective.
The thinking behind opinion polls is that if you take a sample of 1000 persons, it will probably come out much the same as the election. A fortiori, an election in which only 57% of the (registered) electorate vote will indubitably produce the same result as when the turnout is an impossible 100%.
The thinking behind opinion polls is that if you take a sample of 1000 persons, it will probably come out much the same as the election.
Paddy,
Here’s one for you.
http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2010/Political_Attitudes/NIRELND2.html
Enjoy.
Yes, and the thinking behind the secret ballot and the need to provide identification is that opinion polls can be tampered with. But there we are: the weaker the Unionist cause gets in the elections, the more there will be recourse to the magic opinion poll.
89.45% of statistics are made up on the spot.
….54% of Catholics state they will be voting DUP after Peter Robinson’s appeal at the DUP conference.
Paddy,
So now you don’t think that opinion polls are all that accurate after all?
I never did. I merely referred to the thinking behind them.
But a secret ballot with 57% of the electorate voting is unlikely to give a different result to one with 99% voting.
In Mid Ulster there was a movement among Unionists to stop Martin McGuinness getting in. They got out the Protestant lame, halt and blind, in the hope of stopping him. The result was that Sinn Féin had to do likewise, and the turn out soared to 86.12% in 1997. Since then they have finally realised that they’re not going to get Martin out, and the turnout has fallen to 63%, still higher than elsewhere.
This indicates a return to normality, not a surge of crypto-Unionism.
Paddy,
So this claim by you is nonsense?
The thinking behind opinion polls is that if you take a sample of 1000 persons, it will probably come out much the same as the election. A fortiori, an election in which only 57% of the (registered) electorate vote will indubitably produce the same result as when the turnout is an impossible 100%.
I think you will find that it was a boundary change which got McGuinness into Mid Ulster. Perhaps someone of importance in the British establishment thought that he would be of more use as a British MP.
Not at all, that is the thinking behind an opinion poll. It is not my thinking. For a start, we don’t know if the poll was made up by the pollsters. We don’t know if the pollsters were bribed to produce a favourable result. We don’t know if the people at the end of the phone are who they say they are.
There are so many things that can go wrong. And the leap from the sample polled- 200, 500, 1000 to the election- half a million or more- is a very large one.
An election with a turn out of 57% is probably going to produce the same result as one of 97%. It would be quite amazing if all the missing 40% turned out to be from one side, and the losing one at that.
What got McGuinness into Mid Ulster was the fact that he won most votes.
2001 Census: 65.26% community catholic. 2001 election, SF 51.1%, SDLP 16.8%.
Where are the Catholic Unionists here? Why do all these Papes who are desperate to stay in the Union keep voting for parties who are committed to taking them out of it? That is the question Peter Robinson needs to address.
Paddy,
You are tying yourself in knots. On the one hand you deride opinion polls, but on the other hand you say that their results must mirror elections. Laughable nonsense. Does it occur to you that the catholics who do not bother to vote don’t bother because they are happy with the status quo? Ditto for the Protestants.
2001 Census: 65.26% community catholic. 2001 election, SF 51.1%, SDLP 16.8%.
These are remarkable statistics. How come there is not a united Ireland then?
I fear I may have confused you by using big words like a fortiori. When one says “the thinking behind astrology is that…” it does not mean that one endorses astrology. I was assuming that the people I was addressing would endorse opinion polls, and you showed me that I was right.
An interesting oversight on the accuracy of opinion polls can be formed from reading this article in Wikipedia:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum,_2011
There was a referendum in the UK. 32% wanted the Alternative vote, 68% wanted first past the post. This is a very simple matter, and you would expect that 1 person in three would tell the pollsters AV, and 2 FPTP.
Now page down to the article headed “Polling” and look at the various surveys. In a substantial number of them AV won! It’s so funny. Opinion polls are about as accurate as tossing a coin. It reminds me of the astrologer who tried to guess my sister’s star sign and got it right 12th time!
How come there is not a united Ireland then?
Because they are the figures for Mid Ulster only, which is the only area mentioned in my post. You are, you will forgive me for saying, more than a little dense.
I fear I may have confused you by using big words like a fortiori.
Paddy,
That will no doubt be on account of the unionist policy of keeping their working class thick.
However did you have a point re opinion polls?
Because they are the figures for Mid Ulster only, which is the only area mentioned in my post. You are, you will forgive me for saying, more than a little dense.
That has already been established by drone HQ. Can you confirm please if being intelligent also requires a degree of mind reading though? Because I don’t recall you qualifying your figures by stating where they applied to.
Also can you explain what point you were trying to make? I had already pointed out that the Sinner victory in Mid Ulster was entirely due to the evil Brits adjusting the electoral boundaries to suit a certain favourite Sinner.
In the last two years I have spent a lot of time in West Belfast, meeting with people who come from all religious positions and none.
I have been invited into a sizable number of ‘catholic’ homes to discuss ‘my politics’. On a number of occasions, both in peoples homes and on the campaign trail I have heard the following; -“I am not a Nationalist, I would vote not to join a United Ireland but I cannot vote for a Unionist because I believe that Unionists don’t like Catholics.”
The biggest issue facing any pro-union movement in appealing to Catholic voters who share pro-union feelings is the language. The very word Unionist implies intolerance and the word British implies Protestant.
I know, from personal experience, that there are a surprising number of practising Catholics who would vote for a pro-union candidate if they believed that the ‘party machine’ was not created to be against everything they believe in.
The assumption that all Catholics are Nationalists and all Protestants are Unionists is as ignorant as it is wrong.
Paddy,
This is a recurring rhetorical trope by which the non-voters are enlisted on the side that the rhetoric comes from
I didn’t claim them for Unionism, I have as much an idea as you as to they fall on the constitutional question. The fact that they are not voting, I think, benefits Unionism at this juncture but that is obviously only a hunch and is most definitely something the pro-Union side should rely on.
One important reason is that they perceive that as things stand in that area, their vote is unlikely to make any difference
Not necessarily. The vote turnout has also dropped in the sectarian cockpits (more apparent at council and Assembly elections). And over all, it would only take 5% or so of those not voting at the minute to come out for the UI party to push into a completely new scenario. But they’re not doing it.
New Blue,
How can we sell a pro-Union message minus the baggage connected with “Unionism” here? I don’t thjnk it can be done through the present parties.
Darn, make that, voter apathy…
“,,,is most definitely not something the pro-Union side should rely on.”
oneill
If I had the answer to that, I would be a happy chappie.
The answer is not as simple as ‘start a new party’, nor is it what Peter is trying.
Personally I think it is more about creating a movement that refuses to be drawn into ‘whataboutery’, is prepared to deliver on the ground to address the needs of people and makes being ‘Northern Irish’ something to be proud of.
But then I still believe in Santa.
Somewhere along the line a matter has to be decided by a show of hands, and when that happens it will currently be in the Unionist interest.
You do understand how a cross-community vote works, don’t you?
[...] Whilst the unionist unity debate rages on, Mick’s thread linking to an article by Michael Shilliday, a vocal opponent within the UUP to the idea, is interesting for highlighting both the dangers of the aspiration for a unified unionist (or nationalist) voice and the gulf between the infrequently lofty rhetoric of the DUP’s Peter Robinson regarding his party’s vision of a unified community and the words and actions of his own fellow party members (more on that here and here.) [...]
[...] See Alex Kane’s exchange with myself via Slugger and the Belfast Newsletter for more on that here and [...]