A LucidTalk poll will deliver the initial public verdict on the DUP since the jury had their own say on Jeffrey Donaldson. The results are due in the Belfast Telegraph at the end of next week. Meanwhile the constant drip of Donaldson related stories continues. Sam McBride was mining a fresh seam in the BT at the weekend asking ‘Where did Jeffrey Donaldson’s fortune go?’
From the moment of Donaldson’s conviction, the DUP has failed to get ahead of the story. Perhaps that was never going to be possible – but they have had over two years to prepare and there is little evidence that they have used the time wisely. Did they conduct a comprehensive internal investigation to identify any possible rumours or facts which might emerge? Did they know who within the DUP might have had any knowledge of unsavoury Donaldson allegations? Or who might have no knowledge but might be questioned due to their proximity to the leader? Had they put together a strategy to handle the fall out in the event of a guilty verdict?
From the outside it appears not. Their initial reaction appeared to be focused entirely on the issues raised by Donaldson’s conduct towards children. If they had anticipated other issues could be raised there is no sign of a strategy to handle them.
A courageous alternative approach, if they had done their homework, would have given them some control. They could have chosen to tackle the totality of Donaldson’s behavioural issues head-on immediately after the jury’s verdict.
They could have told us then about the allegations made to Paisley and reported to Poots, and about the party in Washington, and about the mayor of Beijing, and about the rumoured affairs. They could have stated up front that these represented a grievous mismatch with their former leader’s carefully cultivated public persona – an act of overwhelming hypocrisy sustained over decades.
They could have told us that bits and pieces of information had been known, or more often suspected, to individuals within the party – but that these had existed in isolation and not been brought together and considered to form a total picture.
They could have acknowledged that the party should have had a mechanism for pooling what individuals had been told, had witnessed or suspected about other elements of Donaldson’s behaviour. With the benefit of hindsight this was a major failing by the party for which it wished to deeply apologise and would do all in its power to put right.
The party would still have sustained damage, but could have earned some credit for openness, for taking responsibility, for acting decisively and for showing humility. Most importantly it could have demonstrated that it understood why the public would be angry and that it recognised they had a right to be angry.
Instead, the impression is of a party adrift, battered by a succession of stories that it appears to have simply hoped would never come out, and with no idea of how to deal with the crisis as it developed. It seems to have placed its trust in the belief that the Donaldson story would eventually burn out and be quickly forgotten, and the hope that the public could be persuaded to distinguish between the party and the individual who had personified the party.
It seems not to realise – or not to have faced up to – the most serious political threat it confronts. It hopes that an independent inquiry will be its defensive shield. It won’t.
A party spokesperson is quoted in the Belfast Telegraph saying that the aim of the inquiry is “to establish what, if any, information was known within the party about his conduct, to examine its safeguarding and reporting arrangements, and to make recommendations to ensure good practice for all its members and staff”.
That is, of course, essential, but politically it is just a hygiene factor. An HR response to a political problem. Not to hold an inquiry would have caused more political damage. But holding one it will gain it no credit.
The critical political charge that the DUP faces is that it knew that Donaldson was presenting a face to the public which was the opposite of the truth, but that it had done nothing about it.
Essentially that Donaldson’s hypocrisy became the party’s hypocrisy.
A party’s voters can be surprising tolerant of any number of failings by their party. “It wasn’t really their fault.” “The others are just as bad.” “The whole issue is very complicated.” “Actually, I think they were right to do that.”
But the unforgivable sin in politics is hypocrisy. It’s astoundingly simple to recognise once you see it. It’s impossible to forget. And the voters hate it.
Just think of the former Prime Minister John Major who uttered the words “back to basics” in a party conference speech. The press took it as a call for a return to Victorian values of morality, which was not Major’s intention. Nevertheless, every time a Tory MP was caught with his (and it was always his) trousers down or accepting an envelope of cash for asking a Parliamentary Question, the phrase was trotted out to pillory the party as a whole for hypocrisy. The individual suffered a few days of notoriety. The party endured months of sinking popularity and ultimately a landslide defeat.
I do not believe that anyone in the DUP knew the truth, or even had any suspicion, about Donaldson’s paedophilia. But the public is now being exposed to an almost daily diet of ‘who-knew-what?’ about Donaldson’s behaviour. These things can get all mixed up in people’s minds and unconsciously they will blend together.
The media will keep the story alive for some time to come. They are sensitive to the criticism that journalists knew things about Donaldson which they ignored. They will want to ensure that, if there is anything else to come out, they will be seen to publish it in full. And to be honest, it’s good copy.
There will be another boost with the sentencing in September. And then various enquiries already announced will take time to report. Each will in turn give rise to further commentary. It may not all be over by Christmas.
In January the pre-election campaign will start to wind up, when no doubt the TUV and UUP or their supporters will be flooding social media with old photographs of their local DUP opponent posing, wreathed in smiles, with Jeffrey Donaldson.
In other words, the damage may not be a one-off event from which the party can hope to recover over the coming months. It is just as likely to be cumulative. And even if few of their voters switch to other parties, the far greater threat is that many DUP supporters will simply stay at home this time.
The DUP had a short moment after the verdict was announced to attempt damage limitation against the inevitable charge of hypocrisy.
They missed it.
Michael Hehir is a retired sales and marketing manager. He studied in Northern Ireland but now lives between England and Italy.
Discover more from Slugger O'Toole
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
