ANALYSIS:Attempting to change the sectarian face of Northern politics would be a radical move, writes Gerry Moriarty
AT TOMORROW'S annual conference of the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) the Tory leader David Cameron and his Northern Ireland spokesman Owen Paterson will speak about the merits of formally hooking up with the UUP to create what they argue will be a new, non-sectarian political dynamic in Northern politics.
This alliance proposal, in its own way, is fascinating, visionary, radical stuff but it raises many questions. Are Cameron and Paterson and the British Conservative Party naive or foolhardy, or both, is the immediate one that leaps out. They are playing to the better nature of the Northern Ireland electorate. What has that ever gained for anybody? Why are they hoping to align with the UUP, which has just one MP - Lady Sylvia Hermon - whose natural home is Gordon Brown's Labour Party?
Why are they antagonising Peter Robinson when, as is quite possible, David Cameron would crave the nine or so Westminster votes of the DUP if there is a hung parliament after the next British general election? Don't the Tories realise they can't challenge the fundamental sectarian nature of Northern Ireland politics?
"Yes we can" is the very emphatic answer of shadow Northern secretary Paterson, although he doesn't actually use the Barack Obama or Bob the Builder line. What is being proposed is a "new force" in UK politics, he says.
Ulster Unionists are more reserved, more nervous perhaps, what with Lady Hermon and others in the party such as Michael and Chris McGimpsey and Fred Cobain disposed towards British Labour. There are concerns that this could play into the hands of the DUP.
That anxiety explains why this conference was postponed from October until Saturday. A UUP spokeswoman pointed out that the two parties have formed a joint working group, the Conservative and Ulster Unionist Joint Committee, and while the parties have agreed a "memo of understanding", no decisions will be made until after it reports in January. Both parties were formally aligned in the past but that relationship crashed on the back of UUP fury over Margaret Thatcher's signing of the 1985 Anglo-Irish Agreement.
Paterson is gung-ho and very specific about how this potential new link-up should operate. The 52-year-old MP who represents North Shropshire - "It's rural, very much like Northern Ireland" - is a pleasant, slightly reserved, product of the English public school system (Radley College), though not quite to the same stereotypical extent as rosy-cheeked Cameron (Eton). He takes his job seriously, visiting Northern Ireland at least once a week. He's spent most of this week in the North ahead of the conference.
He fully realises that the negotiations involving himself, Cameron and Sir Reg Empey are infuriating Peter Robinson and his DUP colleagues, and surprising others of a more neutral or opposing political bent.
Primarily, this is because of the South Belfast and Fermanagh-South Tyrone constituencies. In the last general election the SDLP's Alasdair McDonnell sneaked in between the UUP and DUP candidates to make history by taking the hitherto safe unionist seat of South Belfast. Robinson wants the DUP and UUP to strike a pact over South Belfast and Fermanagh-South Tyrone. He reckons that with just one unionist candidate in each constituency unionists could reclaim South Belfast and possibly take the scalp of Sinn Féin's Michelle Gildernew in Fermanagh-South Tyrone.
As far as Cameron and Paterson are concerned the "new force" must compete in every constituency, which has raised a major dilemma for the UUP and prompted DUP claims they are intent on "gifting" two seats to Sinn Féin and the SDLP. "David Cameron and myself have been absolutely clear that we intend to put up candidates in every seat," Paterson nonetheless asserts. "I just don't think Northern Ireland will prosper if the old sectarian divisions just continue within the new institutions."
He isn't concerned about how this would play with the DUP in the event of both Cameron and Brown needing Robinson's votes to form a government. He knows that it probably would boil down to the highest bidder. "We don't want any antagonism with the DUP but we think long term it is in the best interests of Northern Ireland that we do give people the opportunity to vote for national parties."
But what's in it for the UUP if it forms an alliance with the Tories? UUP people are cautious about how this new arrangement would be branded - so far they baulk at the word "merger". He doesn't spell it out, but should Cameron form the next British government there could be positions in the administration for UUP-associated politicians such as David Trimble, now a Tory in the House of Lords. Perhaps there could be a post for Lady Hermon, should she be persuaded to switch from Brown to Cameron. Some of the UUP peers could be promoted to government. Sir Reg Empey, if he fails to be elected an MP, could be elevated to the House of Lords and brought into government.
Paterson argues that stay-at-home unionists (there are many thousands of them), Alliance voters, perhaps even some of the more moderate DUP supporters, as well as the existing UUP and Tory voters in Northern Ireland would support a new UUP/Tory outfit. This would create a transforming and powerful political grouping in the North, which in turn would boost UUP prospects in Assembly elections.
"We know there is a real hunger out there; we did polling," says Paterson. "Approximately 70 per cent of Alliance voters, 80 per cent of DUP, 81 per cent of UUP . . . wanted a Cameron Conservative government. But there are a lot of people who have been put off by the old sectarian politics . . . I would very much hope those people would now come on board."
The additional advantage, he argues, is that they would be part of a "government party" unlike the current UUP, DUP, SDLP and abstentionist Sinn Féin. "This will be an organisation which will have hundreds of MPs in Westminster."
Peripherally, there are mutterings of concern that to cement the deal Cameron, should he become prime minister, would tinker with the British-Irish agreements that led to peace and political progress in Northern Ireland; that he might disavow the Downing Street Declaration commitment that Britain has no "selfish, strategic or economic interest in Northern Ireland". Such a move would certainly cause problems, especially with Dublin, Sinn Féin and the SDLP. "We support the current agreement and want to make it work," says Paterson. He is absolutely "emphatic" on this point, he adds.
Paterson says that the potential UUP and Tory deal-makers understand that this is a long-term project with the huge ambition of changing the sectarian face of Northern politics. He is convinced this is in the interests of the UUP, the Tories, Northern Ireland and Britain and knows that seeing it through will be a "bumpy" ride. On Saturday we will have a better idea of what rank-and-file Ulster Unionists think. "It is absolutely the right thing to do," says Paterson.
Gerry Moriarty is Northern Editor of
The Irish Times