IRA's Nazi collaborator's statue unveiled in Dublin.

Given that resisting republican rewrites of history is the topic of my post below here's a rather instructive story about what happens when that imperative is cast aside. Pictured is a memorial in honour of 'Irish republican' Sean Russell which was unveiled last week. The Republic's National Graves Association oversaw its unveiling, after the original was beheaded.

To fill in some history, whilst the Luftwaffe blitzed English cities during World War 2, the IRA's Chief of Staff launched his own bombing campaign in England. Russell eventually lost his life on a Nazi U Boat. This is what 'countenancing' recent history involves for those unfamiliar with republican doublespeak.

No progressive or thinking person would 'countenance' tolerating such revisionism.

The most constructive future for the Maze is to flatten it

I’m going to defend Sammy Wilson. Everyone please retrieve their jaws from wherever they’re now lying.

The outgoing Environment Minister is investigating whether he can de-list buildings at the site of the ex Maze prison. Amongst republican commentators such talk is presented as extremist posturing by the DUP in an attempt to underline its hardline credentials.

Whatever the party’s motivation, as it seeks to remove protection for unremarkable buildings, in which some convicted terrorists happen to have committed suicide, repugnance at such a place being effectively sanctified is neither a hardline attitude nor an unusual one.

Moving this society forward has required some unpalatable compromises, but what it simply cannot entail is acceptance of history, rewritten to suit the provisional movement. It is thoroughly disgraceful to suggest that IRA terrorists should be memorialised and glorified as a matter of course. All the more so where the proposed celebrations are in high profile, publicly accessible sites.

Conferring retrospective legitimacy on a shameful campaign of murder which had the backing of a tiny minority must never be the lesson we learn from our squalid conflict.

The Maze prison is a remnant of a grubby, bloody past and the most constructive future for its buildings is to raze them to the ground.

Leading question disguises unionist intent

The modern Conservative and Unionist Party was conceived as a coalition between Tories and pro-Union Gladstone Liberals. Today the party remains a ‘broad tent’ encompassing a range of opinion. This morning Phillip Blond, writing in Comment is Free, proposes means by which a Conservative government might ‘capitalise’ the poor. His views do not remotely resemble the free market liberalism which other members of the party advocate. I have no doubt that a Conservative government will draw from Blond’s ideas in order to shape the type of ‘One Nation’, socially aware conservatism which the party leader has promised. Equally, there is little prospect that Cameron will set himself the task of reinventing capitalism as a bottom up phenomenon in quite the fashion which Blonde envisages. It is the job of the party leadership to steer the energies of the party as a whole towards a constructive, realisable programme which will translate into successful government.

Which is not to say, of course, that the raw material of members, councillors and candidates does not matter a great deal. The Conservative parliamentary party is expected to look very different after the next election and there has been justifiable interest, from supporters and opponents alike, as to how this group of men and women will be composed. Conservative Home has conducted a survey amongst the most likely new Tory MPs and has examined its findings over the course of the week. Fair Deal and O’Neill both spotted a headline on the website which is both misleading and eye-catching. Unionist Lite has already deconstructed the flawed thinking which led ConHome to describe its survey respondents as ‘barely unionist’.

I’m confident that the Conservative parliamentary party will be strongly pro-Union by inclination after the next election. Most importantly, it will comprise a group of men and women which has committed itself to unionist aims in its manifesto. By rhetoric and action David Cameron has shown himself to be the most engaged and active unionist to lead a national party in many years. Apart from his efforts to build unionist alliances and boost unionist morale across the United Kingdom, strengthening the Union is at the centre of Conservative policy considerations, under Cameron’s tutelage. Unlike Gordon Brown, whose unionism often manifests itself in rather abstract form, the Tory leader gives every sign of thinking about the Union at a much more instinctive level. Whether his policies on Scotland and Northern Ireland play out as he anticipates remains to be seen, but only the most cynical commentator would suggest that, at their heart, lies anything other than a sincere attempt to stabilise the United Kingdom.

In another Conservative Home article Tim Montgomerie asks Cameron to place the United Kingdom's integrity at the core of a general election manifesto. He is thinking in particular about an erosion of identity which means that university graduates often lack even the most basic grasp of their nation’s past. He wants British history to become once more a fundamental part of the school curriculum in an effort to wrest the concept of patriotism away from extreme nationalism. Encouraging constructive pride in one’s country and disentangling patriotism from nationalist dogma is a laudable aim. Balanced UK history, stressing achievement as well as fault, ought to be a compulsory part of schooling.

Apart from the thrust of the article, however, it is abundantly clear that Montgomerie detects, as dominating characteristics of Cameron’s leadership, pride in the United Kingdom as a country and commitment to its future as a nation state. He describes the Tory / UUP pact as one of the ‘high points’ of the party leader’s tenure. The aim of that alliance is to produce a Conservative party at Westminster drawn from each of the four corners of the United Kingdom. Conservatives and Unionists will be committed to strengthening the bonds between the UK’s component parts and, if the party forms its policies with this goal in mind, the party has a better chance of realising that aim than any of its opponents, in Northern Ireland as well as the rest of Britain.

Red Flair - Liverpool to grab new Arshavin?

A quick Premier League transfer snippet. I was aware that Russian Cup winners CSKA’s teen prodigy Alan Dzagoyev had attracted interest from Chelsea. But Ria Novosti believes Liverpool are also chasing ‘the new Arshavin’.

The youngster has played down suggestions that he will leave Moscow this summer, but where there’s a will in football there’s generally a way.

Although it would’ve been better had Benitez’ side made a meaningful attempt to sign the real Arshavin when he left Zenit, perhaps the club’s first Russian player might yet arrive before the new season.

Bring in the clown. New Finance Minister doesn't understand how devolution is funded!

Northern Ireland’s new Finance Minister, Sammy Wilson, has been showing off the grasp of economics which he acquired teaching the subject at Grosvenor High School. Let’s not forget that he was head of department and helped to set some exams.

The East Antrim MP has repeated the DUP’s occasional mantra of ‘Tory cuts’ which, whilst it is echoes a theme developed by Labour leader Gordon Brown, does not quite share the Prime Minister’s intellectual disingenuousness. He is simply lying about his intentions for the economy but the DUP neither knows nor cares about the national picture, as long as Northern Ireland retains the same sized slice of a diminishing pie.

None of which is new or particularly surprising, but Sammy has accompanied his pre-empting of Conservative policy with some ludicrous claims, wonky sums and awe-inspiring ignorance.

Wilson demonstrates his wobbly grasp of Tory pledges by claiming that George Osborne has promised to ‘ring fence’ spending on health and education. His contention is simply wrong. The Conservatives have promised to protect health spending and the international development budget but the shadow chancellor has pointedly refused to treat education in the same way. Wilson might have avoided this error by watching last night’s ten o’clock news!

But it comprises an unimportant detail when one examines the core of Sammy’s argument, which is that, with health and education commanding 75% of Northern Ireland’s budget, the remaining departments must find cuts amounting to 40% of their combined spending. You’d hate to be the one to break it to him, but determining Northern Ireland’s budget is his responsibility!

I made fun of Wilson’s appointment, but who could have anticipated that it would be quite as bad as this! Our new Finance Minister clearly doesn’t understand the basic mechanisms by which devolution is funded. We receive a block grant and it is the Executive’s responsibility to determine how it is spent! Health and education is not an exception.

Smoking ban is rare Labour success. Don't change it.

I notice that a couple of the big Conservative blogs, Dizzy and Iain Dale, have clambered aboard a campaign to amend the smoking ban. The argument is that current legislation is too inflexible and provision should be made for certain exemptions. There is an implication that pubs and clubs especially might choose to operate outside the ban, in order to lure back lost customers.

This type of thinking is obviously attractive to the libertarian strand of Conservatism. Personally I oppose the campaign.

I suspect that the smoking ban’s uncompromising nature has provided the impetus for its success. Without producing hard evidence (although I’m quite prepared to do some research if anyone thinks my contentions are questionable) I’d imagine there are fewer smokers today than there were before the legislation came into force and those who do smoke certainly smoke fewer cigarettes when they are out at bars and restaurants. I am told that medical professionals are already satisfied that the ban has had a positive impact on the nation’s health.

On a purely personal level, I have got used to smoke free pubs and I find them much more convivial than their smoke filled equivalents. I’d be prepared to bet that many other customers feel the same. Yes, if a few bars were to reintroduce smoking I could choose to go elsewhere, but necessarily more and more pubs would revert and the ban would be undermined.

Friends who smoke would naturally tend to gravitate towards premises which permitted their habit and non-smokers in their social circle would probably follow rather than appear unduly censorious. Those who had cut down dramatically on their night out cigarette intake would find it gradually creeping up, despite their best intentions. Many of these people have been amongst the most enthusiastic supporters of smoke free bars, in my experience.

To instinctively prohibit anything associated with health problems is clearly not tenable. However when legislation is in place which is working and which the public, for the most part, has accepted and grown used to, I see little point in tinkering with its provisions. Let pubs entice customers back by other means.

Time for existential debate on Stormont as well as Westminster

All the main parties in Northern Ireland, other than Sinn Féin, have indicated that the current brand of mandatory coalition at Stormont is not a system which they would choose to operate in the medium to long term. They acknowledge, uniformly, that safeguards must be built into our regional government to ensure that power-sharing is maintained, but there is consensus that the present arrangement lacks accountability, enervates democracy and breeds inefficiency.

Problematically, however, with republicans explicitly wedded to carve-up government and the DUP more tacitly so, there is little prospect that the Assembly will feature an official opposition in the foreseeable future. Which leaves the parties, and in particular the two that have taken their positions in the Executive, only to find themselves frozen out of decision making, with the task of reimagining how the existing structures might be better put to work.

Although the carve-up coalition partners might be the current beneficiaries of the ‘huckster’s shop’ (to quote Sir Reg Empey) which they have operated at Stormont, even they cannot be complacent about dysfunctional government. Alex Kane wrote in yesterday’s News Letter about disconnect between the electorate and an ineffective Assembly. Unaccountable government makes for a disengaged public and low voter turn-out.

All the impetus during the DUP / SF spell of government has been towards emasculating the Assembly and empowering ministers. Indeed a further power grab has attempted to curtail even the Executive’s decision making function (where four parties are at least nominally involved) and concentrate it within the Office of the First and Deputy First Ministers, locus of Stalinist carve-up politics under Robinson and McGuinness. This is the arrangement which Slugger’s Pete Baker describes as a ‘semi-detached polit-bureau’.

At national level David Cameron has announced his intention to recalibrate the relationship between legislature and executive. It is appropriate that the Conservatives’ partners in Northern Ireland, the Ulster Unionist Party, have advanced ideas as to how the Assembly might better oversee and hold accountable its Executive, at local level. Deputy leader, Danny Kennedy, pondering Stormont’s inner workings, must start from a much lower base than the House of Commons offers Cameron. It is a case of carving out for the Assembly any type of meaningful, independent legislative role.

Whilst criticism has been made of the committee system at Westminster, Stormont committees are feeble organs in comparison. Kennedy estimates that committee business commands just 0.5% of Assembly time. In contrast 81% of business is comprised of private members motions which, no matter how well supported they might be, do not bind ministers. The result is that Stormont really is the much maligned ‘talking shop’ of popular legend. Kennedy wants to see legislation properly scrutinised and revised by committees.

Any initiative which would make the Executive more accountable to the Assembly from which it is drawn should be welcomed and examined carefully. The novelty value of Northern Ireland’s government has long since worn thin and voters will only play their part if the structures are seen to be relevant and responsive. Nationally the expenses scandal precipitated a debate about parliament’s function and its relationship to government. A similar discussion is long overdue at Stormont.

Conservatives and Unionists project is grounded in principle of consent. Which makes them the most pro-Agreement party.

Last summer I revisited Norman Porter’s influential book, ‘Rethinking Unionism’, and reflected that although its content had been prescient, at a time when unionism was moving towards an accommodation with nationalism and republicanism, it was also, in retrospect, deeply flawed. In imagining how a post peace process Northern Ireland might look, Porter underestimated the capacity of unionism, focussed squarely on the entire United Kingdom, to encompass an Irish dimension.

The author’s rethink, rather than operating within the parameters of the philosophy with which it was dealing, chose instead to accept nationalist absolutes as regards political and cultural identity. Ironically, in attempting to furnish unionism with the conceptual dexterity it needed to reach a settlement, Porter jettisoned a multi-layered understanding of politics and culture which allowed it to contemplate simultaneous Irish and British identities in the first place. Liberal, or British unionism, which he doubted would ever reach an accord with nationalism, made the agreement and operated it. Porter’s approach sought greater flexibility by accepting rigid nationalist doctrines. His paradox failed.

If the writer behind ‘Rethinking Unionism’ has recorded any thoughts about the Conservatives and Unionists arrangement in Northern Ireland I would be interested to read them. I detect echoes of Porter’s thinking, when I read a certain brand of highly strung argument against national parties involving themselves directly in Northern Ireland. The emphasis is on fudging the issue of British sovereignty here, on cauterising its political consequences. It accepts the unsubstantiated nationalist proposition that the Belfast Agreement committed successive British governments to the status of disinterested referees in Northern Ireland. Where it departs from Irish nationalism is that it neither foresees not desires any end to this state of suspended animation, but it does share a disregard for the principle of consent as anything other than a hand-break on progress towards a united Ireland.

Porter identifies, in his book, confusion between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome which is inherent in the notion of ‘parity of esteem’. Yet although nationalism expresses the idea differently, demanding to choose between Republic of Ireland and UK institutions (despite putatively accepting the principle of consent), the tendency to see panacea in Northern Ireland's effective political isolation, with causeways of identity and finance providing only strictly necessary connections to Dublin and London, also carries the same assumptions in its DNA.

The author did explicitly repudiate equal status for unionism and nationalism, stating that, naturally, as unionism retained the larger electoral mandate, the British connection should carry the weight of sovereignty and symbolism. But in its emphasis of Northern Ireland as an entity which could be politically separate from the United Kingdom, and its suggestion that a full role in the UK’s politics should be curtailed because of the peculiar position which Northern Ireland holds within the Kingdom, Porter was coming close to Humespeak, whether he acknowledged it or not.

‘Rethinking Unionism’ was written before the Belfast Agreement was conceived or instigated. Whether, with the Irish nationalist aspiration guaranteed a role in Northern Ireland’s government, safeguards for identity and culture and a cooperative relationship with Dublin central to the dispensation, Porter would deny Conservatives and Ulster’s unionists’ entitlement to strengthen Northern Ireland’s participation in Wsetminster is doubtful. Certainly he would recognise that the Agreement does not require that the British government refrain from such a project. With the luxury of retrospect, contemporary commentators have less excuse for their misinterpretation of a document which they have had eleven years to digest.

Of course Northern Irishness is in itself an identity. It is an identity which is often nested within various degrees of Irishness and Britishness. But whilst unionists might view their Northern Irishness and Irishness as integral to who they are, their political identity is British rather than Northern Irish. As a unionist, I am not interested in Northern Ireland, as a political entity, outside the Union. Retaining some nominal sense of separateness might be a cultural objective, or it might shape my sense of identity, but it does not form a political end. Unionism in Northern Ireland, if it can be meaningfully described as unionism at all, prioritises its membership of the United Kingdom over its separation from the rest of the island of Ireland.

Which is why an honest interpretation of the principle of consent is crucial to unionism. If the majority of people in Northern Ireland wish it to remain within the United Kingdom, that cannot be interpreted merely as a temporary break on a united Ireland. The political consequences which flow from the decision must be respected. Which means that certain symbols and furniture of state are appropriate and that full participation in Westminster politics should be encouraged.

The essence of the Belfast Agreement is a level, democratic playing field for political aspirations, rather than equal status for two political results with unequal mandates. David Cameron and Sir Reg Empey have grasped the crucial difference. Indeed by offering people in Northern Ireland the option of participating fully in national politics, Conservative and Unionists are not only in compliance with the letter of the Agreement, but they are expressing its basic principle more fully than any other competing party.

Money too tight for Labour to mention.

Apologies for the rather bitty nature of some posts at the moment. Various aspects of everyday life have tiresomely intruded on blogging time. Admittedly some of the prevalent stories have also required little or no lengthy commentary. They have spoken for themselves.

Take Labour’s ‘Building Britain’s Future’ document, which Gordon Brown will unveil this afternoon. It will form the central plank of the party’s manifesto for the general election and is expected to outline the government’s public services strategy.

The Prime Minister and Liam Byrne have trailed its contents in elliptical fashion. We know that there will be a lot less talk about ‘targets’ and a lot more about ‘rights and entitlements’. But before we have the opportunity even to scrutinise detail in the paper, or examine whether it is merely an exercise in semantics, Peter Mandelson has revealed on the Today programme that the government’s comprehensive spending review will be delayed until after the next election.

To cut through the jargon, Labour proposes to present its document to the UK electorate, base its election campaign on the contents, and refuse to discuss how any of the policy ideas will be funded. It is a staggering strategy to adopt in its blatant contempt for the British public and it represents a piece of reckless electioneering from an incumbent administration, at a time when responsible governance is so clearly what the country needs.

Rather than concentrating on making a dignified exit when Brown finally grants a poll next summer, Labour’s desperation is making it reckless. Disingenuousness and brandishing outdated stereotypes will be to no avail. The party will simply damage its prospects of returning to government after one term.

Sammy's credentials underlined

Lest you should question Sammy Wilson's credentials for taking the finance ministry (he taught economics at a secondary school), Peter Robinson fills in the vital details. He was head of department and set some exam papers. Roll over Milton Friedman!

H/T Rodney McCune

Empey articulates Conservatives and Unionists vision of unionism

Sir Reg Empey has written an article for the Belfast Telegraph entitiled ‘A Vision for the Future’ in the wake of the European election. It perpetuates to an extent the endless game of political tennis between Ulster Unionists and the DUP, but some of the piece deals neatly with the politics which inspired the Conservative / UUP pact.

Sir Reg writes,

“The Ulster Unionist Party has an agenda and a vision for the future. We believe that the Union is a two-way process and that it is stronger when embraced and endorsed on both sides of the Irish Sea. We believe in a Union which spans the entire United Kingdom. And we believe in Northern Ireland being represented at the very heart of British government.”

“Northern Ireland is emerging into new political and economic realities. I believe that the creation of a new political and electoral dynamism will attract a surge of support and enthusiasm from people everywhere who want to leave the past behind in favour of a 21st Century Northern Ireland in which every citizen is an equal citizen in the politics of the United Kingdom.”

“I believe that our relationship with the Conservative Party is the beginning of a new and genuinely exciting development in both national and local politics. The DUP may be content with a 'little-Ulster' approach to unionism and a carve-up with Sinn Fein. But the UUP is not content with that vision or that agenda. We believe in a broader, wider, deeper Union. We believe in the people of Northern Ireland having their voices heard and heeded at a national, European and international level. We believe in a new approach to politics and policy creation here and the building of a socio-economic agenda which addresses our real needs.

That's the unionism that the UUP believes in: and with the Conservative Party beside us that's the unionism we will be jointly promoting.”

A pointless non-fiction

I am not accustomed to being sent books, free of charge, on the supposition that I might wish to review them. And yet, clearly, it is a practice which I would seek to encourage. So when Patrick Hannan’s ‘A Useful Fiction: Adventures in British Democracy’ found its way through my letter box on precisely that premise, I fully intended to find something positive to write about it. It was with growing disappointment that I realised, with a clear conscience, I couldn’t possibly claim that this was a good book. Indeed even the few points of half hearted commendation which I thought I might bestow upon it were dwindling rapidly. So, attempting to rescue something from my original store of goodwill - Patrick Hannan writes fluent, readable prose. That’s all.

Hannan’s book aspires to be (I think) something of a state of the nation piece, which takes as its basis the notion that devolution has altered irrevocably the landscape of British democracy. Which is a thesis that, whilst it is undoubtedly true, is hardly enough on its own to sustain a decent book. But beyond this rather amorphous idea Hannan does not get far. The difficulty is that there is no central premise which draws together the author’s ‘investigations’, nor does the half assed collection of anecdote, observation and interview, which forms the book’s core, offer any substantive insight into the issues at which it is gesturing. ‘A Useful Fiction’ reminds me most of the type pf writing which one finds in the magazine of a Sunday newspaper. It is full of sweeping generalisation, garnished by a little local colour but substantiated by almost no empirical evidence. Worst of all, it is composed mainly of hint and insinuation, rather than anything vaguely approaching a conclusion. Reading it is a profoundly unsatisfying experience.

The author is evidently sceptical about the United Kingdom and Britishness and enthusiastic about identities which he perceives as flourishing under devolution. He fights shy of describing himself as a nationalist, but disproportionately it is through nationalist voices that he chooses to investigate the effects of devolved government. There is a pervading sense in the book of unionism as an anti-progressive force, which is never qualified, justified or investigated. Conversely the notion that nationalism can represent anything other than a centre left ideology, committed to egalitarianism and free prescriptions, is not explored. Hannan makes allusions on a number of occasions to the European Union and a blurring of borders and sovereignty, but just when you think he might be about to touch upon something original or interesting, he leaves his thought dangling, half-formed.

What Hannan does do well is cartoon and stereotype. He would probably make a serviceable satirist, but instead he chooses to present his brand of wry cliché as a credible version of Britain as it is in actuality. Thus we have the national identity reduced to obstruction of progress and suspicion of foreigners, as epitomised by readers of the Daily Mail. It might provide a facetious swing to the author’s prose, but this is no serious examination of identity and nationhood. Britain has assimilated an extraordinary range of immigrants, for the most part with few difficulties. We have a society which is remarkably sensitised to causing any type of offence. Yes we are excessively preoccupied with celebrity, sensationalism and have developed a rivalry with our near neighbours. Those are traits which are common to the modern developed world, rather than the UK. Picking out iniquities associated with the mass media and elevating them to defining characteristics of Britishness is neither plausible nor insightful. Taking the piss out of Prince Charles might be fun, but it does not make the rest of his countrymen modernity hating, homeopathic remedy junkies, however much Hannan might attempt to suggest otherwise.

I do not wish to dwell on the most sweeping of Hannan’s stereotypes. He depicts Northern Irish people as a whole, and unionists in particular, as an exotic breed of puritans who lack the charm to interact successfully with their fellow citizens. I think most people here are immune to any offence caused by this type of cliché. I will merely point out that the comparative success which Terry Wogan has enjoyed in mainland broadcasting may partly be due to the mellifluousness of his accent, but Gerry Anderson’s parochial style bombed because it is crap, not because the rest of Britain loathes his accent!

Although I might not agree with its argument, if a book is persuasive, scholarly and well written it still makes a worthwhile read. If its argument is half-baked, if it is poorly researched and if it is composed mainly of hearsay, conjecture and stereotype, then it deserves to be criticised. ‘A Useful Fiction’ will leave its readers less enlightened about Britain and less enlightened about devolution than they were before they read it.