DUP Iris Does It Again

Days Like These No7

by Guest Blogger Gerry Fitzpatrick

I'll not be commenting on the precise details Mrs R's recent outburst but wish to look at it's political consequences. What the Belfast Agreement and the St Andrew's Agreement was about for the British and Irish governments and Sinn Fein was to present the the DUP as new 'shiney happy people' (as the Irish Times described IPsnr) and every thing in the new DUP/SF future will be fine and if not fine - manageable.

After several incidents involving the DUP bigotry and malpractice SF's condemnations of their partners in government are waring pretty thin, because they are the ones who have vested interest in the fantasy that DUP can be what they want them to be - and not what they are.

The difference between this latest DUP instance of homophobia and previous instances is that the DUP via Iris are now telling us loud and clear 'they will not be silenced' not by anyone and have a right to their views. She has now been reported to the police by various groups - including the Alliance party for her hate speech. That will, if nothing else show us just how strong the DUP and Loyalist bigotry is here, as she is turned into a Loyalist hero -a 'victim' of 'liberal left political correctness' as one of her supporters put it .

The endorsement given by Iris to Dr Miller who is still practices aversion therapy in the province is now official as Mrs Robinsion is not only the chair of the Stormont health committee she also sat on the the special committee on suicide prevention. Now we know her solution for people who have suffered as a result of homophobia 'I know a Dr, who can help you change your sexual orientation...'. The person she offered that advise to had just been beaten and left for dead in Carmoney a few days ago.

Sinn Fein seem to think that they are dealing with a New DUP when they are the same as when they first started - an organisation devoted to reaction pure and simple. And it is Sinn Fein that we all have to thank for putting the DUP and that reaction into government.

Posturing or Prophesy?

The resignation of Ian Paisley has been widely reported as representing no threat to the power sharing institutions of the St. Andrews Agreement. This is something of a puzzle since Paisley’s resignation is in no small part a result of the Dromore by-election, which saw a substantial minority of unionist voters register their complete opposition to power sharing. It is not much of a surprise therefore that the London ‘Times’ has revealed the British government’s real concern for the future of the power sharing deal.

It stated that ‘The timing of his [Paisley’s] loss is profoundly unfortunate. The new institutions have been reasonably well established but cannot be described as secure. It would have been in the best interests of Northern Ireland if the First Minister could have stayed in place for at least another six months, entrenching the DUP-Sinn Fein accord further in the process, dealing with the controversial transfer of policing and justice to the Province and seeing through the summer marching season.’ The ‘Times’ went on ‘If Mr Robinson starts to find artificial fights with those who should be his partners then this will be reciprocated. And if that occurs, a fragile political bargain that serves the wider interests of Protestants and Catholics alike may be imperilled. Mr Robinson needs to state unequivocally that he intends to make the new arrangements work and that extremists who disagree with him can take their leave of the DUP.’

Peter Robinson however might recall that previous unionist leaders have come a cropper by going along with British demands, and that Paisley didn’t get where he was - to be top of the unionist pile - by compromising with Irish nationalism. The Dromore by-election was simply a reminder of this. The votes for the most blistering opponents of the current deal were of course a minority but Paisley also stated off in a much smaller minority.

No sooner had this warning been issued but Robinson revealed the end game of the DUP, indeed of all unionism, by stating that they aimed to dispense with power sharing altogether and head towards majority rule, i.e. unionist rule – ‘a far more normal democracy‘ he said. This is one hell of a sham fight to pick. The media have stayed true to their servile support for British policy by passing over this statement almost in silence. Certainly the threat to destroy the existing institutions by the putative leader of the biggest party has hardly received the attention it deserves. Nationalism has closed its eyes and hopes it’s all posturing. I think however this might be what SDLP politicians call ‘Sunningdale for slow learners’, thinking themselves ever so smart, but totally forgetting what happened to Sunningdale in the end.

It would also have been better for Sinn Fein if it too pretended that Robinson hadn’t said what he actually did say. Their response has been so weak as to reveal nakedly their limp prostration in front of the DUP. With Paisley having just revealed that the ‘chuckle brothers’ of himself and Martin McGuinness were not getting on quite so famously – he never refereed to McGuinness by name but only as ‘deputy’ and never once shook his hand; Paisley also crowed that he had in fact achieved his long standing election battle cry of "smashing Sinn Fein."

Much ridiculed because the Sinners are now in government, Paisley’s logic is pretty compelling. ‘I did smash them because I took away their main plank. Their main plank was that they would not recognise the British government. They can’t be true republicans when they now accept the right of Britain to govern this country and to take part in that government.’ As the ‘Times’ put it: ‘Bobby Sands and nine other men did not starve themselves to death so that Mr McGuinness could play the lesser role in a Chuckle Brothers routine within the United Kingdom,’ except that is what has happened.

Gerry Adams warned the DUP not to pick ‘sham and phoney fights with Sinn Fein.’ Why? Because this would frighten away foreign investment! The same foreign investment that isn’t coming in the first place. So no mention of what Sinn Fein would actually do to protect its position in government. Instead Adams stated, after having even been prevented from holding a commemoration for a republican volunteer at Stormont, that ‘republicans have been banned and censored and excluded before. Banned as a political party; banned from our city centre; banned from the airways; banned and demonised and vilified, and we came through it all.’

But isn’t all that supposed to belong to the past? Aren’t they now in government? Isn’t that supposed to mean an end to such things? Why are they now banned from certain places – Stormont’s Long Gallery; banned from the airways – unionist prevented cameras from accessing any attempt to film their commemoration anywhere else at Stormont? And what about the constant vilification, not to mention of humiliation, of Sinn Fein by the DUP – who continue to boast that they have ‘smashed’ the republicans?

Anyone who wants to write all this off as simple posturing hasn’t been paying attention over the last forty years. What do they call it? The triumph of wishful thinking over experience?

By-election result sends warning to DUP

The defeat in a council by-election in Dromore has sent a stark warning to the DUP over power-sharing with Sinn Fein. Its first electoral test since the restoration of devolution, in a district considered a good barometer of unionist opinion, proved to be a disaster.

The by-election had been sparked by the resignation of a UUP councillor. In such circumstances an alternative UUP member could have been co-opted to serve the remainder of the term. But the DUP insisted on a by-election. Obviously, the party was confident of pickling up another seat. The contest would also enable the DUP to advance its broader objective of consolidating its leading position within unionism by eating further into the support of the UUP, and smothering the challenge of the Anti-St Andrews Agreement unionists grouped around Jim Allister’s Tradition Unionist Voice (TUV).

On the face of it the DUP was well placed to achieve both these objectives. It already held four out of five seats in that ward and in the last council election in 2005 had won over fifty percent of the vote. A repeat of that performance would have seen it romp home. In the event the DUP came a poor second behind the UUP.

Its support slumped from around 50 per cent of the total poll in 2005 to about 28 per cent. Though the UUP won the seat it did not increase its share of the vote. The decisive factor in this election was the performance of the TUV. It took almost 20 percent of the first preference votes cast over all, and nearly 28 per cent of the total unionist vote. Finishing third, its transfers went to the UUP and ended up eliminating the DUP. The fact that most of its transfers went to the UUP demonstrates the degree to which its supporters wanted to punish the DUP.

The Dromore by- election witnessed the DUP being deserted by a significant chunk of its supporters. Given the TUV’s unambiguous position on the St Andrew’s Agreement, this is clearly a vote against power sharing. It reveals that a solid block within unionism is still opposed to power sharing with under any circumstances, even under a settlement as favourable to unionism as St Andrews.

The DUP had been able to accommodate them through the last Assembly election when it did not firmly commit itself to going into government with Sinn Fein. The poor showing of the anti-St Andrews candidates also strengthened the mainstream belief the rejectionist element had been marginalized, and that most had fallen in behind Paisley. However, this assumption has come under strain recently. The first indication was Paisley being deposed as moderator of the Free Presbyterian Church, and the growing speculation over his role as First Minister and DUP leader. Now with the Dromore by-election result we have firm evidence of a revolt among the party’s supporters. If such a result was repeated elsewhere, and remember Dromore was considered to be a relatively moderate area, the DUP could be in serious trouble. The TUV has the potential to do to the DUP what it did to the Ulster Unionists.

There were two reactions from the DUP to the Dromore result. One was to be dismissive. For example, Ian Paisley described it as a "flash in the pan." The other was one of concern. DUP Executive Minister Edwin Poots conceded that there was “an underlying level of discontent.” The local MP Jeffrey Donaldson said: "there is a protest vote there that we cannot ignore. We have got to recognise that message." They both promised that the DUP would listen to its supporters.

While one bad election result won’t precipitate a crisis within DUP it does create restlessness within the party, and will encourage those who have been biting their tongue over the settlement to speak out. Indeed, Jim Allister in the wake to the Dromre by-election, made an explicit appeal to this layer, asking them to “ponder whether by their presence and acquiescence they are not propping up the very thing which concerns them.”

The DUP leadership for its part will try to assuage its wavering supporters by cutting out the “Chuckle Brothers” routines and toughening its stance towards Sinn Fein. However, it will be difficult for the DUP to pick with a fight party that won’t defend itself and continues to capitulate on every issue (such as the Irish language) that it once claimed to hold dear. It also won’t assuage those unionists who are offended by the very presence of nationalists in Government. The only other option for the DUP is to bring the whole settlement crashing down. Any more electoral shocks, such as a victory for Jim Allister in next year’s European elections, may leave them with little alternative.

The St Andrews settlement is not about to collapse, but after Dromore by-election it is looking unsteadier. Jim Allister could rightly crow that it was “a very unhappy St Valentine's Day for the Chuckle Brothers."