NI elections-looks like Trimble wipeout and South Belfast goes nationalist

MT

This piece on the election result from Professor Paul Bew analyses the gloomy prospects emanating from DUP/Sinn Fein dominence. The reference to Yeat's poem seems to encapsulate this troubling moment in the North's history.

Political future of North lies at the mercy of SF and DUP

AT last it is over. The Fat Lady has sung - or more accurately as it is Ulster, the Fat Gospel Singer has sung.

The political centre in Northern Ireland has taken the anticipated hit - in the official unionist camp, a huge hit with the loss of David Trimble's seat. The SDLP's blow was lessened with leader Mark Durkan holding his seat in Derry.

However, the political future of the North now lies, even more than before, at the tender mercy of Sinn Fein and the DUP.

The celebrated WB Yeats poem 'The Second Coming' captured just such a moment: "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; . . .The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity."

Yeats asked the terrifying question: "And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?"

There is now a question which transcends in significance the about the Union - what does it mean for the future of democracy in this island? But does a mood of gloomy Yeatsean apocalypticism engulf the Department of Foreign Affairs or the Northern Ireland Office or the State Department?

There are a few uneasy souls, it is true, within these portals. The dominant mood is more upbeat - 'no problem, buddy'. Some important figures, like News of the World reporters of old, are in the process of making their excuses and leaving, but otherwise the cry is 'business as usual'.

What happened yesterday is the function of two associated developments. Firstly, the communal polarisation which first displayed itself in Sinn Fein's 2001 general election victory over the SDLP and the substantial inroads made then by the DUP into the UUP vote.

But it is also the function of an official cast of mind which has been operative since at least 2001, that it was not worth expending chips to protect the SDLP and UUP, and that the real deal to be done in Northern Ireland was the deal between the two extremes.

Tony Blair was, in fact, the last to be convinced of the viability of such a strategy. In summer 2003 he postponed the Assembly election because he could not convince himself that a Sinn Fein/DUP government was a realistic prospect.

In the autumn, worn down by contrary advice in London, Dublin and Washington, Blair gave way.

He called the election "to nothing" in the face of a massive unionist belief (60pc in the polls) that such an election was unnecessary. The very act of calling it demonstrated that Sinn Fein now drove the agenda. David Trimble lost the leadership of unionist politics.

Far more profoundly, the polling evidence from the unionist community began to show a growing reluctance to share power with Sinn Fein. A reluctance that was, of course, fuelled by headlines about Stormont-gate spying scandals, bank robberies and murder.

The Good Friday Agreement institutions remain down; we're approaching the third anniversary of their collapse.

But, it will be said, with some justice, that the DUP and Sinn Fein came close to a deal last December - the so-called Comprehensive Agreement published by the two governments. This is seen by many as clear evidence that the two parties will put together a deal over the next two years.

Perhaps. But last year the governments managed to grind the DUP down during the negotiations. They succeeded in creating within the DUP a Trimble-like focus on the issue of decommissioning. The issue of IRA disbandment was not even raised.

Senior Irish sources have now repeatedly opined that Britain did not have a serious anti-criminality agenda.

Despite all this the DUP gave way on their demand for a lengthy decontamination period. The parties agreed to fudge the crucial issue of devolution of policing and justice. This means that Sinn Fein controls one of these two ministries.

Will it be possible to pull the same trick again? Will the DUP, having eliminated the opposition within unionism, be even more pliant? That, as Martin Mansergh made clear last week, is the hope in Irish government circles.

But if the DUP clings to its precondition of "full disbandment" of the IRA, as stated in the Belfast Newsletter, May 1, 2005, and Martin McGuinness sticks to his position of the same day in The Irish Times, that there will be no IRA disbandment, it is difficult to see a deal.

The Sinn Fein leadership appears in various moods to be offering a divorce - pseudo-divorce, some say - with the IRA. They appear to offer also a substantial but not total decommissioning and a 'new mode'.

But, at this point, this new mode in which the IRA reiterates its respect for the peaceful values of the Good Friday Agreement - offered, after all, to David Trimble in 2003 - appears to leave the command structure, mission statement and recruitment activities of a possibly slimmed-down organisation in place.

Tellingly, the British government appears to be comfortable with continued recruitment, though Justice Minister Michael McDowell has set his face against it.

Then there is the key question of the human quality of any such deal. How much stability will it bring?

Seamus Mallon has pointed out that the Comprehensive Agreement has already vandalised the Good Friday Agreement by ripping out the consensual cross-community procedures by which he and David Trimble were elected in 1998 to the co-premiership of Northern Ireland.

This was a move of huge symbolic significance. Would a DUP/Sinn Fein executive really reduce the source of conflict in the North? Like it or not, this is the terrain we are now on.

The Good Friday Agreement project, as it existed in 1998, no longer exists. This was clear even before Tony Blair was weakened by the judgment of the British electorate in a way which will encourage all the local politicians to hold back.

Professor Paul Bew is Professor of Politics at Queen's University Belfast.

Irish Independent (7/5/05)

cdebru

MT wrote:

The move in the wake of this election by party apologists to claim it as a huge boost for Sinn Fein is as much an illusory con trick as their posturing after the Meath by-election. Just as was the case then, Sinn Fein’s share of the vote went up due to an over all fall in voting. The small increase of 2.6% in their vote was not due to winning over converts from other parties but the result of getting out their core vote when many moderate voters failed to turn up. Exactly the same thing occurred in Meath where the number of votes cast for SF didn’t increase but the percentage did due to a considerable drop in turn-out elsewhere.

So the bragging we’ll now endure from many supporters is based upon nothing more than the illusory increase the party experienced earlier this year during the Dail by-election. As for winning people over to their view point and strengthening the support for their arguments that will never happen as long as the appeal solely to their own voters and ignore everyone else.

It’s interesting that the subdued reaction of some of the Republicans up here yesterday is possibly an indication that they realise the party will experience little further growth while tailoring their approach to suit - and only canvassing in - the Movement’s diehard fiefdoms. I reckon the trail off in the increase in the SF vote in recent years has now found its ceiling of about 25% of the total share. And this 1 in 4 status of the party is hardly a sweeping endorsement of Gerry and the gang.




You have no way of knowing who the majority of Nationalists that live in Northern Ireland support. Given the low turn out of about 60% they could just as easily support the SDLP more than Sinn Fein. Indeed, given that moderates have stayed away from the poles in increasing numbers up here in recent years it’s much more likely that on a full turn-out it’d be the SDLP that would romp home as winners on the Nationalist side of the divide. You’d be much closer to the reality if you rephrased your claim by stating that it is a majority of extreme sectarian Nationalists in NI that support SF.



Sinn Fein have had more than a decade to deliver an end to IRA violence so on what basis do claim they will deliver peace? Based on the party’s record I’d say they either can’t or won’t. And when will SF respect the wishes of the people of this island and embrace the Good Friday Agreement and bring an end to the IRA, its violence and its criminality? You see, both the extremes in NI are as bad as each other when it comes to picking and choosing what popular wishes they will and will not respect.



You could say exactly the same thing for the much larger mandate of the DUP. So which side do we respect? Is it to be the party of IRA violence or the party of Protestant Jihad? If I were either of Bert or Mike I’d choose to ignore the ravings of both of them.

of course what you are choosing to ignore is that the reason SFs number of votes has remained static is that in areas where their seats are viewed as safe ie mid ulster west belfast west tyrone there was an overall drop in turnout each of these 3 canidates each recieved about 3000 votes less than in 2001 even though their share of the vote remained the same or increased

in constituencies where they were vying for seats or were not that safe
ie fermanagh south tyrone foyle south down newry armagh their number of votes actually increased substantially


in unionist majority constituencies their vote numbers remained static in some rose in some and fell in some

the figures dispute your contention that SF did not win over any converts


http://www.ark.ac.uk/elections/

Victor

Earthman wrote:

By the way steering through the meleé that is Northern Ireland politics and looking at the votes cast this time, theres no question but the "green" vote is growing.I've no doubt although others here will disagree with me, that within a decade or two, both camps there will be close to neck and neck.

But it will take a decade or two at least for any real shift in percentages (seats will come and go), demographics are against nationalism at the moment.

I suspect the only gain available to nationalism is possibly North Belfast, depending on boundary changes.

cdebru

MT wrote:

This piece on the election result from Professor Paul Bew analyses the gloomy prospects emanating from DUP/Sinn Fein dominence. The reference to Yeat's poem seems to encapsulate this troubling moment in the North's history.

that would be paul bew advisor to David trimble hardly shocking that he has a gloomy analysis considering the beating the UUP received from the DUP

oscarBravo

Earthman wrote:

Well you should respect their right to come to that decision, whilst not respecting the decision or rather disagreeing with the decision itself.
Thats what you are doing isnt it?

Yes. I see no inconsistency between vehemently defending someone's right to vote for whomever they wish, and vehemently castigating them for voting for candidates I find repugnant.

That's democracy.

cdebru

cdebru wrote:

in constituencies where they were vying for seats or were not that safe
ie fermanagh south tyrone foyle south down newry armagh their number of votes actually increased substantially

In South Belfast according to Bríd Rodgers on the BBC yesterday, the SF vote was down nearly 1200 votes when compared to the 2003 Assembly elections.
Their share of the vote there falling from 13% to 9%, the figures are here .

cdebru

Earthman wrote:

In South Belfast according to Bríd Rodgers on the BBC yesterday, the SF vote was down nearly 1200 votes when compared to the 2003 Assembly elections.
Their share of the vote there falling from 13% to 9%, the figures are here .

in unionist majority constituencies their vote numbers remained static in some rose in some and fell in some

what is your point earthman
sinn fein where never in contention for south belfast and read that quote from my post how does your post contradict anything i said

actually it is 1051 votes from 2003
and 8 from 2001

of course Alasdair McDonnell lost 1270 votes since 2001 but still got elected

MT

cdebru wrote:

of course what you are choosing to ignore is that the reason SFs number of votes has remained static is that in areas where their seats are viewed as safe ie mid ulster west belfast west tyrone there was an overall drop in turnout each of these 3 canidates each recieved about 3000 votes less than in 2001 even though their share of the vote remained the same or increased

What you are choosing not to recognise is that the Sinn Fein vote may very well have fallen due to voters making a concious decision not to give them an X as opposed to not turning up because their desired SF candidate would make it home safely anyway. There is every possibility - and I'd say the most likely explanation in light of recent events - that the 3000 lost votes were due to a switch of support or apathy inspired by the party's recent behaviour - each way it's a real loss of support. Again, both scenarios are very different from noting voting for your candidate because s/he's safe.

Furthermore, there was a clear shift of votes from SF to the SDLP in south Belfast despite extensive canvassing by Alex Maskey and an appeal by Gerry Adams to nationalists urging them not to waste their votes on Alasdair McDonnell.

cdebru wrote:

in unionist majority constituencies their vote numbers remained static in some rose in some and fell in some

Interestingly, DUP supporters have given the same reasoning as yourself for this occurence. They claim that in the constituencies where the DUP was victorious the result was so much of a foregone conclusion that turnout was much lower than might have been expected in a competitive contest. Remarkable, to see how the same spin is employed by both extremes.

cdebru wrote:

the figures dispute your contention that SF did not win over any converts

I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you once again. The most likely cause of the slight increase in the SF vote was the lower turnout resulting from greater apathy amongst SDLP voters. The effect was to accentuate the apparent gains of SF much as took place in Meath.

If anyone can gloat about a swing from one party to another it's probably the DUP with their much greater 11% gain. However, even here this was mostly due to apathy in UUP areas.

The aim of the extremes throughout this campaign was to foster apathy in the middle while bringing out their core votes at each end of the political spectrum. Hence, the low key campaign by both to suppress the vote. The air of inevitability surrounding what was seen by many as merely a consolidation election for the DUP and Sinn Fein also turned moderate voters off. As is now clear the strategy worked much more effectively for the DUP than SF.

cdebru

cdebru wrote:

what is your point earthman
sinn fein where never in contention for south belfast and read that quote from my post how does your post contradict anything i said

Was I meant to contradict anything you said?
But seeing as we are looking for something,I'll ask why the SDLP vote isnt being taken by SF in that constituency? It would seem in fact to be the other way round.

of course Alasdair McDonnell lost 1270 votes since 2001 but still got elected

which would be understandable given that the turnout was 7000 higher in 2001

Whereas the turn out between the 2003 and 2005 elections was actually about the same meaning that Maskeys loss of a 1000 votes in 2005 was of more significance than comparing the loss of 1200 votes by mcdonnell in 2005 with 2001 when the 2001 election had 7000 more voters.
What would you think have contributed to the loss between 03 and 05 in maskeys case,it wasnt turnout as both were the same.
The sdlp vote went up in that constituency by 3000 plus votes between 2003 and 2005 on the same approximate turnout.

cdebru

MT wrote:

What you are choosing not to recognise is that the Sinn Fein vote may very well have fallen due to voters making a concious decision not to give them an X as opposed to not turning up because their desired SF candidate would make it home safely anyway. There is every possibility - and I'd say the most likely explanation in light of recent events - that the 3000 lost votes were due to a switch of support or apathy inspired by the party's recent behaviour - each way it's a real loss of support. Again, both scenarios are very different from noting voting for your candidate because s/he's safe.




Furthermore, there was a clear shift of votes from SF to the SDLP in south Belfast despite extensive canvassing by Alex Maskey and an appeal by Gerry Adams to nationalists urging them not to waste their votes on Alasdair McDonnell.



Interestingly, DUP supporters have given the same reasoning as yourself for this occurence. They claim that in the constituencies where the DUP was victorious the result was so much of a foregone conclusion that turnout was much lower than might have been expected in a competitive contest. Remarkable, to see how the same spin is employed by both extremes.



I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you once again. The most likely cause of the slight increase in the SF vote was the lower turnout resulting from greater apathy amongst SDLP voters. The effect was to accentuate the apparent gains of SF much as took place in Meath.

If anyone can gloat about a swing from one party to another it's probably the DUP with their much greater 11% gain. However, even here this was mostly due to apathy in UUP areas.

The aim of the extremes throughout this campaign was to foster apathy in the middle while bringing out their core votes at each end of the political spectrum. Hence, the low key campaign by both to suppress the vote. The air of inevitability surrounding what was seen by many as merely a consolidation election for the DUP and Sinn Fein also turned moderate voters off. As is now clear the strategy worked much more effectively for the DUP than SF.

of course the evidence shows that the sinn fein share of the vote stayed static in the 3 constituencies in which they were viewed as being safe

in the constituency were they were vunerable fermanagh south tyrone the SF vote was up on 2001 and 2003

in constituencies that they were in contention the SF vote was up

now your suggestion that the loss of votes but static share in the 3 safe constituencies is due to recent events is illogical the only logical conclusion is that some people did not bother to vote because the result was a foregone conclusion the fact that the share of the vote is fairly static shows that not just SF voters realised this
how else do you explain the rise in the SF vote where they were in contention
were the people in these constituencies unaware of recent events had news of the3 northern bank robbery not spread to foyle or south down or newry armagh

the same explanation from the DUP is not surprising it is commonsense


alex maskeys vote drop could be a consequence of the mccartney murder but we will find out for sure when the local election results are out

Sand

You don't believe in democracy then? Or is your version of democracy, only the people who vote the way you want will get accepted and not be slagged?

Pffft - dont lecture me on respect for democracy when you support a armed terrorist organisation. If it was up to me terrorists wouldnt have the option of abstaining from democratic institutions - theyd be banned from entering them in the first place.

And I will happily call a spade a spade and if the people vote for bigoted, sectarian terrorists rather than moderates then Ill call into question their morals and their intelligence. Thats *ENTIRELY* compatible with democracy. Lying to undermine the investigation of a murder, like SF/IRA politician Groogan did is not. People who support Groogan and her terrorist organisation deserve contempt. People who are dull witted enough to think theyre not a terrorist organisation deserve pity.

Given Trimble's typically selfish and petulant attitude, I'd give no chance of that. Trimble has in the past called for votes to go to the DUP ahead of pro-Agreement parties like the SDLP(!)

Id imagine hes facing up to the fact hes going to have to think outside the box for the next elections. He cant out-do the DUP at extremism. The SDLP have also managed to ride the wave of moral dysfunction that has benefitted SF/IRA by getting cross community tactical voting.

God knows, until people are willing to vote for a law abiding politician from the other community, ahead of terrorists from their own community Northern Ireland is doomed.

Oh, come on. Anyone who knows anything *knows* that it was Hume-Adams that started this. The UUP only came on because they were being leaned on by the Brits (who were in turn being leaned on by the Yanks).

No - it was Hume who managed to persuade Adams to give negotiation a chance. It was Trimble who took the plunge and managed to win support for negotiations over the future of Northern Ireland in Unionism. Trimble didnt do so for Adams - if anything Adams involvement as a terrorist made it all the harder for Trimble to sell to Unionists - who have been proven right that SF/IRA are not serious about a final settlement. It was Hume and Trimble who got this show on the road and kept it on the road for as long as they could, and it was the DUP, SF/IRA and the government who constantly belitted Hume & Trimble who destroyed it.

Adams only ****ing contribution was to order the IRA not kill as many people as they used to, to go on a temporary tactical loosely enforced ceasefire. He has delivered absolutely nothing else. Nothing.

Well under those circumstances you cant expect those who voted for SF to give a damn about your views on certain issues and take your point of view on board and weigh up the pluses and nagatives of your opinion if you dont respect them and their mandate.

Its blatantly clear that they don't anyway so no big loss. Personally so long as we isolate the moral dystopia to northern ireland then Im fine with them screwing themselves and the future of their children by voting for killers, thugs, bank thieves and religious whackos to represent them. Its sad of course, but if people are determined to hit themselves in the bollocks repeatedly with a hammer you cant really stop them can you?

And as for mandate, I've really got to lay my hands on one of those new T Shirts that has Gerrys mug on it and just below it "Hitler had a mandate too".

Yet Durkan sees no problem with them voting for him but objects to SF types.

What exactly is the problem? Durkan will probably represent people without concern of what "tribe" theyre from. SF/IRA are terrorist scum who were killing people for being from the wrong "tribe" not so long ago - Without PR, unionists and nationalists will have to vote tactically to keep out terrorists from government. I just hope the moderate parties are brave enough to go into voting pacts to try and preserve some sanity in Northern Ireland.

Maoltuile

Sand wrote:

Maoltuile wrote:

Sand wrote:

Hopefully when theyre forced into a hardplace the UUP and the SDLP will engage in voting pacts in future elections to try and somehow keep the center ground together.

Given Trimble's typically selfish and petulant attitude, I'd give no chance of that. Trimble has in the past called for votes to go to the DUP ahead of pro-Agreement parties like the SDLP(!)

imagine hes facing up to the fact hes going to have to think outside the box for the next elections. He cant out-do the DUP at extremism. The SDLP have also managed to ride the wave of moral dysfunction that has benefitted SF/IRA by getting cross community tactical voting.

If I've decoded that correctly, you agree with Trimble that pro-Agreement Unionist voters should vote for the DUP ahead of SDLP in PR elections. I've given up on trying to understand what your SDLP comment is meant to mean. *shrug*

Sand wrote:

Maoltuile wrote:

Sand wrote:

is sad however to see how people are rejecting the peace proccess on both sides by punishing the parties that created it and supported it. It wasnt the DUP or SF/IRA that made the peace proccess - the collapse of the peace proccess and their increasing power isnt unconnected.

Oh, come on. Anyone who knows anything *knows* that it was Hume-Adams that started this. The UUP only came on because they were being leaned on by the Brits (who were in turn being leaned on by the Yanks).

- it was Hume who managed to persuade Adams to give negotiation a chance. It was Trimble who took the plunge and managed to win support for negotiations over the future of Northern Ireland in Unionism. Trimble didnt do so for Adams - if anything Adams involvement as a terrorist made it all the harder for Trimble to sell to Unionists - who have been proven right that SF/IRA are not serious about a final settlement. It was Hume and Trimble who got this show on the road and kept it on the road for as long as they could, and it was the DUP, SF/IRA and the government who constantly belitted Hume & Trimble who destroyed it.

Adams only ****ing contribution was to order the IRA not kill as many people as they used to, to go on a temporary tactical loosely enforced ceasefire. He has delivered absolutely nothing else. Nothing.

I hold no truck for Sinn Féin, but to insist that Adams hadn't an essential part along with Hume in starting all this is bizarre. In the list of people who've helped to get the Peace Process moving, Trimble comes a *very* long way down the line after Hume, Adams, Reynolds, Blair, Clinton, Mowlem and others. Davey has dragged his feet and done his level best to wreck the process at every opportunity presented to him (just ask Seamus Mallon).

cdebru

Earthman wrote:

Was I meant to contradict anything you said?
But seeing as we are looking for something,I'll ask why the SDLP vote isnt being taken by SF in that constituency? It would seem in fact to be the other way round.
which would be understandable given that the turnout was 7000 higher in 2001

Whereas the turn out between the 2003 and 2005 elections was actually about the same meaning that Maskeys loss of a 1000 votes in 2005 was of more significance than comparing the loss of 1200 votes by mcdonnell in 2005 with 2001 when the 2001 election had 7000 more voters.
What would you think have contributed to the loss between 03 and 05 in maskeys case,it wasnt turnout as both were the same.
The sdlp vote went up in that constituency by 3000 plus votes between 2003 and 2005 on the same approximate turnout.

it could be a couple of reasons

1 could be a reaction to mccartney murder particularly maskeys comments afterwards
2 could be tactical voting by SF voters because the SDLP were highlighting that this was possible ie a split in the unionist vote
3 could be people just not voting due to apathy etc


I think the local election results in belfast will tell us more in relation to what happened in south belfast to the SF vote

interestingly the short strand were robert mccartney was from is in east belfast the SF vote share remained static down 0.1%
although about 150 votes down on a lower turnout
the SDLP vote was also pretty static up 0.3% so the robert mccartney murder did not seem to have any major impact were you would imagine it would be hit worse

cdebru

cdebru wrote:

2 could be tactical voting by SF voters because the SDLP were highlighting that this was possible ie a split in the unionist vote

I'd heard commentators discounting this as McDonnell had Michael McDowell up for a visit during the election campaign,something which alienated SF voters.

cdebru

Earthman wrote:

I'd heard commentators discounting this as McDonnell had Michael McDowell up for a visit during the election campaign,something which alienated SF voters.

it may have alienated SF or even some SF voters as too wether it would prevent people who were voting SDLP in 2001 returning to the SDLP when they had a chance of winning a seat in a majority unionist constituency I doubt it

which leads me back to the question, why didnt SF win that seat on their Tide instead given that SDLP and SF votes are so interchangeable ?

cdebru

eh fairly obviously
South belfast has a more middle class catholic electorate
the SDLP has been the larger of the two in South Belfast even with SF best result in that constituency the SDLP had over twice as many votes if there was a chance that a nationalist could come between the 2 unionists it was never going to be a SF candidate
FPTP as is being discussed in the other thread forces people to vote against people as much as for people I am sure not everyone that votes for SF in fermanagh south tyrone does it because they fully support SF
SF is the party that is capable of holding the seat from the unionists so some nationalists are faced with a choice vote SF or have a unionist mp

the local election results will give us a much better view of everyones support