KANE AND AN ABLE REPLY...
Sunday, November 15, 2009 at 01:27PM 
My good friend Alex Kane, UUP Director of Communications, posed some questions to TUV leader Jim Allister in a recent column in the Newsletter and here is Jim's reply.
"I begin this response to Alex Kane’s contribution of 9th November by frankly apologising to him for advising him on 8th March 2007 not to “judge the DUP by the standards of the UUP!” I was wrong to have put any faith in the DUP standing by its solemn election pledges, for indeed, with even less honesty, the DUP foolishly followed the example of Alex's own party in bringing IRA/Sinn Fein into government.
Mr Kane’s article is both a contradiction and a counsel of despair. On one hand he agrees and identifies the reasons for the dysfunctional nature of the executive, the inability to vote a party out of government, the bar on an Opposition and lack of accountability as inherent flaws in the present Belfast Agreement arrangements, but is resigned to seeing nothing done about them. Therein we disagree.
I and TUV do not accept that we must continue to be the only part of the democratic world where by law you can neither vote a party out of government nor have an Opposition. This perversion of the basic tenets of democracy is so monstrous that no self-respecting democrat should lie down under it. TUV would not.
It is by a sufficient number of MLAs refusing to operate mandatory coalition that it will be starved of its legitimacy and all those who claim opposition to mandatory coalition will be tested. Then, we will see the durability of mandatory coalition. I believe it will flounder and the inevitable outcome will be fresh negotiations within which a sizeable section of Unionism will not be rolling over. Once mandatory coalition is made inoperative then alternatives will kick in, because the present Stormont parties’ reliance on sustaining an Assembly is such that even those who presently declare otherwise will then accept the logic of voluntary coalition.
Voluntary coalition does not ban Sinn Fein from government. Rather, it puts it on exactly the same footing as every other party that the only route into government is through the persuasion of sufficient other parties to agree a programme with them. TUV will never enter government with Sinn Fein, but if they can persuade others then we will be in Opposition, because we are democrats. If Sinn Fein are only democrats so long as they are in government, then they are not democrats at all. And we are being blackmailed as well as conned.
Someone of the intellect of Alex Kane should not diminish himself into lying down under the gross travesty that is mandatory coalition. Rather, he should be using his talents to help rid us of this blight. Indeed unionists of the calibre, skills and intellectual capacity of Alex are exactly the sort of people who can help realise the vision of a truly democratic system of government.
When the present unworkable edifice inevitably collapses it need not mean a reversion to Direct Rule, not that Direct Rule under a likely Conservative Government should worry the likes of Alex who is an enthusiastic supporter of the UUP Conservative alliance. Negotiations will follow, mandatory coalition under a Sinn Fein First Minister will be out of the question and thus the ultimate choice will be acceptable and democratic devolution or no Stormont. In these circumstances voluntary coalition will emerge as a viable alternative, more attainable now because of the demonstrable failure of the mandatory variety. All that stands in its way is the vested interest of the present Stormont parties and the resignation of some, Alex included, that special pleading or provision is required for Sinn Fein. It is this which the infusion of sufficient TUV MLAs will challenge and end."
I see it similarly. Alex does raise fair points but the question is whether a council of despair forms the basis for a political strategy that can win hearts and minds and help Unionism. I say it cannot and so Jim is right to posit an alternative and more inspiring opinion. Self evidently, those who prefer forced power-sharing will rule out any alternative until they are presented with the options Jim outlines. I believe that Alex perhaps underestimates the realpolitik that drives so many politicians, a possibility he and I will resolve over a pre-Christmas lunch I fancy!
Jim Allister, TUV, UUP. Alex Kane 
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (45)
Have you even thought the logic of this through? (lol)
By his own admission he knows he can't keep SF out of government.
Voluntary coalition does not ban Sinn Fein from government. Rather, it puts it on exactly the same footing as every other party that the only route into government is through the persuasion of sufficient other parties to agree a programme with them. TUV will never enter government with Sinn Fein, but if they can persuade others then we will be in Opposition, because we are democrats.
Opposition to who DV? Sinn Fein in government. Compared to the TUV the shinners are big boys. Take your head out of his ass.....;-)
If JJ wants unionism to get the blame for collapsing the Assembly then so be it however TUV gains will be marginal and negligible in their effectiveness.
"Once mandatory coalition is made inoperative then alternatives will kick in"
Be careful what you wish for...
"I and TUV do not accept that we must continue to be the only part of the democratic world where by law you can neither vote a party out of government nor have an Opposition. This perversion of the basic tenets of democracy is so monstrous that no self-respecting democrat should lie down under it. TUV would not."
Of course Jim is talking out of his arse. The Alliance Party currently form an Opposition. The SDLP and the UUP could resign from Government and take on the role of Opposition. Also, if in the next election, Sinn Féin only recieve 10,000 votes and only get say 2 seats then they won't be in Government. So Sinn Féin can be voted out of Government, while there can be an Opposition. So Jim is talking out of his arse.
The current situation, democracy wise, is exactly the same as it was 1921-1972. You can remove the Government, in the theory. The Electorate won't, in practice. There is an Opposition, in theory. They are relatively powerless and pointless, in practice.
I would imagine Jim would have little problem with the Government from 1921-1972.
Compared to the TUV, Shinners are foul terrorist apologists.
Mandatory power-sharing is undemocratic and must end.
The more Republicans shrill about this, the more attractive it looks to me! ;-)
If JJ ever brings his cunning plan to fruition it will give SF a penalty kick and ultra unionism will be treated as political pariahs for not wanting a Fenian about the place.
. Mandatory power-sharing is undemocratic and must end.
A bit like one party rule - it will end, but not yet. To coin a phrase there isn't enough public confidence for it to end. When that time comes it will end, but not before. At present there is a mandatory coalition needed to 'build consensus'. Jimbo has no chance of being elected, so he need to carp on about opposition. Truth be told, all he wants is his snout back in the trough.
The more Republicans shrill about this, the more attractive it looks to me! ;-)
Thats a mature strategy on a way forward.
where by law you can neither vote a party out of government
Yes you can vote a party out of government. For example the UKUP and PUP are not in government.
David
Mandatory power-sharing is undemocratic and must end.
There is nothing undemocratic or indeed mandatory about it. The people voted for the system and nobody has to sit in government if they don't want to. The idea that a the anti-agreement unionist fringe will dictate the end of the agreement to everybody else is so laughable that I have to assume there is a more intelligent plan somewhere in Jim Allister's brian.
The objective can only be a return to direct rule while pretending that there is an alternative form of devolution in order to escape the blame. Some unionist voters might fall for it but no British government will. Any party that refuses to take seats in the executive will be left outside and in the end will come crawling in. He doesn't have the votes to make a difference to anything except making Sinn Fein the biggest party.
You can't vote a party out of govt. You can only vote for a party to be in govt.
It is indeed an abomination (and anti-democratic) that any group or grouping that can has a majority of the representatives cannot form a governement.
The notion that something inherently undemocratic can be made so just by having a majority of people voting for it is ludicrous. A majority of people deciding to turn the country into a dictatership, wouldn't make dictatorships demcratic.
"The notion that something inherently undemocratic can be made so just by having a majority of people voting for it is ludicrous. A majority of people deciding to turn the country into a dictatership, wouldn't make dictatorships demcratic"
See six counites of Ulster and the state of Northern Ireland circa 1921
Aileen
Thanks for that - nice that someone agrees with me!
Too bad David that the electorate disagrees. The fact that you, along with Jim, are telling lies here, probably hasn't been ignored by the electorate either. Jim Allister is a relic of everything wrong with Irish Politics and the sooner he is put out of everyone's misery the better. Ultimately Jim Allister is good for Nationalism though. Jim will single handedly, like Jim Dixon before him, hand Nationalists seats, possibly even a majority of the Westminster seats.
aileen
If the differences in the parties were about policy then I'd agree with you but they are not. They are sectarian divisions arising out of a state created on sectarianism. If you think that nationalists will ever go back to being ruled over by unionists then you are very much mistaken. We do not consent to that and we will not put up with it.
That is why I believe the real objective of TUV is to make the institutions unworkable and to restore direct rule. But they know they will get nowhere on a Direct rule ticket.
David
I think it's fair to say that direct rule would be your choice. True?
Seamus
Accusing me and Jim of telling "lies" is bizarre,
Henry,
I favour either Direct Rule or a devolved shrunken Assembly with limited powers and a democratic system of voting people in and out of power.
David, both you and Jim Allister have stated that Sinn Féin can't be removed from Government. That is a lie.
DV what you've outlined there isn't devolved government. Does Jimbo agree with you? How limited would the powers be, for example no devoloution of policing and justice? No taxation powers? Outline if you can, because I think you toss out simple sentences without actually thinking what you say isn't practical nor anything that would resemble politics anywhere in the western world. Why have a small band of people with few powers in an assembly at all? Its a description of a jumped up local council, nothing more than a waste of tax payers money, it's nonsense and I think you know it.
G
What we already pay for IS jumped up local Council which does little other than divi up the block grant. It is dysfunctional, grossly expensive, and a farce.
My preferred route forward is to have a good government. If this is to be in a local Assembly, i want it on the same basis as every other country in western Europe. That means voluntary power sharing and it means an opposition to the Executive. This is not compatible with the model that exists at the moment and I want to see change. I also want to see Unionism united in one form or another and accepting the idea that it can form a strong pro-Union block that allows the majority community the opportunity to express its clear and unequivocal British identity.
P&J should NOT be devolved.
If this is not to be permitted, then Direct Rule it is. At least that precludes rule by terrorists.
Seamus
Please explain how Sinn Fein can be removed from government with reference to the BA and St Andrews Accord.
That means voluntary power sharing and it means an opposition to the Executive.
Don't you mean opposition within the elected assembly? Opposition exsists to persuade people that it could be an improvement on the government of the day. How would the TUV be an improvement on the government of the day if it seeks not to be in government with the elected representatives of a major party? Unless it sees itself in a state of permanent opposition. If government rests upon the consent of the people, and the people have elected Sinn Fein, then how does Jimbo square that problem, in a parliamentary democracy?
G,
Opposition outside the Executive - as in every other government in western government. You are absolutely right to state that opposition is there to provide an alternative to the Executive and cannot happen if the Party is part of the ruling executive.
I cannot speak for the TUV but I can suggest that it seeks to change the gameplan, bring about a voluntary based Executive and obviously seek to be part of that. The size of the vote for TUV will determine that, I guess.
Government rests on the will of the people. If enough people choose delegates opposed to Sinn Fein in government then that is entirely democratic. Consider Westminster - more people voted for the Conservative Party back in 2005 than did vote for Sinn Fein in 2007 BUT that did mean they could be part of the government. So Sinn Fein may need to prepare for a similar fate. Being committed to peace I see no issues from them, do you?
"Please explain how Sinn Fein can be removed from government with reference to the BA and St Andrews Accord."
If less people vote for them. The same as any system in the world. If Sinn Féin only got about 10,000 votes and only about 2 seats then they wouldn't be in Government. The Belfast Agreement allocates seats by the D'hondt method. If you don't receive enough seats then you don't get in Government which is why the Alliance Party, the Progressive Unionists and the Green Party aren't in Government. Sinn Féin can be removed from Government. Jim Allister's problem is that Sinn Féin won't be removed from Government.
I cannot speak for the TUV but I can suggest that it seeks to change the gameplan, bring about a voluntary based Executive and obviously seek to be part of that.
That is what I meant and ought to have made clear the distinction as you have done. I suppose that opposition and its role 'within' parliament is so much part of our language that shifting it to fit the example here involves a change of focus.
No I don't see any problems from SF if they aren't in government through lack of votes. Adams lost his seat to Hendron in West Belfast and got it back next time round, why would it be any different if it were the party, they'd make a formidable opposition, and in some cases still think they are in opposition rather than in government. Look also at the UUP, with a health minister joining a protest against his own health cuts. Yes - the style of government here is not based on a westminister model, but its what we need due to particular circumstances. Its cumbersome, almost at stale mate sometimes, but sooner or later the contradictions within will have to be addressed. It's needed now because there is no trust.
You won't get back one party rule David. The example you quote of SF is a wet dream, but dream on. I'd like to see them take a fall, but it won't happen. Nationalists need to be represented - and they are the biggest nationalist party. They've no competition within nationalism, none whatsoever.
Seamus
You fail to see that getting 26% of the vote should not entitle anyone automatically to a place in government. Under the BA, it guarantees it.
G
Nationalists DO deserve representation, I agree. But they have no automatic right to government. Same applies to Unionists. The wet dream is the Provo dream that they MUST be part of government. It needs to finish.
I don't fail to see that at all David. Jim Allister, and yourself, claimed that Sinn Féin can't be removed from Government. I showed that they can be.
Also:
Belfast style Government: Government has the support of the 86.4% of those who voted.
London style Government: Government has the support of 35.3% of those who voted.
Which is more democratic?
Seamus
In your parallel universe you did. With 26% of the vote they sit in an Executive. Why?
It can't finish. Key word 'power sharing'. This deal is done, Jim was in the DUP and still was not able to stop it, he has even less chance now in his own little band of has beens. He's too late. Even if Jimbo got elected with sufficent numbers of his cronies, he'd have to be part of a mandatory coalition - they aren't powerful enough to undo what has been agreed, signed sealed and delivered. It isn't possible. It's an attempt at one party rule by howling there is no parliamentary opposition. Jim has found his niche, he wants his snout back in the trough and this is his way of doing it.
Outside a minority, no one takes him seriously. AS Martin McGuinness said to some dissenting republicans back in 1984 I think it was, 'you aren't going anywhere but home'. Same with Jim, he's going no where but home. The Paisley act is entertaining, but look what happened there.
David,
Its the lesser of two evils. Unionists had their chance at Majority Rule and the cocked it up and caused a borderline civil war. Personally I don't like Mandatory Coalition. Personally I would prefer a normal Coalition Government but with inforced power sharing. I explained that before. But Mandatory Coalition is better than Majority Rule.
With 35% of the vote Labour are the only party in the British Government. Why?
Paisley betrayed his principles and has paid a price. More will be paid.
Voluntary power sharing will become the only choice other than DR. Simple as.
Mandatory power sharing is offensive to any democrat, that's why the IRA like it so much.
KEITH HARBINSON & JIM ALLISTER OF TRADITIONAL UNIONIST VOICE AS edited by DV - just banal abuse!
Well, David, in the most recent election, only 6 months ago, 86.5% of voters disagreed with you on that. Power Sharing is here to stay. Enforced power sharing is here to stay. The D'hondt may go but power sharing wont.
Voluntary power sharing will become the only choice other than DR. Simple as.
Did you get that from your tarot cards David ;-)
Mandatory power sharing is offensive to any democrat, that's why the IRA like it so much.
Maybe unionists of Jim's ilk don't like it because they have to share power with nationalists.
The IRA have gone away you know Sinn Fein are in power, maybe you and I don't like that for different reasons, but its unlikely to change so we may lump it. Mandatory coalition is there for the foreseeable future, and jim is doomed to be on the sidelines. So say my tarots, we'll have to wait and see who is right won't we? ;-)
33% of unionists did, Seamus.
G
No lumping it here.
In the most recent election, David, 72.2% of Unionist voters endorsed parties who accept the current Mandatory Coalition. 72.2% of Unionists. 86.5% of the entire people. An overwhelming majority of Unionists, every Nationalist and all the in betweens. No one in any real numbers want Jim Allister's nonesense.
Unionists can not be trusted with Majority Rule again so Power Sharing is here to stay.
Seamus
Give Peter Robinson a call - he'll need your support.
So, David, you believe that, despite historical abuses of such power and the causing of a borderline civil war, that Unionists should be given Majority Rule. The do say those who repeat the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them. Do you want another 3,500 deaths on your conscience? Because that is what Majority Rule caused the last time.
No lumping it here
Seamus
Give Peter Robinson a call - he'll need your support.
Those are replies not answers. You, nor Jim, cannot answer all the questions put, once you try to you get caught up in the contradictions of your own argument, and historical background of this place. It was Alex Kane who wrote about the contradictions of mandatory coalition long before Jim latched on to it. Everyone recognises the need for it to go, but they also recognise that now is not that time. Trying to push the issue before its time will only result in failure, even for Jim.
It seems that most people who are not directly or indirectly employed by the Stormont government think it is not working. Many think that mandatory coalition is a necessary evil. But that is not true in current circumstances. It is highly unlikely, probably impossible, that any party would get 50% or more of the overall vote an would thus need support of at least one other party. Given the current government at Westminster and the Conservative party's strong position against sectarianism, any party seeking a coalition partner party would be unwise to select a party representing the same "community" because then Westminster would be obliged to bring back direct rule.
Such a structural change in the system, I believe, would not only produce a better government at Stormont but force the parties to reduce their sectarian propensities. Mandatory coalition was an overreaction to the acknowledged abuses of an earlier time, but time moves on, even if at a slow pace in Northern Ireland. To continue with the current stalemate and not make a good and warranted structural change will only discourage even more serious people in both "communities" from taking part in politics; and, at the end of the day, that harms everyone.
New Yorker
Given the current government at Westminster and the Conservative party's strong position against sectarianism, any party seeking a coalition partner party would be unwise to select a party representing the same "community" because then Westminster would be obliged to bring back direct rule.
Direct Rule is what they want. The fact is that the SDLP are not going to go into government without Sinn Fein so there is no cross-community coalition that does not include Sinn Fein. So will one of the unionist parties come in with the nationalists and exclude the other? No, they won't. You would have a stalemate therefore Direct Rule therefore, eventually, catastrophe.
Everybody knows how this would play out and it is only people who want to have another attempt at a military solution that support it. When the catastrophe happens we could waste as many years as we like and when, in the end, we all come back to the table the solution would look almost exactly like what we have now.
Remember, Unionists brought down Sunningdale and cost us thirty wasted years. Those on the anti-agreement fringe would happily waste another 30 rather than face up to reality. I am certain that the voters will see through their plan and reject their scenario.
Henry
If the SDLP choose NOT to go into government, they are welcome to go into opposition. No special rules for any side. You also mention thirty wasted years caused by unionists. What about 3000 wasted lives caused by the IRA, UDA and UVF?
David
If the SDLP choose NOT to go into government, they are welcome to go into opposition.
That's the position now. What you are advocating is the abolition of of power sharing and a unionist majority government. We have seen where that leads and as you know Direct Rule would happen before that was allowed. If the British government allowed unionist rule in the north again they would find themselves without a shred of credibility in the world.
You know the score so why not just come out for Direct rule. Why the pretend alternative? It won't survive an election campaign so why bother with it at all?
What about 3000 wasted lives caused by the IRA, UDA and UVF?
Exactly. There are people in the shadows waiting to bring us back to the abyss. Our first moral and political responsibility is not to create room for them. 3000 more wasted lives would not change the political reality one iota.
Henry,
You state, "The fact is that the SDLP are not going to go into government without Sinn Fein so there is no cross-community coalition that does not include Sinn Fein." Are you certain that "fact" will endure for much longer? It was true under Durkan and his doctrine of "inclusivity" but that was a dubious doctrine. The SDLP is in the midst of much needed change and they are not the movement that brought Ireland forty years of hell.
You decry direct rule but compare the results to what Stormont has produced. If the impending Tory government decided upon the course I suggested, they would have the support of the current US government. There would be some yelping from the usual suspects but have they would have no effect on US policy.
The bottom line is that Stormont is not working and I believe it is because of the structural problem of mandatory coalition. It is time to think of solutions not harking back to the injustices of 1920-1970.
You state, "The fact is that the SDLP are not going to go into government without Sinn Fein so there is no cross-community coalition that does not include Sinn Fein." Are you certain that "fact" will endure for much longer?
I am 100% certain. If the SDLP did something like that they would lose every seat they hold at the subsequent election and they know it. They are certainly not going to destroy the Agreement they worked long an hard for in order to indulge unionism's anti-Sinn Fein political fantasies.
If the impending Tory government decided upon the course I suggested, they would have the support of the current US government. There would be some yelping from the usual suspects but have they would have no effect on US policy.
The current US government will support the Agreement as will the Tories. Nobody wants a return to the politics of failure except a small minority of unionists and an even smaller minority of nationalists.
If TUV run a election campaign on a direct rule ticket they will be hammered. That's why they are pretending to have an alternative form of coalition. They don't and their unwillingness to put their real policy forward proves that Direct Rule has no real support.
The bottom line is that Stormont is not working and I believe it is because of the structural problem of mandatory coalition.
It's working better than unionist majority ruled ever worked and it's working better than British Direct Rule ever worked. But there is an alternative. It's not Direct Rule but Joint Authority. That is the only option that could possibly work and it would not appeal to unionists anymore than Direct rule would appeal to Unionists. But even Direct Rule would mean at the very least a return to the Anglo-Irish Agreement position that frustrated unionists so much and was probably the greatest period of nationalist advance in terms of equal rights.
This is much ado about nothing. Peter Robinson is the leader of unionism and will remain so. Jim Allister is a side-show like Bob McCartney before him.
There is a world of difference between destroying the Agreement and improving it. You seem to think that is so perfect that it could not be improved. The evidence is otherwise. Where you think Stormont is working so well, most see it as a stalemate, wherein SF go to get slapped about by the DUP. In addition, neither SF or the DUP have any good ideas or demonstrated expertise at governing. The case for improving the Agreement is the only sensible solution to overcoming the present paralysis.
SDLP needs to act like SF is their competitor. They need to hold them to account for forty years of hell they brought to Ireland, especially to the Catholic community. What is the positive result of forty years of hell - some guys got rich, some guys got government jobs and the great majority suffered for it. Don't you think the people who are responsible for that should be held to account? If SDLP does not do so, their decline will continue. But it is not just for politics sake, it is the right and necessary thing to do.
I don't care about Peter Robinson, Jim Allister or Bob McCartney. I'd like to see a working government rather than a continuation of the farce at Stormont, and the best way to improve the Agreement is to make the structural change I advocate.
Although the US administration has a full plate, they are well aware of the situation at Stormont and all other significant events. I suspect David Cameron and Barack Obama will get on quite well. Cameron might very well suggest that an improvement in the structure with minority safeguards is necessary to improve governance of the province; and I suspect the White House would endorse reasonable changes.