Martin McGuinness and Northern Ireland under the Tories
This week’s New Statesman interview with Martin McGuinness lets the Northern Irish Deputy First Minister off extremely lightly, allowing him to appear as the romantic Republican, standing astride a bitter past with the promise of a future.
A lot of the interview concentrates on personal questions, such as whether McGuinness killed anyone as an IRA man or whether he lets death threats bother him, but the political part is remarkably weak.
McGuinness gets away with vague answers talking about how he wants to “move forward”, to “work with [Peter Robinson] in a positive, constructive way”, to “end the vicious cycle” and so on, not actually saying much.
Politics in Northern Ireland is much more mundane than a relentless focus on “the Troubles” makes it. Politicians are charged with delivering the same services as elsewhere, within the same constraints. Unbelievably, Martin McGuinness isn’t asked anything about the substantive part of what he does either as Deputy First Minister or as part of the Stormont Executive.
A passing reference to how his faith doesn’t challenge the view that everyone should be treated equally is about it.
The closest the interview comes to a challenging question was to ask whether or not a Tory government might damage McGuinness’ ’cause’. This is an important issue, because the institutions of the Good Friday Agreement, and the functions of the devolved government, operate at the sufferance of Westminster.
To this question the DFM responded:
Well, I’ve met with Owen Paterson [the Conservative shadow Northern Ireland secretary] and David Cameron, and they made it clear that they are prepared to stand faithfully by the agreements that have been made. Being involved constructively in the north of Ireland is a steep learning curve. I hope whatever government is elected will come at this as positively as Labour did in recent times.
Which is nice but rather sidesteps a key issue, which goes beyond the institutions themselves. There is nationalist speculation that the Conservatives are attempting to negotiate some deal between UCUNF (formerly the Ulster Unionists, now allied directly to the Tory Party) and the DUP, as a way to outmanoeuvre the nationalists.
This raises questions over how easily nationalists can deal with a Tory government if they have to watch their back, fearing that each initiative might be aimed at weakening the nationalists rather than furthering peace.
Interestingly, McGuinness’ view on what the Tories are prepared to do flatly contradicts the pronouncements of Owen Paterson, Tory NI spokesman. Called on by Peter Robinson to ratify any potential agreement on devolution of policing and justice, Paterson said;
“We are facing a major economic crisis should we win the next election. We cannot give any guarantees on any spending programmes.”
That’s not even the issue I myself consider important. With George Osborne giving the lie to David Cameron’s softly-softly approach on cuts in spending, in the aftermath of an election, Northern Irish politicians have got to be wondering how this is going to end up affecting them.
Even without immediate spending cuts in the block grant, the Executive needs to find ‘savings’ of some £400 million, in view of pressures like the anti-water charges campaign, which has turned the imposition of the double taxation on water usage into something akin to political suicide.
Predictions by Margaret Ritchie of crisis in the housing department, of shortfalls rising to £100m per year, directly impact upon the stability of Northern Ireland. Whether it’s re-housing people forced out by sectarian, anti-immigrant or even anti-police attacks, or providing for an area with perpetually high unemployment, housing is going to be squeezed and the results may be violent.
There’s talk of increasing the regional rates, which disproportionately affect lower and middle value properties: everything above £400,000 is capped. One hopes this will have eased, following the end of Belfast’s London-like house prices boom, but that in turn reduces the amount that can be harvested.
Capital projects will be put on hold, shelving plans for hospitals, schools and roads (and probably increasing the excess capacity in related industries), to the tune of £170 million. And then there’s the issue of a Tory government whose first priority is to stabilise a credit rating which isn’t under threat.
Perhaps McGuinness should have been asked, with his party touted (however unlikely) to occupy the First Minister spot after the next Assembly elections, how Sinn Fein intends to reconcile this with its rhetoric about how working people are being asked to pay for ‘the greed of the government, bankers and the developers’.
Dave, I think this is an excellent article challenging the ‘mainland’ reporting of politics in Northern Ireland. I make no pretence at understanding much about the politics of NI myself, but that is largely because the press I read (and I accept it is overly narrow) seems to do such a poor job of the reporting, focusing on what I might term the geo-political issues of the ‘post-Troubles’ period at the expense of the kind of analysis mainland Britain gets around social policy and the domestic economy.
I found myself thinking the same about 10 years after the end of Apartheid in South Africa – that the focus remained tied to what had already become history (this is not of course to deny the importance of th way history drives current tradition) rather than on current struggles of money and power.
The way the NS interviewer talks about McGuinness’ “cause” and other issues related to Republicanism is rather irritating, and characteristic of a lot of the mainland Left. It allows McGuinness to hide behind the ideal of a United Ireland, with querying the role Sinn Fein played then and played now at the grassroots.
Even people I have a great deal of respect for – like John McDonnell – have treated the issue in this way.
Interesting post, Dave. It doesn’t seem to occur to Sinn Féin that they actually need answers to pressing social and economic questions. In a debate on Evening Extra between John O’Dowd and Alban Maginness, O’Dowd even went as far as to say that politics is about process; if that is the case, politics is about endlessly travelling and never arriving anywhere, or taking any positions on key issues. Whether it is water charges, eduction or parades the answer has been to delay, consult, negotiate, over and over again.
In the Republic of Ireland Sinn Féin was absolutely taken apart by the other parties and the media during the last general election. In Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom the ‘Peace Process’ comes before everything else so awkward questions are ducked and Martin McGuinness is allowed to come out with bland nothingness.
Ah but the point is, the SF senior team already have answers – but they’re a far cry from the old Eire Nua documents that signalled SF’s socialism back in the early 70s. In fact Sinn Fein are now as rabidly pro-free market as the DUP.
In the South, SF seem a less successful analogue to the Greens; prepared to sell out the substantial issues if it will allow them to pose a while longer.
Eire Nua, now there is an interesting and very strange document. Socialism but with a Catholic edge to differentiate it from the Godless Communism of the Stickies.
Indeed, has Conor Murphy fixed a road without using PFI yet?
Now instead it’s Godless liberal capitalism, as Martin McGuinness points out in the interview, as regard the extent to which his faith influences what he was elected to do, in the OFMDFM.
Good site and many interesting insighst. Unfortunately, this sentiment does not extend to analysis of SF nor the set up in the 6 counties. First of all, the UK is not a mainland. It is an island, and the 6 counties are not an adjunct of the mythical mainland. Is the analysis and commentary biased by UK nationalist sentiments?
Your anlaysis misses two key points which need to be mentioned. They colour every decision taken by those in the 6 county set up. The 6 counties government has very limited taxing powers, so its budget is largely determined in London. The left in Ireland likes to ignore this salient feature as well. This one factor alone makes the likelihood of the Stormont set-up untenable in the long run unless this is rectified. Secondly both the UK and Irish governments have stated roles to play in the internal governance of the 6 counties. While the UK conservatives hint at directly damaging the process, the Irish govt has adopted its age old politically expedient policy of hands off. It’s too caught up in its desire to deliver benefits to its support based in dire economic circumstances – a wee thing called crony capitalism.
During the budget submission in Dublin this year SF put forward a very progressive political-economic policy, and appointed a spokeswoman on economic matters, Ms. Spain. SF’s printed material is more progressive than any mainstream party in any of these two islands, and that includes the Irish and UK Labour parties. SF has adhered to Union pickets at the Dáil and not crossed the picket lines. In my county where SF is the largest party, it has one of the best social housing policy deliverance programs in 26 counties and has supported co-operative water schemes and community development for decades.
The simple fact is that SF has lost a few members to the right and left, but on balance more to the right. Many Republicans in SF are still holding their whist on the Belfast set up, and of course many Republicans of all political-economic hues wouldn’t touch the Belfast agreement nor its political structures with a 10 foot barge pole. If the Belfast agreement falls apart for any reason, don’t expect the next socialist movement to rise from the ashes. Expect a return to some level to unrest and possibly worse. Personally, I’ve taken the long view and what will be will be. SF might fade, Republicanism won’t. As for the Left in Ireland. SF has its lobby group as does Labour which is a far bigger party; but Labour will probably form the next governement with an ultra right wing party, Fine Gael. (Irish politics is strange.) I think the largest socialist grouping was back in the 80′s with 8 TD’s. It might get one or two in next time around (you need five or six TDs in Ireland to get speaking priviledges).
If the “real” left gets its wish that SF be gone, whatever their many motives, the SDLP will be the main beneficiary in 6 counties, while 26 counties can settle down to business as normal; albeit with less buckshee to pass around for a few years. This scenario certainly appeals to nationalist sentiment in the UK and puts to bed for awhile the old Republican thorn for the Irish government. Like the UK conservatives, loyalists and now socialists, the Irish government always got good milage out of pillorying Republicanism. Hell, Fianna Fail might even drop their new designer logo “The Republican Party” which it adopted several years ago.
(NB If you read Irish political discussion sites, it’s very common to have one post describe them as neo-liberals, as was blightely done here, and rabid commies a few posts later. Politics hey.)
Blithely. But yes, they are neo-liberal in many respects, the politics of Ogra and particular wings of the party notwithstanding. I may or may not come back to a more substantial reply but allow me to say I find your characterisation of my remarks both inaccurate and vaguely offensive. So sorry to have trodden on your SF toes.
I’m not in SF nor particularly tied to SF or any Irish party for that matter. Agnostic bordering on politically atheistic probably sums up my attitude. My commentary was general for the most part and only issued some context about the situation with regard to all parties in Irish politics so a fuller picture could be established. It is not unheard of that some socialist people run with the hare and hunt with hounds when nationalism is involved from all perspective. Nationalism always stirs the nerves in some way. Comment away. To give some personal background to my comments –
I’m probably adopting what I call the George Carlin approach to the political economy as constituted in a capitalistic world, especially in his own country. Simply put, fuck’em all. It’s definitely egotistical, and maybe just a tad sociopathic. However, there is no alternative, imo, to what’s on offer. To paraphrase Carling (very, very broadly). Fuck the fuckers that are being fucked. They must like being fucked because they always go back to be fucked. And fuck the fuckers who are doing the fucking. They only get joy from fucking the fuckers who like to be fucked. Almost every fucker is happy in some way. Who am I to interfere in the fuckfest?
As for the organised Left. It’ll do what it does best. Those organisations is can’t “persuade” to see the light and whom they deem to be competition, they seek to destroy. If they destroy the unenlightened, they consider the quest a good days work and immediately splinter into factions to attack each other in the absence of of idolaters to attack.
Asking a Socialist to think outside the box is impossible. They’re too busy constructing boxes.
Yet, like a moth to the flame, I sometimes get drawn into conversation I know I shouldn’t. I really have to work on the concept more.
So in this spirit, I do as my granny advised: don’t get mad and leave, just leave.
And I’ll close the door behind me.
slán
Well quite; I don’t want to turn this into a discussion about you but what sort of political philosophy is that? What I mean is, why even look at the political process if that’s your attitude? Comedians like Bill Hicks and George Carlin are excellent performers – but they’re not political gurus.
Going back to the original matter, it’s no proof of correctness to say that one side thinks SF are neo-liberal and another calls them Commies. Sure for the PD down south anyone to the right of Genghis Khan is a flipping communist.
The proof in the pudding is in the PFI, up north anyone, as Roe Valley says. And these are not mandated statutory instruments that the Executive has to use. They have been adopted with abandon. Every time something harmful has to be done, like when NIE was privatised, they largely washed their hands. No doubt they’ll do the same whenever the Executive departments have to send out the second water bills. This doesn’t relieve them of culpability. Quite the opposite: when SF speak out against the non-payment campaign, the only way to defeat the water charges, then they are equally guilty.
Down south they can pose with whatever rhetoric they like – I was reading over their site when I quoted that little bit at the end.
Sure enough I was glad to see them campaign for No vote to the EU, and some of them condemned it in useful terms, like “neoliberal superstate” – good. But the actions of the party are often at odds with its own vaguely Left rhetoric, when it comes to campaigns that will unite the working class and actually achieve something.