Lady Hermon is not for turning

Ronald Reagan famously summed up his change of political allegiance in the following terms - "I didn't leave the Democratic Party, the party left me". Well, all I can say is thank heavens it did - it's hard to see how an American political system comprised of two far-right parties would be any healthier than the actual current position of one far-right party and a centre-right alternative. But his choice of words could hardly be more apt for the situation the UUP member of parliament for North Down, Lady Sylvia Hermon, now finds herself in. In her time at Westminster, she has become noted for her disdain for the Conservative party, a stance which has left her in an utterly impossible position now that UUP candidates will be required to stand on a joint ticket with the Tories, and accept the Tory whip if elected. In a nutshell, if she defended her seat for her current party, she would find herself instantly transformed into a Conservative MP.

Chekov, the NI blogger I referred to in my previous post who is as zealous in promoting the new Tory-UUP link-up as he is in his irrational feelings towards the SNP, has repeatedly been utterly scathing about Lady Hermon's apparent plans to stand as an independent against the Tories, which she appears to be moving towards a final decision over. His main complaint is that she hasn't given any other reason for her decision other than 'not being a Tory'. In truth, I'd have said that was an admirably succinct summary of feelings that any reasonable person ought to be able to understand and respect. Lady Hermon was elected an MP for a party that was ideologically mixed, containing self-identified social democrats who openly stated that they would opt for Labour over the Tories if they lived in mainland Britain. Of course there was a clear centre-right majority in the party, but the glue that bound the party together was unionism, not conservatism. Now, there may be many things to be said for the UUP essentially subsuming itself into another party and giving NI voters the opportunity to vote Conservative, but lambasting principled UUP politicians for simply realising that the party has left them stranded (and drawing the obvious conclusion) is rather unseemly to say the least. But then, Chekov is seemingly confused enough to feel that he as a self-described 'liberal' has found his natural home in the Tory party, so perhaps we should see his refusal to accept that 'not being a Conservative' is a good enough reason not to join the Conservative party in that (rather peculiar) context.

By all accounts, Hermon is a very popular constituency representative and would stand every chance of defeating her Tory opponent in May - which would be ironic, given that North Down is the one seat that the Tories have come even vaguely close to winning in Northern Ireland since their previous arrangement with the UUP broke down over Sunningdale in 1973.

Liberal conservatism was last year

I hope I'm not in danger of turning this blog into Chekov-watch (perhaps I'm still suffering withdrawal symptoms due to the abrupt departure from the scene of Scottish Unionist), but once again I can't help noticing a bit of a problem with his post today. In it, he draws some damning conclusions on the nature of the DUP - namely that they are divorced from the 'mainstream' of British politics - based on the fact that only their representative Gregory Campbell spoke in favour of the death penalty in a debate in Westminster Hall. The snag for Chekov is that Campbell's views are in fact shared by a significant minority of parliamentarians at Westminster - and most of them are to be found on the Conservative benches. Which poses the question of why on earth a self-described 'liberal Unionist' would be quite so keen on his party's return lock, stock, and barrel to the Tory fold, when the other two GB-wide parties have a centre of gravity on this issue much closer to his own views? There may well be a case for fathoming a credible way to allow voters in Northern Ireland to vote on ideological rather than sectarian grounds if they so wish, but if and when that happens, my guess is that a 'liberal unionist' could only ever ultimately feel comfortable in a liberal unionist party. Such a beast exists - but it's not called the Conservative party. There's a reason for that.

It's lonely at the apex

I've been having a look once again at the pro-Ulster Unionist (and therefore now by automatic extension, pro-Conservative) blog Three Thousands Versts of Loneliness. I was planning to say something about the new Tory-UUP alliance, but first of all I can't resist responding to Chekov's second most recent post, as it contains a series of digs at the SNP and Alex Salmond. Apparently, the First Minister's "smug countenance" will have been replaced by a look of "indignation" upon encountering the "news" that David Cameron regards the SNP as irrelevant at the next election. Now I don't follow his blog closely, but my guess is that Chekov must have an awfully earnest, almost 1950s view of politics and the Conservative party in particular. In his mind, there's David Cameron, a sage-like figure at the apex of British politics, imparting pearls of wisdom, while lesser mortals such as Salmond can only hang on to every word, desperately longing for any small sign of recognition or respect. In truth, I'd imagine Salmond and his advisers wouldn't have been so much crestfallen at Cameron's snub as rather gratified to note that a political rival who feels the need to 'talk up your irrelevance' is obviously a tad worried that many people don't see it that way.

Cameron knows perfectly well that he doesn't get to choose how 'relevant' the SNP will be at the next election, and words won't make that reality go away. If the SNP stay with only the seven seats they currently hold, they're unlikely to hold much clout even in a hung parliament. On the other hand, if the UK-wide race tightens, and if the SNP end up with 15-20 seats, it's a different ballgame. But even if we assume that Chekov is taking it as read that the former will happen and not the latter, what does the irrelevance of a party with seven seats say about the influence that a party that currently holds just one seat - the Ulster Unionist Party - can credibly hope to ever exercise in their hopelessly unequal new alliance with the Tories?

Chekov goes on to note that Cameron is "right to point out" that Salmond will not be a candidate at the general election. Memo to Chekov - Alex Salmond has made no secret of that, and it's hardly a point of shame for anyone in the SNP. Indeed, I seem to recall the criticism up to now from Unionist politicians has been that Salmond was - as a nationalist - rather too keen to hold on to his Westminster seat. Which raises a simple question - would Alex Salmond be justified in a) staying at Westminster and leaving Holyrood, b) holding on to his seats at both Westminster and Holyrood, or c) leaving Westminster and staying at Holyrood? If the answer is, incredibly, none of the above (and it may well be given that he's been criticised for all three at various points in the last eight years), it's little wonder Unionists find the First Minister so objectionable almost regardless of what he says or does.

Finally, perhaps in an effort to convince himself that everything's going to work out just fine, Chekov asserts that "in previous general elections, Scots have always rejected the SNP in favour of participating in a national contest". Well...up to a point, Lord Copper. I take it he means that the SNP have never won the popular vote in a general election, which is quite true, but they have finished in second place on three occasions, and beaten the Conservatives no fewer than four times (including all of the last three elections). Hardly suggests that Scots have been fully buying into this "only two parties are relevant in Westminster elections" line that both Chekov and Cameron so dearly wish they would. It's also worth noting that until eighteen months ago the SNP had never won the popular vote at any election, Westminster or otherwise - they've now done so twice. Records are only ever there to be broken.