The most unforgettable person I’ve ever met in my life

Tony Cliff: A Marxist for his Time by Ian Birchall (Bookmarks, £16.99)

Well, hello again. (Waves uncertainly at passing tumbleweed.) Yes, I know, the real world has been keeping me away from online tomfoolery, but I’m not going to pass up the chance to reflect a little (or, more likely, at infinitely tedious length) on the book of the year. If you neither know nor care who Tony Cliff was, feel free to skip this, because much of it will be incomprehensible.

Moreover, I suppose there’s a question of why anyone outside of the organisation founded by Cliff should be remotely interested in his life story. Most political biographies, after all, are about politicians who’ve actually done something quantifiable in the real world. A man who spent sixty-plus years beavering away in the world of hard-left sects – and quite a lot of that time spent on writing about the sociology of the USSR, rather than practical activity – might not seem terribly promising material. All I can tell you, and I hope this will come through, is that Cliff was important to me. I could make an argument that Mike Kidron, or particularly Chris Harman, informed me more in the sphere of ideas, but they made their bricks from Cliff’s straw, and the personality of Cliff was such that he couldn’t fail to make an impact on anyone who crossed his path. You could say that I went to Cliff’s kheyder, and I’m grateful to him for what I learned there, even those things I no longer agree with. He was a unique figure – capable of being genuinely inspiring one moment, and an incredible pain in the hole the next – whose like we shall not see again.

There’s been a gap I’ve felt for quite a while that Ian Birchall’s lovingly crafted biography goes to fill. I was terribly disappointed by Cliff’s posthumously published autobiography, A World to Win. Granted that the old fellow was seriously ill at the time and was writing from memory rather than a researched work: all the same, I was unimpressed by Cliff’s assertion of his own unfailing correctness, even when he was patently wrong; even less impressed by his serial failure to give credit to the contributions of anyone other than himself; and worst of all, it didn’t really capture what Cliff was like. Maybe it would have been better had Bookmarks released it as an audiobook.

But that was one thing about Cliff that was always striking. Ian remarks towards the end of the book that those who know Cliff from his writings only half know him. This is true. Not even Cliff’s admirers would claim him to have been a great literary stylist. Credit must go to his indefatigable wife, Chanie Rosenberg, who long had the thankless task of not only doing the typing but of turning Cliff’s manuscripts (often in an idiosyncratic mixture of bad English and Hebrew) into something resembling idiomatic English. No, there was none of the literary panache of LD Trotsky or Isaac Deutscher to be found here; there was functional prose which served the purpose of getting Cliff’s ideas across, and such appeal as it had was down to the strength of the ideas.

I read Cliff’s book on state capitalism (in a battered old second-hand copy) some considerable time before I ever saw him in person. It was a hell of a shock. Though the writing didn’t suggest an image of the author, the pseudonym “Tony Cliff” did call to mind a suave 1950s crooner of the Dean Martin or Andy Williams variety. Had I known to expect Ygael Gluckstein from Zikhron Yaakov, the shock would have been much less. The great man turned out to be short, elderly, bespectacled, with a hairstyle best described as mad scientist chic, and – let’s not put too fine a point on this – dressed like a tramp. When he spoke, it was in a very strong Russian-Hebrew accent that took a minute to get your ears around. He was a grumpy bastard, incapable of normal social pleasantries, but when he got up to speak…

…the Cliff meeting, of course, was a performance. Offstage, Cliff was extremely reserved, and perhaps the willpower needed to perform gave his speaking its force.[1] The arm-waving, the wisecracking, the obligatory reference to Eric Hobsbawm’s latest pronouncement as a lot of bloody rrrubbish, these were the easily satirised visible elements. On a more basic level, he was trying to explain often quite complicated ideas in accessible language – so the humour, the performance aspects, were the spoonful of sugar. On more than one occasion I sat through a 45-minute talk on the theory of the Permanent Arms Economy[2] and actually enjoyed it. That’s how good Cliff was when he was on good form.

Even Cliff’s dodgy grasp of the language could be turned to good effect. His idiosyncratic approach to English syntax and his mixed metaphors added a lot to the humour. Then there were the characteristic mispronunciations, as seen in Ian’s account of a meeting on racism where Cliff informed a bemused audience that in the 1930s the working class had been prejudiced against the yetis. (Disappointingly, it turned out that he meant the Eyeties; thus, Italian immigrant workers rather than abominable snowmen.) All that went towards getting an audience chuckling, and there’s no better way to lighten up what threatens to be a boring topic.

One thing that was immediately apparent about Cliff, lifelong atheist and anti-Zionist though he was, was how profoundly Jewish he was. You got this from the very cadences of his speech. There was a broad streak of the Borscht Belt comedian in there (if I heard the joke about the rabbi and the goat once, I heard it a dozen times); one could also, if one closed one’s eyes, imagine Cliff bearded and wearing a shtrayml, in the role of a Hasidic rebbe expounding his mystical interpretation of the Toyre to his fanatical band of followers. But it’s a broader cultural thing. If I say Cliff was a Talmudist, I don’t mean that as an insult. You all know, of course, that the Talmud is a codification of halokhe, of Jewish religious law, but that’s far from all it is. The Talmud is also five thousand or so pages of rabbinic sages scoring off each other using not only halokhic erudition, but also puns, insults, bad jokes, gossip and anecdotes of dubious relevance. Sound familiar? Put Cliff two millennia in the past and have him speaking Aramaic, and he’d have fit right in.

One thing that’s long intrigued me was the detail of Cliff’s youth in the old Mandate of Palestine – Cliff himself rarely said much about it, though he wrote a little in A World to Win. Gaps still remain, not least because most of the people who might remember are now dead, but immense credit goes to Ian Birchall for giving us a sense of what Cliff’s background was like. I’ll get onto the politics at a later stage, but there are suggestive hints about Cliff’s formative influences, and in particular his parents. From his mother, Esther, he seems to have got his intellectual curiosity and occasionally frail health. But his father, Akiva Gluckstein, seems to have been a most appealing character:

Gluckstein was a handsome, jovial man, greatly liked by those who knew him. He was a born actor; he loved to tell jokes, and though he constantly told the same stories, he always varied them. In later life he joined a Yiddish theatre company and travelled around the country with it. He retained his curiosity and zest for life into old age.

Well, the apple didn’t fall far from the tree.

What else comes to mind? Cliff’s legendary single-mindedness, which had a couple of aspects to it. Some of us used to jokingly call Chris Harman the Renaissance Man, which was a bit scurrilous but also paid tribute to the breadth of his interests, the way no aspect of human life was safe from Chris trying to analyse it. Cliff didn’t really have any interests outside of the organisation, and even then he would have a very narrow focus on the issue in hand. Sometimes that would stand you in good stead; sometimes it would tip over into a lack of perspective. And it could also feed his impatience with those who didn’t see the needs of the moment as clearly as he felt he did. Cliff could deploy a formidable amount of charm when he had to, but if he felt he needed to read you the reproof, you wouldn’t soon forget it:

In John Molyneux’s words an argument with him could be like a “benign hurricane”. On one occasion Cliff was having a heated argument with Molyneux when Molyneux’s four-year-old son intervened: “Don’t argue, Dad; can’t you see he’s just a little old man?”

Some people who in their time had been subjected to an eight-hour Cliff harangue may want to quibble with John about the “benign” bit, but not with the “hurricane”. Cliff himself used to have a good joke about this single-mindedness, which was that of his four children only one, his younger son Danny, had inherited his fanatical temperament. The punchline was that Danny was the only one of the kids never to join the SWP; his fanaticism was directed into his music. Moreover, Cliff himself had zero interest in music, though he was always very encouraging towards Danny.

I realise I’m in danger here of simply repeating favourite Cliff anecdotes, but there is a purpose. Cliff’s organisation can’t be understood separately from Cliff the man; organisations have their own cultures and personalities, and small organisations with a dominant founder tend to reflect the founder’s personality. The late Jim Higgins quipped that Gerry Healy’s group had been paranoid and thuggish, Ted Grant’s group had been stultifying boring, and Cliff’s group had been hyperactive and overexcitable – and that this was not an accident. This is to simplify matters somewhat, but it’s not untrue.

On the other hand, to cast the modern SWP as a triumph of Cliff’s will just won’t do. Cliff could have been as brilliant as anything, and it would have meant naught had he not had people around him. This is where the great strength of Ian’s book lies, in the hundred-plus interviews, what saves it from being a simple story of Cliff writing this and then doing that and then speaking on something else, which would be of little interest to anyone other than historians of Trotskyism. This is where we get to hear the voices of those whose paths crossed Cliff’s, who give their impressions of him and his impact on them. And while we see some very pertinent points made about his failings, it’s also apparent how much warmth and loyalty he was capable of inspiring.

The quotes are where it comes alive, whether it’s from a miner telling you about hearing Cliff speak in the 1984-5 strike, or from Alex Callinicos being remarkably candid about old arguments on the Central Committee (and filling in the detail on a couple of things I only half-knew), or from Cliff’s family, to whom he was ferociously devoted, telling us what he meant to them. A particular favourite is from Anna Gluckstein, on being asked in primary school what her dad did for a living. Unwilling to say he was a professional revolutionary, she replied that he was a writer who wrote children’s books about a wizard called Lenin. For some reason, this pleases me immensely.

And with that, I’ll sign off, though with the confirmed intention (I know, I know) of coming back to ruminate on this some more. But, just as a taster of the old fellow’s style, here’s a Cliff meeting on a wizard called Lenin. The animation captures the spirit quite well, I think.

[1] This may also have been true of Chris Harman, though not to the same extent.

[2] If you don’t know what the Permanent Arms Economy was, don’t worry. Life’s too short.

The judgement of Johann: a reflection, and a bit of a rant

A note on epistemology

Though there is incontrovertible evidence that Tony Blair and his colleagues regularly distort, manipulate, mislead and even invent the truth on a massive scale, they regard any attack on their personal integrity as an outrageous calumny… Blair himself has consistently referred to his own integrity in terms which, coming from anyone else, might well be criticised as boastful or vainglorious. Even when he or colleagues are caught red-handed telling fibs, New Labour tends to respond that all concerned acted “in good faith”, a key phrase frequently uttered in defence of mendacious ministers. In New Labour’s view, the truthfulness of a statement matters much less than whether it was inspired by a virtuous motive…

It is not unreasonable to speculate that the prime minister has a strong tendency to fall victim to a common conceptual muddle: the failure to understand the distinction between truth versus falsehood and truth versus error. Tony Blair, and many colleagues, consistently seem to feel that they are lucky enough to have been granted a privileged access to the moral truth. This state of grace produces two marvellous consequences. It means that whatever New Labour ministers say or write, however misleading or inaccurate, is in a larger sense true. Likewise whatever their opponents say or write, whether or not strictly speaking accurate, is in the most profound sense false.

Peter Oborne, The Rise of Political Lying

The downward spiral

I didn’t particularly want to write again about Johann Hari, and it’s quite difficult for me to do so. It’s very hard to be dispassionate about him, though I’m going to try. Let me say at the outset that, though he’s never given me any great reason to be fond of him, I don’t want to see his life destroyed. I’m fully aware that this must be an absolutely horrible time for him, and I know his many friends are seriously worried about his mental state. I’ll have cause to criticise his employers pretty harshly later on, but I do hope they’ve arranged for him to get whatever help is necessary.

However.

Why, you may ask, should we bother with a man whose career is over? My immediate answer to which is, who says it’s over? Hari has plenty of supporters, some of them prominent in the media, who insist that he’s done nothing really wrong, just made a teensy weensy mistake for which he’s apologised, and he’ll be back again before you know it. No, this will not do. It’s necessary, given the way so many people have taken Hari’s articles as gospel truth, that there be some sort of open accounting. It’s necessary that a light be shone on Simon Kelner and the Independent, who will weasel out of this situation if they’re given a chance. I also don’t believe that the bluster and denial coming from Hari partisans actually helps their friend. It just postpones the inevitable.

To summarise, what Johann Hari has admitted to, and apologised for, is that in a handful of his long-form interviews, he’s occasionally used a quote from the subject’s written work where this was more cogent than what the subject said in the interview; and that he failed to properly acknowledge the source. This is true, as far as it goes. But, as has been shown all over the intertubes, this is just the tip of the can of worms. To summarise, without going into excruciating detail, we’re talking about:

  • A somewhat unorthodox interviewing technique that includes not only unattributed lifting from the subjects’ own written work, but also the unattributed lifting of quotes from other journalists’ interviews with the subjects, explicitly framed as if these words were being spoken to Hari himself. It may be understandable that few interviewees complained when the end result showed them being fantastically articulate, but on the occasions when Hari has done hostile interviews he’s had no qualms about portraying his antagonist as inarticulate.
  • A strong suspicion, at the very least, that some of his vox-pop quotes (as opposed to those from named interviewees) have been made up.
  • A reportorial style that tends to be careless of the facts, straying easily into exaggeration and embellishment, sometimes into outright invention.
  • Strong circumstantial evidence, though it would be hard to prove or disprove definitively, that either Hari or someone very close to him was engaged in extensive Wikipedia sockpuppetry, including the posting of allegations about critics of Hari that were flagrantly libellous. (I don’t care what you think about Cristina Odone, she is not anti-Semitic by any stretch of the imagination.)

We’re talking, in short, about a massive failure in professional standards over a period of years, which rather prompts questions about editorial standards at the Independent. We’ll get onto the paper presently, but as for Hari himself I’m much more interested in understanding than condemning. The psychology is fascinating, and I really hope he writes a serious and honest explanation at the end of this – it could be the most compelling thing he’s ever written.

Hari is certainly an interesting character, someone you could write a novel about. As I say, he has many friends – we have a few mutual friends, believe it or not – and they’ll freely talk about what a lovely guy he is, how warm and funny and brilliant and charming and sensitive he is. I have no reason to doubt that – he’s certainly got some charisma, and inspires intense loyalty. I also know from other sources that he can be unbelievably nasty, spiteful and vindictive if you cross him, which is why I have no problem believing the sockpuppetry allegations. His mood swings and occasional prima donna behaviour are the stuff of legend, and even his closest friends – perhaps especially his closest friends – can testify to his volcanic hissy fits. Extremes of light and shade; I know the type.

I said before about Hari that I didn’t think he was a cynical liar out for the main chance, but a well-intentioned bullshitter. That’s why I quoted Peter Oborne, whose book is excellent on the subject of Good Cause Corruption, with particular reference to the career of Mr Tony Blair. If you have moral right and a good cause on your side, then surely inconvenient facts are just a distraction. Accuracy is pedantry. This is positively dangerous from politicians, with dodgy dossiers and the like potentially leading to lots of people getting killed. Which is why you need a press that’s honest, accurate, even pedantic. When journalism falls prey to Good Cause Corruption, it just becomes propaganda. Hari himself once said that he viewed his job as being a paid advocate for the causes he believed in, which might indicate some of the issues behind his journalism.

But I can well understand how he got himself in this position. Formidably bright and articulate, a writer of some talent, he goes straight from Cambridge to the national press, first at the New Statesman and then at the Independent. He never learned the basics of the trade – possibly he was arrogant enough to think he didn’t need to learn anything (he always refused to join the NUJ, which may be significant), and his editors, first Wilby and then Kelner, were prepared to indulge him. Not only that, but Hari, who could have just been a provocative opinion columnist, was rewarded with prominent journalistic assignments that he evidently wasn’t prepared for, with the possibility of failing in a very public way. And, having got in over his head, he tried to get out of this situation by means of (in Duncan Hallas’ immortal phrase) “bluff, bluster and bullshit”.

And not only did he get away with fabulism, he prospered, getting promoted to bigger columns, more high-profile assignments, celebrity interviews, being showered with journalism awards. Perhaps he felt, like a shop assistant nicking twenty quid from the till, that he was being clever in getting away with something. Perhaps he really did think that this was standard journalistic practice. At this point, the thought process is difficult to figure out. Some of the fakery was so stupidly high-risk that you would nearly think he wanted to get caught. The most damaging, for my money, was the interview with gay rugby player Gareth Thomas, who gave a lovely quote about hiding his sexuality and visualising it in terms of being in control of the ball. Trouble was, this quote was taken from a previous interview Thomas had given to Attitude magazine. Gareth Thomas wouldn’t have complained, as he’s a nice guy and Hari had written a sensitive article, but when you think of it – the gay community is Hari’s core audience, Hari writes a column for Attitude, in fact Hari sits on the bloody editorial board of Attitude – either we’ve got a very smart person being incredibly stupid, or unconsciously self-destructive behaviour. From what he’s written in the past about his mental health episodes, I can easily believe the latter. That’s why I hope he’s getting appropriate help.

The reactions

Much of the reaction to the Hari affair has been along the lines of “Yeah, he obviously made a few mistakes but (cough, cough, mumble) look over there, Rebekah Brooks! Also, Andy Coulson!” This does not impress me, and should not impress anyone else with the ability to walk and chew gum at the same time.

The most important point is that, while you could make a political criticism of Hari, and many people have done so, over the years, what’s done for him is professional criticism. Namely, not his opinions but his basic journalistic standards. In fact, more so as the criticism has centred on the technical journalistic side. Tim Worstall has been saying for ages that Hari’s economic writing was wrong not just ideologically but in terms of basic facts, but that was easily dismissed on the grounds that Tim is one of these mad free marketeers and he would say that, wouldn’t he? My own criticisms of Hari have been dismissed on the grounds that I was just sore at him for saying nasty things about the Pope. (Incidentally, one or two people owe me an apology, though I’m not holding my breath.) What has made the difference is people like Brian Whelan or Guy Walters, who don’t have pre-existing beefs with Hari, concentrating on the journalistic basics.

This is also important because one of the reasons he got away with it so long is that, with the notable exception of Biased BBC, most of the small army of media-monitoring blogs out there come from a left-of-centre perspective and concentrate on attacking the Mail or Sun. The smart guys who write them were too heavily involved with fact-checking Melanie Phillips and Richard Littlejohn to notice there might be a problem with a broadsheet columnist who argued the same sort of politics they believed in.

A few observations:

  • Criticism of Hari cannot simply be put down to left and right. Yes, the Telegraph has gone after him hard, but so has the New Statesman. Many of Hari’s critics have been from the left; after all, it was the late Paul Foot who christened him “Johann Hari Potter”.
  • This is not a gay thing. Some of Hari’s sharpest critics are gay themselves; other gay journalists haven’t had these criticisms levelled at them; and insinuations that this is a homophobic smear campaign frankly don’t hold water – indeed, I’d say it was insulting to gay journalists to think they should be held to a lesser standard, akin to saying Jayson Blair was victimised for being black. If activists turn this into a gay thing, they’ll find it’s a self-defeating strategy.
  • Hari’s most prominent media defenders have been opinion writers, activists and social media entrepreneurs. Actual journalists with backgrounds in news reporting have been a lot harsher.

On the other hand, he’s had no shortage of defenders, though they’ve been getting quieter as more details have come out. These come in a number of categories – personal friends, of whom he has many (and it’s quite touching in a way); activists who appreciate how he’s bigged up their causes over the years (and don’t quite realise his downfall may discredit those causes); tribal leftists or gayists who think it’s their duty to defend one of their own no matter what he’s done; and those writers who might be feeling a bit nervous about their own writing, particularly if they’ve relied a lot on Hari in the past. For instance, there is one young writer whose recently-published book’s index reveals no less than thirteen citations from Hari. Some of these people risk making themselves look very silly, and no more so than two or three self-proclaimed scourges of bad journalism who’ve proved to be enormous hypocrites when their mate is put under the microscope. (You know who you are.)

I don’t think, frankly, that loud proclamations to the effect that Hari hasn’t done anything wrong and he still has a bright career ahead of him actually help the guy. Keeping his spirits up is one thing; but the best thing of all would be a resolution. Which neatly brings me to the guilty parties.

The paper and the trade

Let’s be honest, Johann Hari’s career, at least as it’s hitherto existed, is over. It’s a desperately sad outcome for somebody who loved his job so much, who at a relatively young age had been living the dream of having a platform for his beloved good causes, being celebrated in his chosen profession, winning awards, appearing on TV, and of course having a legion of devoted fans. (Young people don’t read newspapers as a rule, but the two writers you very commonly see shared and retweeted are Hari and Charlie Brooker.) But this would be hard to recover from for any journalist, let alone one whose stock in trade was banging on and on about his own integrity, other journalists’ lack of integrity, and how he was the man who was telling you the truth. Now, he’ll never be able to speak in a debate again without this being thrown in his face, and while there are lots of people who’ll never believe anything bad about him, that sort of denial isn’t sustainable for any media outlet that might employ him.

In my view, the best outcome would be this: Hari writes a full and frank account of what he did and why he did it; the Independent runs an analysis of how this was allowed to happen, as the New York Times did in the Jayson Blair case; Simon Kelner gives a personal account of his role in the affair; and then Hari can go off and rebuild his life. If he insists on working in journalism, he’ll have to do what he never did in the first place and work his way up from the bottom; on the other hand, he could turn out to be a great novelist, or an amazing charity campaigner, or any number of other things. He’s a bright man and still young.

But the current ass-covering at the Independent does nobody any favours. You know, when Boris Johnson was caught making up a quote, the Times didn’t fart about with two-month suspensions; Boris was summarily sacked, had to go and work on the Wolverhampton Express & Star, and didn’t get back into Fleet Street until he’d learned his lesson. My instinct is that this drawn-out process is all about editorial saving of face.

Make no mistake, this is a personal tragedy for Johann Hari, but it’s a farce for the Indy’s pretentions of holding higher standards than the rest of the press. Some of this, to be fair, has to do with endemic problems in the newspaper trade. Formal training for journalists is more or less a thing of the past. The local papers, where young hacks got valuable on-the-job training in the basics, are rapidly going bust. Subbing is a dying art.

Moreover, with the Mail and the Sun being the only national papers to regularly turn a healthy profit, there’s less scope for maintaining a large and experienced workforce of journalists. That means, very often, young, inexperienced (and cheap) hacks being overpromoted. More and more this is through headhunting from the student press, the music press, or more recently the blogosphere. The practice is to take some inexperienced kid and throw them in the deep end, with results that aren’t always for the best. (This is why I worry about Laurie Penny, whom I like a good deal more than I do Johann Hari, and whose undoubted talent I’d hate to see wasted.)

Another problem is the growth of celebrity columnists – whether comedians, TV critics or activists – at the expense of trained journalists, in contrast to the old days when hacks would be given columns when they were getting old and not as mobile as they used to be. The Indy (it’s a viewspaper, remember) is a particularly bad example, but some other papers are catching up. Yet another issue is the practice of journalists failing to maintain some distance from their story. I blame Hunter Thompson for this – he was brilliant enough to get away with it, but the price of that is a slew of bad imitations of Hunter Thompson. The Saturday edition of the Guardian is full of them.

But let’s specifically talk about the Indy. Simon Kelner’s assertion that, in ten years, nobody had ever complained about the Hari column is a black lie. I know that personally. Nor does it speak well of Kelner’s judgement that his first reaction to the Hari scandal was not to examine the evidence but to attempt to brazen it out, even sneaking the Hari column back into the paper (with Disqus comments disabled) when everybody else was preoccupied with Murdoch. And maybe he could have brazened it out – after all, the Guardian still employs Emma Brockes – had it not been for the sheer mountain of evidence. And then, of course, Kelner being kicked upstairs to editor-in-chief.

Face-saving is an issue because (and this is also true, mutatis mutandis, of the phone-hacking scandal) we can believe that a journalist was guilty of malpractice once or twice, but if he was consistently guilty for ten years, we have to ask where the editor was all this time. If we’re talking about that severed heads story from the Central African Republic, the thing I find hard to believe is not that Hari would embellish a story like that, but that the Indy backroom didn’t call him and say “Seriously, Johann, wtf? Are you saying that really happened?” Then again, while I say subbing is a dying art, the Indy was opposed to having subs at its inception…

Again and again, we come back to Kelner. He hired a raw young star about whom doubts had already been expressed at the New Statesman, and relentlessly promoted and protected him. Hari didn’t get the firm editorial hand a young journalist needs; his columns don’t seem to have been subjected to fact-checking or serious editing (comparing Hari’s columns on the Indy site with his own site, one sees that Indy editorial broke up his long paragraphs and corrected a few obvious howlers, but little else); he clearly was never given the training or mentoring he needed (and if Hari thought he didn’t need training, Kelner should have insisted). Hari was given plenty of resources – one hears stories of Indy interns doing mountains of photocopying that would then be couriered over to the great man (couriered, I ask you, as if he was Peter fucking Mandelson) – but didn’t give him what he really needed, a guiding hand. More experienced hacks who had concerns about the infant prodigy’s work soon learned that the editor didn’t want to hear these criticisms.

Which, in the end, only ensured a greater debacle when it all eventually came unstuck. And the two-month suspension plus internal inquiry just reeks of a spin exercise. Not that I don’t expect Andreas Whittam Smith to conduct the inquiry with integrity, but there is already enough prima facie evidence to sack him several times over. There is the Indy forbidding Hari from speaking publicly; there is the Indy persuading the council of the Orwell Prize to delay its announcement on Hari’s 2008 award. A charitable view would be that the Indy doesn’t want to get scooped on its own scandal; a cynical view would be that Indy editorial are trying to puzzle out a way to spin themselves out of this with minimum loss of face. Someone should tell Chris Blackhurst that sometimes, fronting up is the best PR strategy.

You know, when you see headlines about the death of Amy Winehouse, or about Charlie Sheen’s latest escapades, it’s worth remembering that celebrities don’t go off the rails alone; they have a posse of enablers who have too much invested in the celeb’s lifestyle to try and straighten them out. For Johann Hari, though I’m not a fan of his, I have some sympathy; for Simon Kelner, none at all. Hari himself is a young, intelligent, idealistic guy who wanted above all else to be a Great Journalist, and thought (or was led to believe) he was so brilliant he could do it without putting in the effort. As for his enabler… Ann Leslie said we shouldn’t be too harsh on young Johann because he’d never been a real journalist. Maybe Simon Kelner was never a real editor.

Porcus ex grege diaboli

Those who know me will be aware that I’ve been banging on for some considerable time about the likelihood of British journalism throwing up a Jayson Blair scandal. Moreover, I’ve always been clear about which hack in particular was the most likely candidate for the Blair role. Do I feel schadenfreude at Johann Hari’s sudden fall from grace? Very well then, I feel schadenfreude. Couldn’t happen to a nicer chap. But, as ever, there’s more to it than that.

For those of you catching up, the basic story is this. Johann Hari, star columnist on the Independent, frequently does big set-piece interviews with divers newsworthy people. Well, the intrepid Brian Whelan noticed that at least some of the pithy quotes in Hari interviews seemed oddly familiar. In fact, the interviewees had said the things they’d said, just not to Hari. They’d appeared elsewhere first – in books or press releases or other interviews. Which is not to say (and I’m trying to be scrupulously fair here) that Toni Negri or Malalai Joya might not have said something to Hari similar to what he quoted – he’d simply lifted his quotes from elsewhere because they evidently read better than what he had on tape. Which, as it happens, is the explanation given by Hari himself in his remarkably pompous blog post (“intellectual portraiture”, forsooth) owning up to this sharp practice.

Jamie has an interesting take on whether or not this technically counts as plagiarism – Hari isn’t, after all, claiming the thoughts of Toni Negri as his own. But he is claiming, without attribution, somebody else’s work as his own – and not only that, but dramatising the quotes with schlocky “X leans in over his coffee and says to me…” introductions, so as to further underscore that this is what was said to Hari. If I had given an interview to, let’s say, Gary Younge a year ago, and the exact same words turned up in a Hari interview this morning, I think both I and Gary (or whoever the other interviewer might be) would be fully entitled to be quite pissed off about the whole thing. What is more, part of Hari’s job description (and part of the justification for his very generous salary) is that he’s supposed to be a great interviewer who’s really skilled at coaxing killer quotes from his subjects.

What’s clear is that, whatever Johann and his mates might say, this is not normal journalistic practice. Oh, that isn’t to say that hacks don’t polish a quote here or there. It’s quite a while since I had to do an interview in the course of work, but I have on occasion had to straighten out an interviewee’s grammar or cut down the number of cuss words in a quote. But every journalist knows that you have to be bloody careful with people’s quotes, and putting words into an interviewee’s mouth is just not on. Toadmeister has a good take on just what a serious breach of the trade’s ethics this is; indeed, I seem to remember Boris Johnson once getting fired for this sort of thing. If Naomi Klein thinks the serial plagiarising of quotes is just an “attribution problem”, then frankly, that affects how seriously I’ll take anything she writes in the future.

Let me expand on this a little. Many of you will know of Richard Peppiatt, the Daily Star hack who resigned from the paper a few months back, naughtily leaking his resignation letter in which he cheerfully admitted to having made up dozens of stories. But I like Rich Peppiatt, and journos have hailed him as a whistleblower who exposed massive journalistic malpractice in Richard Desmond’s media empire. And this is precisely because he blew the whistle on a culture where low-paid, overworked hacks would be under instructions to produce a front-page on Jordan (or these days it may be Ryan Giggs) whether or not there was a story there. Although I take Foxy’s point about how hard it can be to get outright invention into a paper, it can happen if you’ve got a rogue proprietor who more or less insists on made-up stories.

Yet, that’s not what we’re dealing with here. Anyone who reads the Daily Star does so in the full knowledge that a lot of what’s in the paper is just bollocks. The Independent, on the other hand, has always been terribly snooty about journalistic ethics. And it’s made doubly delicious by the fact that this is Johann Hari, someone who’s prone to throwing the most spectacular hissy fits when anyone questions his integrity, or even politely asks him to substantiate an allegation.

In some ways it’s a problem of overpromotion. Your jobbing hack will spend years at the unglamorous end of the business, learning how to nail down facts, how to evidence your claims and, above all, how you need to be incredibly careful with quotes. Here’s a guy, though, who graduates from Cambridge and walks straight into a column on a national newspaper. Very early on he earns a reputation for – let’s be charitable – embellishment and exaggeration, but instead of learning from his very public mistakes he just becomes more and more self-righteous on the subject of his own integrity.

I don’t, as it happens, think that Hari is a liar, in the cynical sense. I’m quite prepared to believe he isn’t knowingly dishonest. But I do think he’s a world champion bullshitter, in the philosophical sense described by Harry Frankfurt:

It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.

So, like I say, I don’t believe Hari is a cynical liar. I’m often driven to ponder whether he even understands the basic categories of truth or falsehood. After all, the examples of his tortured relationship to reality are well known. And, you know, this is not a question of me disagreeing with what he says. I disagree with, to take an example at random, David Aaronovitch on almost everything, but I can still enjoy reading him, because we’re at least in the same empirical universe. I long ago tired of Hari’s column because reading him just became a tedious exercise in fact-checking. Even when you agree with him, you can count on him to produce at least one misstatement or terminological inexactitude or mangled statistic. And after a certain period of time… well, as a blogosphere sage once said, “I wouldn’t believe Hari if he told me he was gay.”

I will allow him this, though, that he’s extremely skilled at telling his audience what they want to hear, and like-minded audiences are willing to forgive a lot from a writer who’s articulating their own worldview. Today there have been some pretty prominent figures willing to defend Hari on the basis that, well, he’s a leftie so what he’s done can’t be so bad. If that’s your view, fair enough, but I don’t ever want to hear you moan about Richard Littlejohn again.

I think Hari will be all right in the end. Were he an actual jobbing hack this might kill off his career, but he’s high enough up the food chain to survive. He’ll go to ground for a while, perhaps claiming the criticism is all motivated by homophobia (thanks to Laurie Penny for rolling out that alibi early), then resurface with a tearful interview on Women’s Hour about how sorry he is, but now he’s learned from his mistakes and won’t ever do it again, honest guv. He certainly has a tribe of devoted fans who’ll forgive him anything, and will probably keep some kind of writing gig; but he’ll never live this down. Private Eye will be repeating the story for the rest of his natural life.

No, the real question has to be asked of Simon Kelner. The Independent – a paper that really can’t afford to lose any more readers – has employed Hari for the last decade, and editorial staff can’t have been unaware that there were (cough) certain issues around his factuality. But they’ve stuck with him through thick and thin because – why? He gets the paper talked about? He generates web traffic? So does Bob Fisk, but even people who don’t like Bob wouldn’t see him as a laughing stock, which I’m afraid is what Johann has now become. If you just want a columnist to produce liberal-left chest-beating twice a week, hiring Sunny Hundal would be a much cheaper option.

And finally, yes, I do agree with Guido – and isn’t it telling that Guido can take the moral high ground here? – that Hari should really hand back his Orwell Prize. Dear old GO’s memory deserves better than this farce.

Big Heid Coont ’11: why the UUP is banjaxed

They aren’t the only ones in this situation, of course. We may begin by noting, parenthetically, that the TUV is also banjaxed.

Yes, Jim Allister and his merry band continue to disappoint. From Jim’s 66,000 votes at the Euro election two years ago, to the 26,000 the TUV polled in last year’s Westminster election, to the 16,000 polled for Stormont last week, this looks very much like diminishing returns having set in. True, Jim is in the Assembly (returned under quota on the last count in North Antrim), but with an Assembly party of one, plus a mere six councillors to back him up… well, one gets a profound sense of Bob McCartney redux. No wonder Walter Millar was moved to publicly speculate on whether the TUV even had a future; and we suspect Sunny Jim will shortly be having a painful interview with the boys who fund the TUV, and who will at some point be expecting some bang for their buck.

More on this from Turgon, but we may note in the meantime that there is in fact quite a large constituency of hardline unionists out there, particularly west of the Bann. But they aren’t supporting the TUV, so who might they be supporting?

An’ sae Ah gie yis Tractor Tam:

We have in the past noticed that border unionism is a very different beast indeed from its greater Belfast counterpart, and nowhere more so than in Fermanagh, which is like a whole wee country by itself. Certainly, about this time some urban UUP types will be scratching their heads at a party leader who resembles nothing so much as Harry West stepping out of a time-travelling DeLorean.

But first, let us consider just what a shocker this election has been for what was our ruling party for fifty years. Taking the Assembly first, a decline from eighteen seats to sixteen doesn’t look great, especially as that will probably cost the party one of its two ministries. But that scoreline is deceptively flattering in a couple of ways. One is the two gains the party largely fluked, with a very narrow win for Big Ross Hussey in West Tyrone, and a second seat in Strangford achieved by boundary changes that disadvantaged the DUP coupled with the continued underperformance of Strangford’s nationalist vote. But set that against the party’s losses: chief whip Fred Cobain gone in North Belfast, the party’s second seat gone in what should be the heartland of North Down, a seat lost to Sinn Féin in East Antrim, and then the horrible self-inflicted wound in East Derry, where the constituency association deselected popular sitting MLA David McClarty, who then went on to win the seat as an independent, polling more votes than the two official UUP candidates combined.

Moreover, there’s little comfort in the detail. Only three candidates (leader Tom Elliott, minister Danny Kennedy and wannabe leader Basil McCrea) elected on the first count. A whole wheen of candidates scraping in on very late counts, including people like Roy Beggs, health minister Michael McGimpsey, David McNarry and Leslie Cree who should not by any stretch of the imagination be vulnerable. Two seats out of 24 in Belfast, and both of those were a stretch. Only two constituencies (Strangford and Upper Bann, and those two only barely) where the party could take a second seat. And nowhere – literally no constituency – where the UUP beat the DUP on first preferences. Below 10% in East Belfast; only just above it in North Down. This is a party with no margin for further slippage.

There’s a political point here and a sociological-geographical point. Firstly, it’s important to get rid of the preconception that the UUP is the moderate party and the DUP the hardline party. That may have been true a decade ago; today, in terms at least of the dominant factions in both parties, it’s the other way round. And in fact border unionism has never been remotely liberal – just ask yourself who exactly was voting for Harry West, Willie Ross and Enoch Powell all those years. During the election coverage, Jeffrey Donaldson (who knows a thing or two about the UUP) suggested that Tom had positioned his party as TUV Lite; Brian Feeney rather more acidly commented that the main difference between Elliott and Allister was that Sunny Jim was a much more urbane and sophisticated politician. Ouch.

There’s a certain cosmic inevitability to all this, and volumes could be written about the decline and fall of the once mighty UUP. (Or, if a publisher is reading this, at least a comic novel in Colin Bateman stylee.) There is certainly a story to be told about Bob McCartney, from his initial Westminster campaign backed by a motley coalition of unreconstructed Stalinists, loyalist paramilitaries and gay rights activists, right up to his entire breakaway party falling out with him and his quixotic attempt to simultaneously win Assembly seats in six constituencies so that he, Bob, could then wield six votes without having to bother with inconvenient party colleagues.

There’s a story to be told about the Baby Barristers, and how they conspired to bring down Jim Molyneaux and place David Trimble in the leadership, only to very quickly become completely browned off with Trimble, conspire at great length against him, then decamp en masse to the DUP. There’s a story to be told about Jeffrey Donaldson’s whole series of abortive putsches, where he made Trimble’s life impossible but failed to muster enough support to take over himself. And there’s a story to be told about Reg Empey’s harebrained schemes, culminating in the UCUNF debacle.

But to cut a long story short, the departure of the ex-Vanguard leadership around Trimble and Empey exposes the cultural gap between the UUP’s different sectors, mainly along the rural versus urban/suburban axis. Michael has some thoughts on this, but I think Professor Billy sums it up well:

They hiv nat so much fallen betwain’ twa stools as walked in a pair o’ them an’ then tread them all o’er the carpet. On the yin hawn, ye hiv lovely Basil wi’ his hair an’ his wee friends, scootin’ aroun’ the metrapolis like a wee smart car wi’ jazz oan the Aye Pod. On the o’er ye hiv Tam settin’ the muck spreader til full blast oan the back o’ his Massey, an’ slippin’ “The Best of Corbet Accordian Band” intil his 8 track. Ye cannae be the TUV, DUP, Alliance an’ Conservatives all at the same time, Ah think, in fact it is a miracle anybudy votes fur yis at all.

I couldn’t put it better myself. The basic point is that, since it lost its dominant position in unionism a decade ago, the UUP collectively has not known what to be at. And so it’s devolved into its constituent parts. You see, the UUP of old was not so much a big tent as an entire campsite, and the only thing that could keep disparate figures such as John Carson, Willie Ross, Harold McCusker and Enoch Powell (not to mention such prodigal figures as Bill Craig and Jim Kilfedder) in the same party was the very fact of it being a big party that could accommodate such a tangle of contradictions.

But this scattered nature has meant the UUP has been extremely vulnerable to having bits of its base cannibalised. Over the past decade, much of its traditional Middle Ulster electorate, and a large proportion of its actual cadre, has defected to the DUP. The fur coat brigade has gone over almost in its entirety to Alliance. It’s still shaking loose bits and pieces. In last week’s elections there was a very large vote in Kilkeel for UKIP councillor Henry Reilly, who used to be in the UUP and has taken his voters with him almost wholesale. And it’s said that David McClarty had a team of forty volunteers canvassing Coleraine, which is damn impressive when you consider that many UUP councillors canvass single-handed, and some don’t appear to know what a canvass is.

The UUP electorate these days boils down to three elements: rural Orangemen who like the cut of Tom Elliott’s jib; councillors who for whatever reason won’t join the DUP or Alliance (and who have personal followings based on them being useful public representatives); and elderly folk who think they’re still voting for Lord Brookeborough. The party still has a large membership, and some semblance of organisation in most areas, but this isn’t a great foundation to be building on.[1]

And here we come to realise that the Tom Elliott issue is not merely an issue of Tom’s leadership qualities. Tom actually ticks many UUP boxes – service in the UDR, past County Grand Master of the Orange Order in Fermanagh, member of the Royal Black Preceptory – and that goes down mighty well with Tom’s own voters in the Dreary Steeples. But here’s the thing. The big votes last week for Tom or indeed Danny Kennedy availed them little, as neither of them were in a position to bring in a running mate in their border constituencies. Much as the culchies may resent this, greater Belfast is where most unionist voters are, and there needs to be some appeal to the urbanites. Basil McCrea at least grasps the problem, even if he doesn’t have a convincing solution.

The road block is the nature of the UUP itself. A very large proportion of its membership – those people who made Tom leader – resides in Tyrone or Fermanagh. So do many of its councillors, which has been confirmed by the local government elections. Of the party’s current 99 councillors, a full 27 are based in the three western counties, with the border districts of Armagh and Newry & Mourne accounting for a further six and three respectively. In only three of the 26 districts did the UUP outpoll the DUP – Fermanagh, Armagh and Banbridge. The centre of gravity is firmly shifting to the border.

Then look at those results in the metropolis. As late as 2001 the UUP was the biggest party in Belfast City Hall. It is now down to from seven to three councillors out of 51. This puts it equal in representation with the PUP and UPRG, the loyalist micro-parties which represent the interests of Uncle Andy and Big Mervyn. It came in fifth place in the popular vote with 8.6%. Radiating out, the party is now down to three seats in Castlereagh and three in North Down. Not only is it continuing to leak support to the DUP, but a resurgent Alliance Party has been mauling it in what remains of the liberal unionist electorate. There’s very little of an urban base to rebuild from.

And the cluelessness continues with the decision to form a mini-UUUC on Castlereagh council, a decision rightly lambasted in today’s News Letter by Alex Kane and Basil McCrea, on the not unreasonable grounds that it a) gets the backs up of those voters who’ve been drifting from the UUP to Alliance, and b) turns the UUP locally into an appendage of the DUP, which is great for the DUP but not so great for those punters in Castlereagh who specifically chose to vote UUP.

Is it possible to reverse this trend towards an ultra-conservative Border Unionist Party with no discernible appeal to anyone living east of Lough Neagh ? I really can’t see it, and I’m not even sure that Tom even comprehends the issue. And I tell you what, if I were leading the Alliance Party I’d want to keep the phone lines open to people like Basil McCrea or Mike Nesbitt, just in case.

Oh, and the SDLP is also banjaxed, but we’ll deal with them later.

[1] This may be apocryphal, but some estimates have the UUP having a larger paid-up membership than the DUP. Obviously that doesn’t equate to either activists on the ground or electoral success, as with Fianna Fáil in the south, which in some ways is reminiscent of the UUP post its 2005 wipeout.

An’ jist a wee bit mair fae Big Heid Coont ’11 #ae11

Just by way of an afterthought, a few links of interest. Above you’ll see the hyperlocal Sinn Féin broadcast for North Antrim candidate Daithí McKay, complete with groovy Monty Python animations.

This wee blog is not the only place that’s been doing previews. FitzjamesHorse has been doing top work along these lines. Go and have a look.

From the lower-profile end of the election, the Workers Party has an election blog; West Belfast socialist candidate Brian Pelan has a blog; and Alan in Belfast, who’s always worth following on the local political scene, has gone off the beaten track with a series of interviews with the smaller parties.

And finally, Professor Billy is instructing our community of monoglot Ulster-Scots speakers who fur til be votin’ fur.

Constituency whistle-stop, part the final: Gotham City #ae11

And so for the last of our bite-sized mini-meals we arrive back at the metropolis.

North Belfast

2007 Stormont results: DUP 37.4%, 2 seats; SF 30.6%, 2 seats; SDLP 13.7%, 1 seat; UUP 8.4%, 1 seat; Raymond McCord 4.4%; Green 2.0; Alliance 1.6%; UKUP 1.2%; WP 0.5%; Rainbow George 0.1%.

2010 Westminster results: Dodds (DUP) 40.0%; Kelly (SF) 34.0%; Maginness (SDLP) 12.3%; Cobain (UUP/UCUNF) 7.7%; Webb (Alliance) 4.9%; McAuley (Ind).

2011 Stormont candidates: Paula Bradley (DUP); Fred Cobain (UUP); William Humphrey (DUP); Gerry Kelly (SF); John Lavery (WP); JJ Magee (SF); Alban Maginness (SDLP); Nelson McCausland (DUP); Raymond McCord (Ind); Carál Ní Chuilín (SF); Billy Webb (Alliance).

Multiple features of interest in the north of the city. Actually the least of these is the extensive boundary change, since the mass exodus of Ardoyne residents to Glengormley is making the suburbs look more and more like the Inner North in demographic terms. Note also that the combined nationalist vote share is in the mid-forties, and the unionist share barely scraping half, in what used to be a safe unionist seat.

The nationalist side is straightforward enough. Sinn Féin have two quotas plus change, and will easily retain their two seats, with the third candidate being there as a marker rather than a current prospect. The SDLP, whose core vote in the area is quite resilient, will turn in the guts of a quota, and Allbran won’t have any trouble being re-elected.

It’s on the unionist side where we have an injection of colour. One dash comes from victims’ campaigner Raymond McCord (very much a good egg) who has done sterling work in exposing a whole network of corruption linked to his son’s murder in 1997 by a UVF unit that turned out to be so riddled with police informers as effectively to be an unofficial arm of the state. This, unfortunately, is the sort of murky thing that happened on multiple occasions during the Troubles, in north Belfast more than anywhere. Mr McCord, incidentally, received bog all support from local unionist politicians, and doesn’t mind saying so in very trenchant terms. And he strikes a chord with those working-class Protestants who don’t like their estates being run by burly men in ill-fitting suits.

There’s also perennial UUP man Fred Cobain, who surreally was the Conservative and Unionist candidate here last year despite being a self-described socialist who’d really rather be in the Labour Party. Fred’s working-class credentials are so solid that he once left a UUP conference halfway through so as to attend a Crusaders match. Over the years, I’ve sort of warmed to Fred as a sort of relict of a kind of local politico you don’t get any more.

And, if you want a dash of colour, a whole paint pot is provided by culture minister Nelson McCausland, and never was a man better qualified for a ministerial post. Not only is Nelson a fluent speaker of Ulster Scots, he has a slightly alarming habit of whipping out his accordion and playing folksy ballads without prior warning. For many years Nelson was heid-yin of the Lord’s Day Observance Society, a rather old-school organisation that likes to go around chaining up swings in children’s play areas. He’s also, believe it or not, a British Israelite; and, in a perhaps not unconnected twist, has been rather keen in his ministerial role to encourage our museums to give a fair crack of the whip to Young Earth Creationism. Except for a few odd places in the west of Scotland, it’s hard to think of anywhere else where you’d get a politician quite like Nelson McCausland.

Right now, what are those electoral calculations? Well, it’s safe to assume two seats for the DUP. In fact, the DUP’s first preference tally last time around should have snaffled it three seats and a monopoly of unionist representation, but this did not come to pass thanks to some egregiously egotistical quota-squatting from Nigel Dodds, an anachronism in a DUP that these days aspires to manage its vote with pinpoint accuracy. The resulting transfer leakage allowed Fred Cobain to cling on despite being nowhere near a quota on the first count (and even some way off on the final count).

The question, then, will be whether the DUP can exert enough discipline to secure that elusive third, or whether Fred will frustrate them yet again. Raymond McCord’s transfers could come into play here; and last time out, Fred was helped along by some friendly transfers from the SDLP.

Finally, Fordy has named North Belfast as an Alliance target, to which I can only reply that our justice minister must have been having a senior moment.

West Belfast

2007 Stormont results: SF 69.9%, 5 seats; SDLP 12.2%, 1 seat; DUP 10.8%, PBP 2.3%; UUP 1.7%; WP 1.3%; RSF 1.3%; Alliance 0.4%; Rainbow George 0.2%.

2010 Westminster results: Adams (SF) 71.1%; Attwood (SDLP) 16.4%; Humphrey (DUP) 7.6%; Manwaring (UUP/UCUNF) 3.1%; Hendron (Alliance) 1.9%.

2011 Stormont candidates: Alex Attwood (SDLP); Gerry Carroll (PBP); Colin Keenan (SDLP); Brian Kingston (DUP); Pat Lawlor (Socialist Party); John Lowry (WP); Bill Manwaring (UUP); Paul Maskey
(SF); Fra McCann (SF); Jennifer McCann (SF); Dan McGuinness (Alliance); Brian Pelan (SD); Sue Ramsey (SF); Pat Sheehan (SF).

Next we turn to the north’s nearest approximation of a one-party state. Last time out, Sinn Féin did something quite incredible in a PR election by taking five seats out of six. They did this by first, taking 4.89 quotas on first preferences; secondly by balancing their candidates very well, not the easiest thing to do with Gerry Adams on the ballot; thirdly by keeping their transfers very tight indeed. Worth noting, too, that in the last local government elections the party took five seats out of five in the Lower Falls electoral area with an 85.2% vote share, and four out of five in Upper Falls with 75.2%. Even with the incursion of non-SF republicans into the local government race, you wouldn’t bet against them repeating the trick.

Arguably, Gerry’s departure for Louth weakens the ticket. But it will be worth watching to see whether the most efficient political machine in the north can pull off the five-seat trick again.

If they do, then who takes the sixth? In 2007, the SDLP only had 0.85% of a quota between their two candidates, with Alex Attwood being elected beneath quota on the last count. There is a school of thought in Sinn Féin that wouldn’t mind the DUP regaining their West Belfast seat – of which more in a sec – provided this was at Attwood’s expense. And it’s risky on the SDLP’s part to run two candidates when they can’t be certain of even getting one quota. I do, however, think they will hang on this time, though they may be reliant on small-party transfers. There is enough of a core SDLP vote in, say, the nicer bits of Andersonstown to get them close enough to a quota for it not to be much of a stretch, and to retain that lone council seat in Upper Falls. The longer-term problem for the SDLP, here more evident than elsewhere, is that their vote is quite elderly, the more prosperous elements of it have migrated to South Belfast, they have no organisation worth talking about, and the West Belfast SDLP voter is incredibly demoralised after years of having their ass whipped by Gerry. As a paradigm of the problem, young people here may not vote in great numbers, but those who do vote monolithically for Sinn Féin.

Now, what about that unionist seat? There should, theoretically, be the chance of one; indeed, the DUP’s Diane Dodds did win a seat here in 2003. But it’s always been touch and go. Last time out the two unionist candidates had a combined 0.87 of a quota, but with nobody to get transfers from but each other, Diane Dodds was left in seventh place, 500 votes short. There just aren’t enough unionist voters left in West Belfast to make that seat a certainty, and those that are there don’t turn out in enough numbers to elect an MLA. Although again, perhaps Gerry’s appeal to working-class Protestants to turn out and vote was not a sign of cross-community socialism, but rather an attempt to cut Attwood off at the knees.

Finally, West Belfast voters are spoiled by having no less than four varieties of the further left pitching for their number 1. Sigh. I know the differences between the groups are significant to the groups, but they don’t appear terribly significant to the average punter, and the leftist alphabet soup struggling to avoid the wooden spoon and, inevitably, some group crowing about the historic significance of it getting a handful more votes than the others – well, it makes the left look silly. Especially as the Socialist Party and People Before Profit are in an actual electoral alliance south of the border.

South Belfast

2007 Stormont results: SDLP 26.8%, 2 seats; DUP 22.4%, 1 seat; UUP 18.4%, 1 seat; SF 13.2%, 1 seat; Alliance 12.6%, 1 seat; Green 2.4%; PUP 1.4%; UKUP 1.0%; Socialist Party 0.8%; WP 0.4%; Cons 0.4%; Rainbow George 0.2%; Procapitalism 0.1%; Geoffrey Wilson 0.03%.

2010 Westminster results: McDonnell (SDLP) 41.0%; Spratt (DUP) 23.7%; Bradshaw (UUP/UCUNF) 17.3%; Lo (Alliance) 15.0%; McGibbon (Green) 3.0%.

2011 Stormont candidates: Clare Bailey (Green); Brian Faloon (PBP); Mark Finlay (UUP); Anna Lo (Alliance); Paddy Lynn (WP); Alex Maskey (SF); Conall McDevitt (SDLP); Big Al McDonnell (SDLP); Michael McGimpsey (UUP); Paddy Meehan (Socialist Party); Ruth Patterson (DUP); Charles Smyth (Procapitalism); Jimmy Spratt (DUP); Nico Torregrosa (UKIP).

We conclude our tour with a constituency where, again, the best bet is for no change, with all six incumbents being returned. Not a foregone conclusion, though, and South Belfast is synonymous with tight races.

The SDLP, helped by Westminster incumbency, are likely to retain their two seats. While it’s true that the boundary change makes South Belfast nominally a little less nationalist, this is probably the constituency with the most rapid demographic shift, and the SDLP will be close enough to two quotas to hang on. Arguably, that’s the least interesting thing in one of the few constituencies where the SDLP has a semblance of organisation, as its two branches (Ormeau/Stranmillis and Malone/Finaghy) have been in a state of undeclared tribal warfare for as long as anyone can remember. Carmel Hanna’s retirement has not ended this as her replacement, strategy whizzkid Conall McDevitt, is closely identified with the Margaret Ritchie leadership and therefore not the pin-up boy of the more enthusiastic McDonnell tribesmen. That’s a soap that will run and run, as evidenced by the McDonnell posters on the Ormeau that say “McDevitt 2” in microscopic print.

The UUP, which had two seats in the constituency not so long ago, will have enough votes to re-elect Gimpo, but isn’t doing too well in South Belfast. Its South Belfast candidate of last year, Paula Bradshaw, has defected to Alliance, while the DUP is squatting its more traditional vote in places like Sandy Row. Anna Lo, on the other hand, did very well last year, and should cruise home with the support, not merely of traditional Alliance types plus the Chinese community, but also the good will of those many liberal-minded people in South Belfast who approve in principle of having Anna Lo in the Assembly.

Jimmy Spratt is also odds on, which only leaves Alex Maskey. Last time around, that last seat was quite close. Despite having 0.92 of a quota on first preferences, Maskey proved incredibly transfer-repellent, only picking up 170 transfers over the course of ten counts, and coming in some 900 votes ahead of the runner-up, the DUP’s Chris Stalford. Any slippage whatsoever in Maskey’s first preferences would leave him vulnerable; on the other hand, his withdrawal last year in McDonnell’s favour won’t have done his chances of receiving SDLP voters’ number 3 any harm. I would tend to think he’s close enough to be very difficult indeed to catch.

Sin é, and phew. Thank God I wasn’t doing previews of the 26 district councils.

Constituency whistle-stop, part 5: the orange crescent #ae11

On the home straight now, we head back northwards and eastwards.

Lagan Valley

2007 Stormont results: DUP 48.1%, 3 seats; UUP 18.6%, 1 seat; SF 12.2%, 1 seat; Alliance 9.0%, 1 seat; SDLP 6.8%; Green 2.2%; UKUP 2.0%; Cons 0.9%; WP 0.2%.

2010 Westminster results: Donaldson (DUP) 49.8%; Trimble (UUP/UCUNF) 21.1%; Lunn (Alliance) 11.4%; Harbinson (TUV) 8.6%; Heading (SDLP) 5.0%; Butler (SF) 4.0%.

2011 Stormont candidates: Pat Catney (SDLP); Jonathan Craig (DUP); Paul Givan (DUP); Brenda Hale (DUP); Mark Hill (UUP); Trevor Lunn (Alliance); Basil McCrea (UUP); Edwin Poots (DUP); Conor Quinn (Green); Mary-Kate Quinn (SF); Lyle Rea (TUV).

In a generally boring election, we can be certain of changes in the Kingdom of Jeffrey. For one thing, Jeffrey Donaldson himself is not standing, having opted for the grander stage of Westminster. He’s been out campaigning for sure, but the huge personal vote accruing to Jeffrey, and its absence this time around, will change the calculations somewhat. Jeffrey always provides a massive boost to whichever party he’s in at any particular time, but in the nature of personal votes there’s always been significant transfer leakage. So, apart from the question of whether Jeffrey’s absence from the ballot paper depresses the DUP vote, there’s going to be a test of the DUP’s discipline when it comes to balancing.

That said, for the last couple of elections the DUP have been running at about three and a half quotas, and the UUP at one and a half. So we can allocate three to the former and one to the latter as a baseline. Moreover, the very stable Alliance vote of around 10% should see Trevor Lunn home. That leaves one to allocate.

This is due to the last boundary change which has cut the combined nationalist vote in the constituency from around 20% to more like 10%, not enough to elect an MLA unless an extremely unlikely sequence of events takes place. I can see that figure creeping back up towards a quota in the medium term thanks to outmigration from west Belfast to the Lisburn suburbs, but it ain’t there this time. At least sitting Sinn Féin MLA Paul Butler, who’s thrown in the towel, thinks so.

That should mean an extra unionist seat, but we’re now back in coin-tossing territory. The Westminster results suggest half a quota spare for the DUP, half a quota for the UUP, and a little over half a quota for the TUV. Actually the TUV candidate, former UUP chief executive Lyle Rea, will be worth watching. Last year, this constituency provided the TUV’s strongest result outside North Antrim, and if Jim’s boys are to make a breakthrough anywhere else, Lagan Valley seems the logical place.

South Antrim

2007 Stormont results: DUP 34.5%, 2 seats; UUP 20.5%, 1 seat; SF 16.5%, 1 seat; Alliance 13.1%, 1 seat; SDLP 11.1%, 1 seat; UKUP 2.3%; Green 1.3%; Cons 0.3%; WP 0.2%.

2010 Westminster results: McCrea (DUP) 33.9%; Empey (UUP/UCUNF) 30.4%; McLaughlin (SF) 13.9%; Byrne (SDLP) 8.7%; Lawther (Alliance) 7.7%; Lucas (TUV) 5.4%.

2011 Stormont candidates: Tommy Burns (SDLP); Trevor Clarke (DUP); Adrian Cochrane-Watson (UUP); David Ford (Alliance); Paul Girvan (DUP); Danny Kinahan (UUP); Pam Lewis (DUP); Mel Lucas (TUV); Mitchel McLaughlin (SF); Stephen Parkes (BNP).

It was a close-run thing in South Antrim last year, as Reg Empey met his Waterloo in failing to depose Rev Willie McCrea, who even in the days of DUP landslides was never universally popular in the constituency, due not least to the difficulty of digging Willie out of Magherafelt. Effectively, that means there was a big whack of tactical voting last year that will shake itself out under STV.

Do not, therefore, take that flattering UUP vote from last year as being representative. Those Alliance and SDLP voters who opted for Reg in an attempt to oust Singing Willie will return home. Therefore, even without factoring in David Ford’s enhanced profile as justice minister, his seat would appear fairly safe.

Looking elsewhere, a DUP vote in the high thirties six or seven years back has dropped down to the lower thirties thanks to the hiving off of a section of the DUP base to the TUV. That should equate to the DUP holding their two seats, and I also think Mitchel McLaughlin will be safe – if he doesn’t surpass the quota on the first count, he’s likely to be very close to it.

The interest here is whether the UUP can make a rare gain at the SDLP’s expense. Frankly, the UUP should really have taken two seats in 2007, but with typical UUP competence they were let down by the small incidental factors that a) they ran three candidates where only two seats were available, and b) their balancing was crap even by UUP standards. This allowed the SDLP’s Tommy Burns in by around a thousand votes. The boundary revision handing Glengormley to North Belfast should narrow that somewhat. Mind you, for the UUP to make a gain would require the UUP to, y’know, get something right, and how often does that happen?

East Antrim

2007 Stormont results: DUP 45.5%, 3 seats; UUP 21.9%, 2 seats; Alliance 15.8%, 1 seat; SDLP 5.9%; SF 3.9%; UKUP 2.4%; Green 2.0%; John Anderson 1.3%; Cons 1.3%.

2010 Westminster results: Wilson (DUP) 45.9%; McCune (UUP/UCUNF) 23.7%; Lynch (Alliance) 11.1%; McMullan (SF) 6.8%; McCamphill (SDLP) 6.6%; Morrison (TUV) 6.0%.

2011 Stormont candidates: Roy Beggs jnr (UUP); Stewart Dickson (Alliance); Daniel Donnelly (Green); David Hilditch (DUP); Gordon Lyons (DUP); Justin McCamphill (SDLP); Rodney McCune (UUP); Oliver McMullan (SF); Steven Moore (BNP); Gerardine Mulvenna (Alliance); Alastair Ross (DUP); Ruth Wilson (TUV); Sammy Wilson (DUP).

It’s relatively easy to predict that the DUP is going to streak to yet another victory in East Antrim, having won every election in the constituency since 2003, and with finance minister Sammy Wilson having comprehensively given his opponents the bum’s rush last year. With a vote share in the high forties, three seats are a given, though adding a fourth candidate looks a little optimistic.

There’s certainly one seat here for the UUP, and even in Seán Neeson’s absence there should be an Alliance seat, unless they get something very wrong indeed.

Where the interest is here is in the latest boundary change, shifting part of the solidly nationalist Glens into East Antrim, which should just about create a nationalist quota, that nationalist seat (if it happens) probably coming at the expense of the UUP. I say if it happens, because there are certain complicated calculations involved. The SDLP should take the seat if they clearly beat Sinn Féin on first preferences (which on last year’s evidence they’ll struggle to do). They can win the seat if they creep ahead of SF in the counts, then McMullan is eliminated with the SDLP and one unionist still in the frame. I assume that SF voters are very likely to give the SDLP their second preference, but transfers tend to be a good deal weaker in the other direction, so McMullan would need to be a good deal ahead of the SDLP (and not too far off a quota) to make it.

As is, there was a near dead heat last year, with SF a mere 45 votes ahead of the SDLP. In that situation, the two nationalist candidates could well just cancel each other out and the UUP could escape with its second seat in hand. It’ll take a lot of counts to work that out, but such are the vagaries of STV.

Constituency whistle-stop, part 4: where the mountains of Mourne sweep down to the sea #ae11

And now we head down to the south-east for another trio of constituencies.

Newry and Armagh

2007 Stormont results: SF 42.1%, 3 seats; SDLP 19.8%, 1 seat; UUP 13.1%, 1 seat; DUP 12.9%, 1 seat; Paul Berry 4.7%; Davy Hyland 4.4%; Willie Frazer 1.2%; Green 1.2%; Alliance 0.6%.

2010 Westminster results: Murphy (SF) 42.0%; Bradley (SDLP) 23.4%; Kennedy (UUP/UCUNF) 19.1%; Irwin (DUP) 12.8%; Frazer (Ind U) 1.5%; Muir (Alliance) 1.2%.

2011 Stormont candidates: Cathal Boylan (SF); Dominic Bradley (SDLP); Mickey “The Stickie” Brady (SF); Barrie Halliday (TUV); William Irwin (DUP); Danny Kennedy (UUP); James Malone (Ind); Conor Murphy (SF); David Murphy (Alliance); Thomas O’Hanlon (SDLP); Robert Woods (UKIP).

This may be the most predictable constituency of all. Since Conor Murphy took the Westminster seat from Séamus Mallon in 2005, the votes here have been very stable, with only minor variances thanks to the 2007 independent candidacies of deselected MLAs Paul Berry (DUP) and Davy Hyland (SF).

The Sinn Féin vote since then has been virtually dead on three quotas, and with halfway competent balancing they should see all three of their candidates home, even assuming they don’t raise the vote share. There are two unionist quotas, with the UUP’s Danny Kennedy being ahead on recent form, but there will easily be enough transfers to secure the DUP seat even if they come in below quota.

That leaves the SDLP marooned with about a quota and a half. So, a return for Dominic Bradley, which is fine – he’s one of those people in the SDLP who I rate – but the running mate left stranded in seventh place. No change is the smart move – indeed, with all six incumbents running for re-election, not even a change in the personnel.

South Down

2007 Stormont results: SDLP 31.4%, 2 seats; SF 30.7%, 2 seats; DUP 17.7%, 1 seat; UUP 9.6%, 1 seat; Green 3.5%; UKIP 2.7%; Alliance 1.5%; Martin Cunningham 0.9%; UKUP 0.9%; Cons 0.8%; Lab 0.3%.

2010 Westminster results: Ritchie (SDLP) 48.5%; Ruane (SF) 28.7%; Wells (DUP) 8.6%; McCallister (UUP/UCUNF) 7.3%; McConnell (TUV) 3.5%; Enright (Green) 2.1%; Griffin (Alliance) 1.3%.

2011 Westminster candidates: Naomi Bailie (SF); Willie Clarke (SF); Cadogan Enright (Green); David Griffin (Alliance); John McCallister (UUP); Karen McKevitt (SDLP); Eamonn O’Neill (SDLP); Henry Reilly (UKIP); Margaret Ritchie (SDLP); Caitríona Ruane (SF); Jim Wells (DUP).

Again, the safest projection in South Down is for no change. It’s hard to extrapolate from last year’s Westminster election thanks to the very large unionist tactical vote for Margaret Ritchie to keep out Caitríona Ruane. Such won’t be the case in an STV election.

Nonetheless, the first five seats will go two SDLP, two SF and the DUP’s Jim Wells. Sinn Féin, one feels, are putting up three candidates for the sake of form rather than a realistic prospect, since for some mind-boggling reason they haven’t backed up incumbents Caitríona Ruane (based across the border at Carlingford, but I suppose Warrenpoint counts as her base) and Willie Clarke (based in Newcastle) with a Downpatrick-based candidate, but rather with the Ards Peninsula-based Naomi Bailie who, I suggest, might have been better employed building the SF base in Strangford. It looks like they haven’t really put much thought into this. (Then again, I thought they should have moved O’Dowd over from Upper Bann for the Westminsters, so what do I know?)

The one seat under pressure is the UUP seat, and those boundary changes around Ballynahinch do make things tighter for John McCallister. The question is whether either nationalist party (realistically on recent form, the SDLP) can pick up enough momentum to pinch the seat. But still, McCallister was nearly 4000 votes ahead of the SDLP’s Michael Carr on the final count in 2007, and if we take the boundary change as taking out some 2000 unionist voters and 1000 nationalist voters, McCallister should still have enough of a cushion to see him home. I find it difficult to see the SDLP pulling off a third under its own steam.

Watch out, though, for the Greens’ Cadogan Enright. Can’t see him winning a seat, but this is the area where the Greens have been trying to lay down long-term roots.

Upper Bann

2007 Stormont results: DUP 31.4%, 2 seats; SF 25.3%, 1 seat; UUP 21.3%, 2 seats; SDLP 12.7%, 1 seat; David Calvert 3.1%; Green 2.7%; Alliance 1.9%; RSF 0.9%; Cons 0.6%; Suzanne Peeples 0.2%.

2010 Westminster results: Simpson (DUP) 33.8%; Flash Harry (UUP/UCUNF) 25.7%; O’Dowd (SF) 24.7%; Kelly (SDLP) 12.7%; Heading (Alliance) 3.0%.

2011 Stormont candidates:  Sydney Anderson (DUP); Jo-Anne Dobson (UUP); Sam Gardiner (UUP); Flash Harry (Alliance); Dolores Kelly (SDLP); Colin McCusker (UUP); Johnny McGibbon (SF); Sheila McQuaid (Alliance); Stephen Moutray (DUP); John O’Dowd (SF); Barbara Trotter (UKIP); David Vance (TUV).

All right, I admit it. I really really want to see David Vance in the Assembly. Not because I agree with him, but to add to the gaiety of the nation, and also bring a bit of critical intelligence to the desperately low-level debates.

Leaving that aside, what can we say about the prospects in Upper Bann? Well, I think certain parties are stretching. The DUP, who should have two quotas, have been sensible in putting up two candidates. The UUP, who on recent form will not have two quotas, have in their infinite wisdom put up three candidates, thus lessening the likelihood of them taking that second seat they were lucky to have last time round.

The SDLP, who should have most of a quota but not a whole one, have been sensible in not saddling Dolores Kelly with a running mate (though Dolores may yet struggle, if the nationalist vote in the constituency continues to drift SF’s way). On the other hand, Sinn Féin are tantalised by that second seat they nearly got last time. They’ve been weakened by the departure of Dessie Ward in the Banbridge half of the constituency, and there aren’t quite three nationalist quotas in Upper Bann. However – remember South Belfast in 2003? – it’s not impossible if there’s severe vote-shredding on the unionist side.

My best guess is for a rerun of last time – the first five going two DUP and one each SF, UUP and SDLP, with the last between a second SF and a second UUP. But what do you know, David Vance could well end up playing a fascinating part in the counts.

Rud eile: you’ll have noticed that last year’s UUP candidate is this year’s Alliance candidate, namely our leading Freddie Mercury impersonator Flash Harry. The core Alliance vote in Upper Bann is so small he’s hardly going to be in contention, but spirited renditions of “Don’t Stop Me Now” can’t hurt the image of Ulster liberalism.

Constituency whistle-stop, part 3: the wild west #ae11

All right, let’s head down into deepest culchieland for our next trio.

Mid Ulster

2007 Stormont results: SF 47.6%, 3 seats; DUP 19.5%, 1 seat; SDLP 17.5%, 1 seat; UUP 10.8%, 1 seat; UKUP 2.7%; RSF 1.0%; Alliance 0.5%; Harry Hutchinson 0.4%.

2010 Westminster results: McGuinness (SF) 52.0%; McCrea (DUP) 14.4%; Quinn (SDLP) 14.3%; Overend (UUP/UCUNF) 11.0%; Millar (TUV) 7.3%; Butler (Alliance) 1.0%.

2011 Stormont candidates: Harry Hutchinson (PBP); Austin Kelly (SDLP); Gary McCann (Ind); Hugh McCloy (Ind); Ian McCrea (DUP); Michael McDonald (Alliance); Patsy McGlone (SDLP); Martin McGuinness (SF); Walter Millar (TUV); Ian Milne (SF); Francie Molloy (SF); Michelle O’Neill (SF); Sandra Overend (UUP).

The smart money in Mid Ulster is on no change at all. SF’s sitting trio of Martin McGuinness, Francie Molloy and Michelle O’Neill should be re-elected at a stroll, and expect too to see Ian McCrea in on the first count.

SF have been pushing for a fourth seat, but even on last year’s Westminster figures they’re quite some way off, and it would require quite an unlikely combination of circumstances to put Ian Milne over the line. Specifically, it would require the local SDLP to make a complete balls of their transfers and/or the unionist candidates not to transfer to each other. Neither is impossible, though neither is likely either.

I’ve always said the SDLP seat in Mid Ulster will be secure as long as Patsy McGlone is on the ballot, and it would be a massive shock were he to go down. Equally, the UUP seat doesn’t look totally secure, and at one point the DUP might have hoped to squeeze a second here, but I think Sandra Overend will make it across the line, though she’ll need DUP and TUV transfers to do it.

West Tyrone

2007 Stormont results: SF 44.5%, 3 seats; DUP 21.4%, 2 seats; SDLP 14.5%; Kieran Deeney 9.1%, 1 seat; UUP 8.9%; RSF 1.1%; Alliance 0.5%.

2010 Westminster results: Doherty (SF) 48.4%; Buchanan (DUP) 19.8%; Hussey (UUP/UCUNF) 14.2%; Byrne (SDLP) 14.0%; Bower (Alliance) 2.3%; McClean (Ind) 1.4%.

2011 Stormont candidates: Michaela Boyle (SF); Allan Bresland (DUP); Tom Buchanan (DUP); Eric Bullick (Alliance); Joe Byrne (SDLP); Pat Doherty (SF); Ross Hussey (UUP); Declan McAleer (SF); Barry McElduff (SF); Paddy McGowan (Ind); Eugene McMenamin (SF).

Let’s start on the minority side. Last time out, the DUP were lucky to snatch the UUP’s seat and gain a monopoly of unionist representation. However, in last year’s Westminster election Ross Hussey did really well – just about the only UCUNF candidate to register a substantial gain – and he can be expected to win back that seat, probably knocking out Allan Bresland.

On the nationalist side, Sinn Féin have three quotas and a bit, but converting that bit into a fourth seat is a long shot. It requires, essentially, the SDLP to make a complete balls of things, which is not unknown in West Tyrone. Last time out, despite the SDLP having more than a quota of first preferences, these were spread amongst three candidates, with sufficient transfer leakage to allow sitting independent MLA Kieran Deeny to hold his seat despite a serious loss of votes.

This time, however, Dr Deeny is not running, and the SDLP have settled on a single candidate. Winning that seat back should still be straightforward. But hold on, look at those two independent candidates bringing up the rear. Both veteran SDLP men, between them straddling the Strabane and Omagh parts of the constituency, and who’ve called on their voters to transfer to each other…

/facepalm/

And that’s where the unpredictability is. If Joe Byrne comes in significantly short of a quota, if the ersatz SDLP candidates do respectably well, if SF can push its first preference tally up above 50%… Lot of ifs there, and I’d still predict Joe Byrne to take the seat, but it could be touch and go.

The Dreary Steeples

2007 Stormont results: SF 36.2%, 2 seats; DUP 25.5%, 2 seats; UUP 19.7%, 1 seat; SDLP 14.0%, 1 seat; Gerry McGeough 1.8%; Alliance 1.1%; RSF 0.9%; UKUP 0.8%.

2010 Westminster results: Gildernew (SF) 45.5%; Connor (Unionist Unity) 45.5%; McKinney (SDLP) 7.6%; Kamble (Alliance) 0.9%; Stevenson (Ind) 0.4%.

2011 Stormont candidates: Pat Cox (Ind Rep); Kenny Donaldson (UUP); Alex Elliott (TUV); Tom Elliott (UUP); Phil Flanagan (SF); Arlene Foster (DUP); Tommy Gallagher (SDLP); Michelle Gildernew (SF); Seán Lynch (SF); Maurice Morrow (DUP); Hannah Su (Alliance).

In last year’s Westminster election this was the nail-biter par excellence, with SF agriculture minister Michelle Gildernew hanging on by a mere four votes against a joint DUP-UUP-Conservative-TUV-Orange Order campaign to unseat her. Predictably, the drive to unionist unity produced an equal and opposite reaction in Sinn Féin’s populist “Save Michelle” campaign, with a knock-on effect for the SDLP, who to be fair were in a no-win situation, but still managed to handle it really badly.

Doing the maths, this constituency has three nationalist seats and three unionist. The balance of two DUP to one UUP will remain the same, with the DUP having the advantage of running the Fermanagh-based Arlene Foster alongside the Dungannon-based Lord Morrow. Tom Elliott’s personal popularity in Fermanagh will see him elected, but without enough votes to bring in running mate Kenny Donaldson.

On the nationalist side, Michelle Gildernew will coast back in. She’s the only outgoing SF MLA for the constituency after Gerry McHugh resigned from the party, first to sit as an independent, then rather quixotically joining Fianna Fáil. McHugh is not standing again, and his seat is expected to go to ex-prisoner Seán Lynch. That leaves the final seat, and the question of whether fresh-faced SF man Phil Flanagan can take out SDLP veteran Tommy Gallagher.

This is where the backwash from last year comes in. The SDLP had obviously been positioning their celebrity candidate Fearghal McKinney to be the new standard-bearer for the area. However, the result of last year’s campaign is that Fearghal’s name is mud in the constituency, hence good old Tommy Gallagher (69) going once more into the fray. Tommy will still find it difficult, since even in 2007 the SDLP didn’t have a full quota here; and, while a proper running mate might have been an intolerable luxury, it might not help that the SDLP doesn’t even have a sweeper candidate in South Tyrone. Make no mistake, this is SF’s number one target, and if the Shinner vote here hits 40% – within sniffing distance of three quotas – Tommy will have a very hard time holding on.

Constituency whistle-stop, part 2: the north coast #ae11

All right, let’s head way up north for this round.

North Antrim

2007 Stormont results: DUP 49.0%, 3 seats; SF 15.9%, 1 seat; UUP 14.3%, 1 seat; SDLP 12.2%, 1 seat; UKUP 4.2%; Alliance 2.8%; IRSP 0.9%; James Gregg 0.7%.

2010 Westminster results: Paisley jnr (DUP) 46.4%; Allister (TUV) 16.8%; McKay (SF) 12.4%; Armstrong (Cons/UCUNF) 10.9%; O’Loan (SDLP) 8.8%; Dunlop (Alliance) 3.2%; Cubitt (Ind) 1.4%.

2011 Stormont candidates: Jim Allister (TUV); Jayne Dunlop (Alliance); Paul Frew (DUP); Bill Kennedy (UUP); David McIlveen (DUP); Daithí McKay (SF); Declan O’Loan (SDLP); Audrey Patterson (TUV); Evelyne Robinson (DUP); Mervyn Storey (DUP); Robin Swann (UUP).

In the buckle of the Bible Belt, it’s the first election in over forty years where a Paisley hasn’t been on the ballot paper. Nonetheless, I expect the DUP to comfortably retain its three seats, though even if it has a few votes left over it’s a long way from taking a fourth. Jim Allister will also be elected, as will Sinn Féin’s Daithí McKay.

That leaves one to play with. If Allister is to be elected, it has to come at someone’s expense. That will be either the SDLP or UUP, and it’s not immediately clear which.

On the face of it, the SDLP look more vulnerable. That boundary change that shifted three (almost exclusively Catholic) Glens wards into East Antrim has put the second nationalist seat under very serious pressure. Now, Declan O’Loan is a maths teacher by background, and is capable of adding up. Hence his suggestion last year (which so enraged Margaret Ritchie that she withdrew the whip from him) that there should be increased collaboration between the two nationalist parties. For Margaret in South Down, the Shinners are the deadly enemy; for Declan, he needs SF voters to be very kind to him on transfers if he’s going to survive. I hope he does, because the Assembly would miss his waspish intelligence, even if some of his party colleagues wouldn’t.

The UUP’s trouble is that, though there should be enough votes knocking around to secure a fifth unionist seat, we come up against the perennial problem of vote-shredding and transfer leakage. For reasons best known to themselves, the UUP have come up with the crackpot strategy of running two candidates where there’s only one available seat. They’ll probably also want transfers from DUP and TUV candidates, whereas Declan O’Loan only needs a bundle of SF transfers and perhaps a modicum from Alliance to keep him in the fray. I have a feeling it’ll be very close.

East Derry

2007 Stormont results: DUP 39.8%, 3 seats; SF 20.0%, 1 seat; UUP 18.5%, 1 seat; SDLP 13.1%, 1 seat; Alliance 4.1%; UKUP 1.6%; Green 1.5%; RSF 1.2%; Victor Christie 0.2%.

2010 Westminster results: Campbell (DUP) 34.6%; Ó hOisín (SF) 19.3%; Macaulay (UUP/UCUNF) 17.8%; Conway (SDLP) 15.5%; Ross (TUV) 7.4%; Fitzpatrick (Alliance) 5.5%.

2011 Stormont candidates: Bernadette Archibald (SF), Gregory Campbell (DUP), Thomas Conway (SDLP), John Dallat (SDLP), Boyd Douglas (TUV), Barney Fitzpatrick (Alliance), David Harding (UUP), Lesley Macaulay (UUP), David McClarty (Ind), Adrian McQuillan (DUP), Cathal Ó hOisín (SF), George Robinson (DUP).

Well, we may talk about dirty campaigning, but as the Irish News recently informed us, this is literally the case in East Derry, where constituents are much exercised by the stink arising from some farmers using human shit to fertilise their fields. The practice seems to be completely legal, but just not very pleasant.

We can predict seats from the outset for the DUP’s Gregory Campbell MP (who has mysteriously gained a dispensation to double-job) and George Robinson, SF’s Cathal Ó hOisín and veteran SDLP man John Dallat. The calculations arise with regard to numbers five and six.

The DUP did well to win three seats last time, but if their vote slips to 35% or below then that third seat comes under pressure. However, we don’t know who it might fall to. Complicating things is that the UUP have deselected their sitting MLA David McClarty, who is running as an independent, and are opposing him with a fresh team of Lesley Macaulay and David Harding, both of whom are thought to be fairly strong candidates. And there’s the dark-horse candidacy of the TUV’s Boyd Douglas, who was actually elected to the 1998 Assembly and has a solid base amongst those dour Presbyterian farmers who supported Willie Ross for so long.

So, that’s two seats to fill and five candidates (McQuillan, McClarty, Macaulay, Harding and Douglas) who might all have a decent shout at them.

A slight crinkle is provided by the nationalist vote in the constituency, boosted by the last boundary review, creeping up into the region of two and a half quotas. That half a quota is interesting. It might boost Alliance’s Barney Fitzpatrick if he’s still in the race when the last nationalist is eliminated. (Unlikely, however.) And I don’t think there’s enough cross-community transferring to boost the more moderate unionist options. There may be a big block of non-transferable votes, or there may just be a final nationalist candidate left languishing in seventh place.

Foyle

2007 Stormont results: SDLP 37.0%, 3 seats; SF 30.8%, 2 seats; DUP 17.0%, 1 seat; SEA 5.0%; IRSP 4.4%; UUP 4.3%; Green 0.9%; Alliance 0.5%; Willie Frazer 0.2%.

2010 Westminster results: Durkan (SDLP) 44.7%; Anderson (SF) 31.9%; Devenney (DUP) 11.9%; McCann (PBP) 7.8%; Harding (UUP/UCUNF) 3.2%; McGrellis (Alliance) 0.6%.

2011 Stormont candidates: Martina Anderson (SF); Pól Callaghan (SDLP); Terry Doherty (Ind); Mark H Durkan [relation] (SDLP); Colum Eastwood (SDLP); Paul Fleming (SF); Willie Hay (DUP); Eamonn McCann (PBP); Raymond McCartney (SF); Paul McFadden (Ind); Keith McGrellis (Alliance); Pat Ramsey (SDLP).

Foyle has been a very very stable constituency in terms of Assembly seats, returning three SDLP, two SF and one DUP for the last three Stormont elections. This may just change this time around.

Willie Hay (who, by the way, has made a lot of friends by the tough but fair-minded way he’s done the Speaker’s job) will stroll back in as representative of the constituency’s unionist minority, who have favoured the DUP in every election since 1981. Remarkably, for the first time in the north’s history, the UUP will have no candidate in the area, though since it’s reduced down to one seat out of thirty on Derry City Council that would have been a token candidacy anyway.

On the nationalist side, SF have been narrowing the gap on the SDLP for some time now and would dearly love to overtake them, with this being the SDLP’s historic stronghold and just about the only place the SDLP still has substantial working-class support. With the absence of perennial vote-getters Mark Durkan (though his soundalike nephew is on the ticket) and Mary Bradley, plus dissension in Foyle SDLP about candidacies, they surely have a chance to narrow the gap further, though it would be surprising if they closed it. My gut instinct is that the SDLP will have something under three quotas and SF something over two.

So, if the third SDLP seat is under pressure, this is where Eamonn McCann might sneak in. My guess is that partisan supporters of either nationalist party would rather transfer to McCann than the other nationalist party, so we could see him picking up support in the later counts. Getting into the Assembly, of course, would be ideal for Eamonn as a platform from which to orate.

Also note the substantial vote in 2007 for Mrs Peggy O’Hara, mother of hunger striker Patsy, who stood formally as an independent but in a campaign that was very largely an IRSP one. There’s no IRSP candidate for the Assembly, but they are running for the council, and might entice out some disgruntled republicans who wouldn’t otherwise vote.

« Older entries

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 44 other followers