Jeff Peel's Diary

George Osborne performed OK this morning on the Andrew Marr Show and he is beginning to build more compelling cases for “change”.  The focus on supporting the SME sector by tax reductions is long overdue.  Moreover his commitment to reduce the size of Whitehall should be welcomed.  But it’s not enough.

Owen Paterson has hinted that he has sympathy for the view that Northern Ireland’s corporation tax rate is too high given our land-border with a nation with much lower corporation tax rates.  However, I’m sure the other less developed regions of the UK – also heavily reliant on the public purse, and with puny commercial sectors – could also do with company tax incentives. 

Osborne’s tax and spending plans tend to be defined, I’d imagine, by dinner conversations over claret in Notting Hill.  The extent to which the regions act as a drain on public spending is often overlooked.  Successive governments grumble and sign up to the Barnett Formula – rather than actively addressing the reasons for stunted growth in the regions. 

But, frankly, the politicians of the less developed regions need a kick up the arse. 

Wonderful businesses thrive in places like Northern Ireland or the NE of England against all the odds – and there aren’t enough of them.  They face company taxes that disadvantage them against foreign competition.  They face input prices and that are higher than in the SE of England.  They face higher distribution and logistics costs.  Their utility bills are higher.  Soon they will be facing more so-called “green” taxes for being more distant from the centre of political and economic gravity.  They need breaks but their politicians also need to be told that they need to start focusing on business development.

The best way to focus minds is with money.  Paterson has hinted that in return for cutting the block grant he might be willing to argue the case for a massive decrease in corporation tax.  However, the same rules should apply to other economically disadvantaged regions and Osborne should be arguing the case for this.

Reduction in block grants would, by necessity, result in reductions in public sector employment in the regions and short term pain (although it would be good to see the back of a plethora of quangos, and quite a few state funded “community groups”).  However a wholesale review of regional company tax breaks could result in the economic redistribution that this country badly needs. 

The commercial sector in Northern Ireland is, by all national and international metrics, miniscule.  Our population, despite being small, should be able to support more large businesses – foreign and indigenous. 

Foreign direct investment, when it does come here, comes, often, because of financial incentives based on target job creation.  That form of stimulus means that companies that locate here are not here for the duration.  When the going gets tough they pull out.  Successive waves of FDI have been counterbalanced by waves of downsizing to less expensive global regions.  We need to de-focus on the foreign and focus on UK businesses setting up shop in less developed regions because they are cheaper bases from which to do business. 

There have been rumours that Diageo is considering re-locating outside of the UK.  WPP and Microsoft have operations in the Republic of Ireland.  Many other companies have set up shop in other countries simply because London is too expensive.  Surely the UK government could put in place local tax havens that create the regional economic stimulus that is so needed in those regions. 

Owen Paterson, when he is setting up his next set of talks at Hatfield House, might want to make this the topic for discussion.  But he might want to think about his invite list.

A commenter on my previous post made reference to Martin Luther King’s Letter from Birmingham Jail, written on April 6, 1963.  I must admit that I had never read the letter in full – until this morning.

The letter is addressed to Dr King’s “fellow clergymen”.

It is probably one of the most moving pieces of prose I have read.  It should be required reading in every school in this country. 

In this letter Dr King defines the nature of his own belief.  He also expresses his disgust at “moderates” who turn a blind eye to segregation and racial hatred.  Indeed at one point the letter turns into a polemic on the church – but not on the most elemental aspect of his “inner spiritual church”. 

Read the following words (from a much longer letter) and think of Northern Ireland and our churches when reading the piece - churches that accept and reflect the religious segregation that exists in our society.

“I must honestly reiterate that I have been disappointed with the church. I do not say this as one of those negative critics who can always find something wrong with the church. I say this as a minister of the gospel, who loves the church; who was nurtured in its bosom; who has been sustained by its spiritual blessings and who will remain true to it… Continue reading ‘Security of Stained Glass Windows’

It looks as though we’re getting closer to the effective closure of the Conservative Party in Northern Ireland.  Jonathan Caine and Owen Paterson are walking over the supine leadership of the Party locally to put in place backwoodsmen rather than Conservatives with individual minds and a vision for how real, tribal-free UK politics might change this place. 

Today we heard that candidates of the ilk of Councillor Adrian Watson  are being put forward to the joint committee as potential “Conservatives & Unionists”.  Or Danny Kennedy MLA – who just a few weeks ago was arguing the merits of Unionist (read, Protestant) unity with the fundamentalist, flat-earth, creationist nut-job that is the Democratic Unionist Party.

This project, pact, arrangement is being carved-up by CCHQ apparatchiks that have no idea what it is to live in a society that is intellectually and politically impoverished by institutional sectarianism.  Owen Paterson’s claims that he wanted to introduce a new brand into Northern Ireland politics ring very hollow when the electorate is being offered the same-old, same-old sash-wearing deadwood.

Ask yourselves, Owen and Jonathan, why it is that these nine announced candidates can’t bring themselves to join the Conservative Party.    Ask yourselves why Mike Nesbitt – your star candidate – chose to hang onto your coat-tails but couldn’t bring himself to join your Party.  Ask yourselves why it is that the leader of your new sister Party in Northern Ireland has yet to call himself a Conservative.

These people have no collective vision for Northern Ireland within this United Kingdom.  These people define themselves on the basis of their parochial Ulster definitions of what it is to be a Unionist.  This definition starts and stops here in ‘Protestant Ulster’. 

UCUNF is a sorry disgrace.

Hardly surprisingly, Lady Sylvia Hermon has announced that she will not be seeking the UUP’s nomination for the North Down constituency. 

This means, presumably, that she may well stand against the agreed Conservative candidate – presumably Ian Parsley.  This may mean that the UUP will lose its only MP in the House of Commons.  However, that’ll be no great loss.  Lady Hermon rarely attends and mostly votes with the Labour government.  She is unapologetically “New Labour” – whatever that means these days. 

Now that Sylvia is out of the way this means, I presume, that the joint committee will proceed to select candidates from the lists of nominees from both parties.  As to how quickly this will happen is anyone’s guess.  However, I’m advised that candidates are likely to be agreed this week. 

I was due to comment on the selection debacle on this evening’s PM programme on Radio 4  – although the package was bumped off, for obvious reasons i.e. the bomb detonated in Newry by “dissident” Republicans. 

But long and short the delayed selection process is a dog’s dinner.  One hopes that, from now on, the UUP side of the candidate line-up might start behaving like Tories.  But I’m not holding my breath.

Owen Polley has done a great job assessing the quality of the 17 UUP candidates and highlights the dead-wood.  You can read his analysis here. 

The DUP press release machine is unrelenting.  I appear to be a favourite topic or theme for several of these releases.  When I was an officer in the NI Area of the Conservatives DUP press releases would often feature something I’d said in a private email to some DUP mole.  Now, it appears, minor DUP councillors have been sent to scour every page and comment on this site seeking out damning prose to feature in the “Party’s” latest missive to the media.

Last week, when I was on a family half term holiday in the sun somewhere quite far away from here, a journalist in the News Letter forwarded me the latest “attack”.  This one was interesting.  A DUP “councillor” I’d never heard of decided to issue a media release claiming that I had attacked the Orange Order – showing “appalling bigotry”. 

Hmm.  Interesting.  Showing appalling bigotry for suggesting that the Orange Order is elementally sectarian.  This “councillor” took particular exception to my suggestion that joining the Orange Order might suggest certain sociopathic tendencies.  Well, OK, perhaps I was using a sledge-hammer to crack a nut – but the point I was making was that the existence of a clearly sectarian organisation that makes clear its abject loathing of another religion provides a forum or venue to people who consider themselves religiously or “culturally” better than others (especially those who don’t like Catholics). 

In case you were in any doubt about the sectarian nature of the organisation, here’s a direct quote from the Order’s constitution: “No ex-Roman Catholic will be admitted into the Institution unless he is a Communicant in a Protestant Church for a reasonable period…”  Similarly, the Constitution, Laws and Ordinances of the Loyal Orange Institution of Ireland (1967) state, “No person who at any time has been a Roman Catholic … shall be admitted into the Institution, except after permission given by a vote of seventy five per cent of the members present founded on testimonials of good character …”

Now it seems to be that by having such a constitution the Orange Order might just be exposing itself to a degree of risk of appealing to people who might show the following traits of character: Grandiose Sense of Self; Shallow Emotions; Incapacity for Love; Need for Stimulation; Callousness/Lack of Empathy; Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature; Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency; Irresponsibility/Unreliability; Contemptuous of those who seek to understand them; Do not perceive that anything is wrong with them; Authoritarian; Secretive; Paranoid; Incapable of real human attachment to another; Unable to feel remorse or guilt; Narcissism, grandiosity (self-importance not based on achievements).

Now, of course, I could be wrong.  The Orange Order may indeed be composed of thoroughly decent people who are highly tolerant and focused on the feelings of others.  If that is the case I’d suggest that these people might want to be on the lookout for members exhibiting the tendencies listed above. 

Now, I’m not suggesting that only the Orange Order attracts the wrong types of people into its ranks.  Just look at those sociopathic attributes above and consider the Sinn Fein leadership.  Gerry Adams now even considers himself the latest official spokesman for Jesus.

Now I’m  fully aware that I tend to go on about this being one community, not two.  I also have a tendency to witter on about the importance of replacing the politics of tribe/swamp/religion/nationalism yada, yada with the politics of mainstream UK right/left politics. 

But then I hear David Forde of the Alliance Party rambling, incessantly, about a Shared Future and realise why I’m a Conservative, first and foremost. 

What is it about certain of the do-gooder class of politician that insist on using meaningless Assembly-jargon instead of everyday language? 

Moreover why does Forde presume that a) anybody knows what this “shared future” concept is and b) that Sinn Fein and the DUP have any interest in delivering this shared future concept when they seem never to refer to it?

At the level of language, annoyance and do-goodery I simply detest this phrase – it reeks of trendy social-working and mincery.  I admit that it is important that we work as one community, defocus on the institutional sectarianism we’re all forced into etc.  But this phrase is obfuscatory and refuses to call a spade an ugly shovel.

It also highlights the patent pointlessness of the Alliance Party.  This lot reflects back the sectarianism of our politics by continually dancing to the sad old tune of the organ-grinder. 

The Alliance Party accepts as a fait accompli the inherent sectarianism of our politics by seeking to grasp at ineffectual social instruments – like programmes for a “shared future” that are simply trivial and meaningless.  To expect the DUP and Sinn Fein to commit to some shared future initiative is like depending on Jeremy Clarkson to popularise the merits of speed cameras or sleeping policemen. 

The Alliance Party could do something useful, of course.  It could announce that it is merging with the Liberal Democrats in GB.  But that would run counter to the constitutional limbo that it assumes is required to define its niceness and do-goodery.  It could welcome the moves by the Conservative Party to allow the people of Northern Ireland to play a part in their national government or opposition.  But it doesn’t – preferring instead to play in the sand-pit of circular, pointless ambitions and bland civil service inspired mumbo jumbo.