Robinson with Young Earth Creationist Edwin Poots (Pic: DUP Flickr)
Peter Robinson was at pains to give the impression, when interviewed by Jim Fitzpatrick on the Politics Show today, that the DUP was going secular – appealing to all, apparently. He talked about the post-conflict Realpolitik that was all about issues that mattered to people, rather than the constitutional issue.
Now, what has motivated this new-found secularist political outlook could be debated. Perhaps he realized, after losing his East Belfast parliamentary seat, that old Unionism wasn’t cutting it any more. Moreover, Robinson’s personality is such that party-political reasons were sought to explain his Westminster demise, rather than any failings in his own personality. Apart from DUP apparatchiks, most people find him prickly, a tad sleazy, and vastly aloof and enervated from real world issues (having occupied a political cocoon for decades).
My particular issue with the man is his hypocrisy. He talks about the DUP’s desire to appeal to “Nationalists” and yet DUP rhetoric is the stuff of the social right and, often, the fiscal left. But an even more fundamental stopping block to secular progress is the bizarre, reactionary and anti-modernist views of his front bench team.
For example, how can Robinson seriously suggest that his Party could appeal to the modern minded when it has, within its midst, people of the ilk of the Reverend William McCrea, Nelson McCausland and Edwin Poots? After all, these intellectually depraved acolytes help define the Party’s policy positions.
The “Reverend” William McCrea gave a graveside oration, in 1975, for two of the men responsible for the Miami Showband murders. He has also shared platforms with Loyalist thugs and was convicted for riotous assembly in 1971. And yet Robinson, at this weekend’s DUP conference, made a particular point of highlighting his fondness and affection for McCrea – a man that many of us consider the most obvious manifestation of the DUP’s political psychosis.
Nelson McCausland, in his capacity as Culture and Arts Minister, made clear earlier in the year, that he felt the Ulster Museum should have exhibits that reflect the “views of the people of Northern Ireland” rather than support an understanding of science. He also believes that the Protestant people of Ulster descended from one of the lost tribes of Israel. (Very lost, I’d suggest, if it ended-up here).
Edwin Poots is a young-earth creationist (this means he believes God made the earth, and all the organisms therein, a few thousand years ago). He also opposes Darwinian evolutionary theory.
And yet, despite the rag-bag collection of looners in his political midst, Peter Robinson feels that his is the Party for Northern Ireland – representing an opportunity for a new secular dawn.
I think not.
The D>U>P>tore the unionist voters apart years ago,peter and his motely crew now reap what they sowed.i’d rather have a united ireland than vote for that mad hatter’s tea party……
Robinson may want to appeal to all but I’d be surprised if a secular party was what he had in mind.
They are too immersed in fundamentalism for him to even consider getting away with it. I don’t know the figures but I’d be surprised if their public representatives are less than 80% religious fundamentalists. Sammy Wilson is the only one that stands out as obvious.
There are some signs of change. I was somewhat surprised in May, standing outside a polling station in Dundonald to find a DUP lady worker smoking and cursing but I don’t think she is the average.
There is a subtle shift happening in the DUP but if Robinson wants a secular party as you suggest Jeff it will take more than a generation for prayers and hymns to end at the DUP conference, McCrea is far from being on the lunatic fringe!
I think Robinson knows that Unionism of old isn’t cutting it any more. The middle classes, in particular, are switching off to the constitutional rhetoric – never mind the fire and brimstone DUP messaging (juxtaposed with property magnate schmoozing and bonkfests). The DUP stands for nothing any more – apart from being a big political bloc (and block to progress). Robinson is politically astute enough to know that if he is to re-take East Belfast he has to realign. His Party needs to appear more secular even if the actuality is the same-old gospel fundamentalism – with Singin’ Willy at the old Joanna. But if you get a chance, just listen to his interview on yesterday’s Politics Show. He’s making all the right noises. But the political dead-wood in his midst makes a mockery of his non-sectarian posturing.
Jeffrey,
Firstly, I enjoyed your post.
From a conservative perspective, it is easy to know our differences with the DUP and you have highlighted them very well.
Robinson’s rhetoric has become increasingly moderate. This probably traces back to devolution of Police and Justice when the UUP moved to a more anti-change position on parades.
Fake and hypocritical his rhetoric may be but what about the perception of the people that he is trying to reach out to?
It would take an election to work out what voters are thinking. Robinson knows that he has the Christian fundementalists in the bag but is obviously attempting to expand his party’s voter appeal. I suspect that Robinson’s speeches are likely to hurt the UUP.
Slightly off topic Jeffrey, this is an article you might enjoy reading
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/republic-of-ireland/religion-in-schools-may-be-breach-of-human-rights-15016751.html
I can’t help feeling this is all about out-maneuvering the UUP. Any shift in the DUP can only be for electoral reasons when they are at heart die-hard bigots.
At heart I’d like to see the UUP crushed over their duplicity in UCUNF but not sure which is the worse of the 2 evils!
From Liam Clarke in today’s Newsletter
“The DUP, having seen off the TUV threat for the time being, has consolidated the hardline traditional unionist support on which it was built and which is now aging. The party is now attempting to broaden out from that base to attract more moderate support, including younger voters, away from the UUP. Robinson’s talk of making the DUP the party of Northern Ireland, and of developing social and economic policies which could appeal even to non-unionists, shows the course he has set himself”
and he concludes:
“In contrast, the UUP is drifting into the election looking and sounding like Dad’s Army. Tom Elliott, a man of palpable decency and common sense, has got himself into an unnecessary spin over the GAA and has ended up looking weak and indecisive.
The main news about the UUP since he took the helm has been who is leaving it. That is the price of vacillation under pressure.
Like Robinson he has the ability to reverse this situation, but if he keeps taking the advice that has guided him thus far then he risks being eaten alive in May”
http://www.newsletter.co.uk/columnists/Peacetime-DUP-closing-in-on.6643783.jp
You can be both a secularist and a religious fundamentalist. Secularism just means that church and state are seperated and churches given the same status as other voluntary societies. Not as say England where the Church of England is Established by law. That said I agree with you that the secularist turn is a bit hypocritical given the party’s history.
I think the problem is a bit more than just the separation of church and state.
The test I would apply is to look at how politics is applied in practice.
The act which springs to my mind is Nelson McCausland’s interference with the evolution exhibition at the Ulster museum.
This is a flaw which Conservatives need to exploit before the DUP gets around to addressing it.
As Liam Clarke has said
“The Good book could be bad news for the DUP”
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/why-good-book-could-be-bad-news-for-dup-14832896.html
Amen to that
Shane and Anon,
You can be a religious fundamentalist and a secularist at the same time?
No you can’t, and that’s flabby thinking. The term ‘fundamentalist’ is the operative on here. The monotheisms are universalist. Anyone adhereing to the fundamentals of any of the three monotheisms, or even Hinduism for that matter, cannot at the same time allow for secularism.
Oh but I forgot! Dangit! Shane and that cognitive dissonance…
Heil Pius!
Shane is correct. It is entirely possible to hold fundamentalist religious views by still believe in moving to a more secularist society. Jeff’s problem is that his approach: i.e. no room for anyone in politics who holds religious views is actually the mirror image of those who say only Christians are worthy of a vote. Both are wrong.
Anon your comment is patent nonsense and misrepresents my position.
What is your view on former mp Ann Widdecombe and her stance regarding religion and other issues?