Will a Cameron lead government be a disaster for Anglo-Irish relations!

jonsnow

It is now only a matter of time before Browns Labour government falls and the Tories are ushered in for a long period of dominance.Since his accession to leader of the Conservative Party David Cameron has successfully rebranded "the nasty party" as some sort of Tory lite whereby it was more green,more rights orientated and no longer as shrill about immigration,asylum seekers and travellers.He has tried to convince Middle England that the conservatives have ditched a lot of their nasty baggage and have moved to the centre.



This has been achieved due to some brillant leadership and PR by Cameron.He has copied the nice guy Blair persona so effectively that he is nicknamed "heir to blair" and has driven home his compassionate conservative message with great verve and skill with gimmicks such as cycling to Parliament and buying fairtrade groceries.He now appears to the average middle Englander to be a guy just like them -someone that they can that they can relate to.But the reality is that he is old school hard right Tory to the bone.

He was born into a life of immense privilege.His father comes from a famous Stockbroking family and is worth more than £20 million sterling.His mother is a daughter of the Secon Baronet of Berkshire and through her Cameron is a direct descendant of King William IV which makes him a cousin of the Queen.He attended Heatherdown Preparatory school,Eton and Oxford.

He then went to work for the Conservative Research Department after being recommended to them by Buckingham Palace.He eventually became a special assistant to both Ultra-Thatcherite Norman Lamont and "something of the night" Michael Howard.He left politics for a spell to learn the dark arts of PR at Carlton Communications.During this period he married Samantha Sheffield eldest daughter of Sir Reginald Adrian Berkeley Sheffield ,8th Baronet and descendant of King Charles II of England who is worth an estimated £10 million.

After that he reentered politics as an MP and climbed the ranks.His voting record has been despite all the spin classic Thatcherite


He has in the meantime surrounded himself with what The Guardian has called "the most prestigious of old-boy networks in his attempt to return the Tories to power", pointing out that three members of his shadow cabinet and 15 members of his Front Bench team are "Old Etonians.Similarly, The Sunday Times has commented that "David Cameron has more Etonians around him than any leader since MacMillan" and asked whether he can "represent Britain from such a narrow base".

I know I haven,t covered much of what my title thread indicated so far but I,m about the broach that now.I just wanted to establish the sort of man Cameron is and the sort of views he holds because his spin has been so effective.I believe that Conservative governments are inevitably bad for Anglo-Irish relations.Conservatives are inevitably strong British Nationalists.They tend to view Irish nationalism coldly and at times of serious unrest with contempt.The best Irish nationalists can hope for in a Conservative leader is someone from the pragmatic wing of the party such as John Major.

The Union is actually under threat the United Kingdom as waves of Scottish, Welsh and English nationalism sweep the country.For a Unionist like Cameron this is intolerable and he has begun the fightback.But unfortunately he has decided that the North of Ireland is a new front to be opened in the battle.

Both British and Southern Irish politicians had at the beginning of the peace process made an informal agreement that both sides would adopt a supportive but essentially let them sort it out amongst themselves approach ie. for either government to be seen as fair they had to keep themselves out of the day to day politicking within the province.

Bertie then raised his test balloon about Fianna Fail running in the north.But that was just a classic Bertie stroke along with his "I,m a socialist"- just sound and gombennism signifying nothing.No serious attempts were made to make it happen.Neither should they have-it is essential that when both Governments sit down to deal with the North they maintain at least some distance from the goings on in the North.

But Cameron unlike Bertie with his Irish Nationalism is dead serious about his British Unionism.He encouraged David Trimble to join the conservative party in 2007 and has said he uses him as his adviser on Northern Ireland-which doesn't sound very promising to Irish Nationalists.Then at a landmark speech to the Ulster Unionist party in December 2008 he repudiated one of the landmark decisions of the last Tory Government on Northern Ireland.

When Peter Brooke, the former Northern Ireland secretary, famously sent the first signal to Sinn Féin that Britain was serious about negotiations when he said in November 1990 that Britain had no "selfish strategic or economic interest" in Northern Ireland.This kickstarted the peace process by giving a clear signal to the Republican movement that the Brits actually "wanted out" so to speak and just wanted the democratic mandate to do so.

At the UUP conference however Cameron has claimed that he wants the two parties to unite again (which they have done) and he wants Ulster Unionists in his government as he has "a selfish and strategic interest" in the North.So the next time at a dinner party someone tells you that the British don,t even want the North tell them thats not how the (likely) British PM feels about it.The upshot is that Lord Trimble, who now sits as a Tory peer, will have a key role in a Cameron government, possibly reprising the role of Edward Carson, the father of Ulster Unionism, as attorney general.In other words nationalists are now going to have to sit across the table from a British Government who have not only taken sides in the ancient quarrel but are actually staffed with the opposition.

At the same meeting Cameron showed how an old fashioned Conservative and unionist heart beats in his chest when he touched on Northern Ireland's relations with the Republic of Ireland. "The relationship with the Irish Republic is of the kind one would expect of two neighbours that share a land border," he said.Which is slighty disengenious to say the least.The relationship between Belfast and Dublin is not the same as the one between France and Germany because 40% of the population of Northern Ireland do not feel British.

As the Ulster Unionist party have effectively been destroyed and cannot give hold the balance of power in a hung parliament which was how they previously gained influence and as Cameron is not going to need their votes anyway as the Tories will crush Labour.It displays how Unionist his thinking really is.Northern Ireland should be the Third Rail of British politics so what is Cameron doing grabbing it and clasping it to his bosom.Radical Republicanism is on the rise again.It needs something to react against.Cameron could unwittingly through his arrogant blinkered views like many a Tory Statesmen before light the fuse to communal upheaval in the North.At the very least expect Anglo-Irish relations to take a turn for the worst.

mike65

No

Iwasfrozen

No

Very useful post mate, perhaps you could expand on that ?
That is if it wouldn't be to much effort for you we all know after all that you are vastly superior to we mere mortals who want to build useful and thoughtful discussions.

GSF

Actually Brown being a Scottish Presbyternian has much closer emotional bonds to Ulster Unionists than David Cameron IMO. However it hardly matters anymore given the working Assembly in Stormont holding all key powers including policing hopefully by the time a UK election is held. The main impact will probably be that Cameron will cut the subsidy to the NI government.

mike65

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Very useful post mate, perhaps you could expand on that ?

No, I said all that needed to said on the matter.

Iwasfrozen

No, I said all that needed to said on the matter.

No you didn't the OP gave reasons for his opinion, your opinion doesn't count for crap unless you give an opinion.

Dr Galen

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No you didn't the OP gave reasons for his opinion, your opinion doesn't count for crap unless you give an opinion.

you might want to check that one

iseethelight

jonsnow wrote: »

Since his accession to leader of the Conservative Party David Cameron has successfully rebranded "the nasty party" as some sort of Tory lite whereby it was more green,more rights orientated and no longer as shrill about immigration,asylum seekers and travellers.He has tried to convince Middle England that the conservatives have ditched a lot of their nasty baggage and have moved to the centre.But the reality is that he is old school hard right Tory to the bone

The same could of been said of Blair snd his movement of Labour from left to center.

jonsnow wrote: »

After that he reentered politics as an MP and climbed the ranks.His voting record has been despite all the spin classic Thatcherite

Do you have links to or evidence of his voting record?

jonsnow wrote: »

Bertie then raised his test balloon about Fianna Fail running in the north.But that was just a classic Bertie stroke along with his "I,m a socialist"- just sound and gombennism signifying nothing.No serious attempts were made to make it happen.Neither should they have-it is essential that when both Governments sit down to deal with the North they maintain at least some distance from the goings on in the North.

But Cameron unlike Bertie with his Irish Nationalism is dead serious about his British Unionism.He encouraged David Trimble to join the conservative party in 2007 and has said he uses him as his adviser on Northern Ireland-which doesn't sound very promising to Irish Nationalists.Then at a landmark speech to the Ulster Unionist party in December 2008 he repudiated one of the landmark decisions of the last Tory Government on Northern Ireland.

So it's ok for our politicians to break the non intervention agreement you say exists because they don't really mean it. Perhaps Cameron and the Ulster Unionists felt threatened by Bertie's posturing and unlike our politicians acted.

jonsnow wrote: »

When Peter Brooke, the former Northern Ireland secretary, famously sent the first signal to Sinn Féin that Britain was serious about negotiations when he said in November 1990 that Britain had no "selfish strategic or economic interest" in Northern Ireland.This kickstarted the peace process by giving a clear signal to the Republican movement that the Brits actually "wanted out" so to speak and just wanted the democratic mandate to do so.

At the UUP conference however Cameron has claimed that he wants the two parties to unite again (which they have done) and he wants Ulster Unionists in his government as he has "a selfish and strategic interest" in the North.

An additional quote: "I will continue to work closely and constructively with our nearest neighbours in the Republic of Ireland and I will always uphold the democratic wishes of people here in respect of their constitutional future. This shows that he is not adverse to a united Ireland but only and in my opinion rightly, if a majority of people in Northern Ireland desire it.

Perhaps his "selfish strategic or economic interest" is simply to have more mp's in his majority.

jonsnow

Yeah but Brown was uninterested and treated the North to a bedding down period of benign neglect.Which was probably what it needed after all the photo ops, historic moments and shuttle diplomacy.Cameron is kicking a sleeping dog.

Mr.Micro

Labour is so right wing now that nobody will notice if there is a change of Government. Cameron might even appear or be more moderate as PM than Brown. I personally do not think there is a lot of depth to him. Another leader of a party who becomes popular because the current PM is so unpopular and its hardly credentials for a good future PM. As far as anglo relations it will not matter a bit as the whole thing is in the hands of the Republicians and the Unionists as it always was.

jonsnow

iseethelight wrote: »

The same could of been said of Blair snd his movement of Labour from left to center.

Blair tried to position himself as being more to the right than the traditional labour party and he was-no question.Cameron is trying to position himself as being to the left of the old Thatcherite positions and hes not.

iseethelight wrote: »

Do you have links to or evidence of his voting record?

http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?id=uk.org.publicwhip/member/1932
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Cameron#Voted_as_MP_.28examples.29

iseethelight wrote: »

So it's ok for our politicians to break the non intervention agreement you say exists because they don't really mean it. Perhaps Cameron and the Ulster Unionists felt threatened by Bertie's posturing and unlike our politicians acted.

I don,t think it was okay.I thought it was deplorable.But he didn,t actually go through with it. Cameron did-and thats even more deplorable.Everyone should be very very careful when dealing with the north.

iseethelight wrote: »

An additional quote: "I will continue to work closely and constructively with our nearest neighbours in the Republic of Ireland and I will always uphold the democratic wishes of people here in respect of their constitutional future. This shows that he is not adverse to a united Ireland but only and in my opinion rightly, if a majority of people in Northern Ireland desire it.

Hes setting a tone.Hes saying unlike Major,Blair or Brown that he actively wants the North to remain part of the Union and that to strengthen ties hes going to appoint Unionists to his government.He is adverse to a United Ireland hes a Unionist-all the others would have been glad to be rid of it.

iseethelight wrote: »

Perhaps his "selfish strategic or economic interest" is simply to have more mp's in his majority.

Or perhaps with the crushing victory that is promised it isn,t seeing as that one vote isn,t going to be needed.You think everyone in that room didn,t know what that little turn of phrase amounted to!!

Anonymous1987

David Cameron is indeed a moderate leader of the conservatives and and as such has directed to conservatives somewhat towards the center with regards to the environement and social policies to appeal to voters. I believe this is evidense of his pragmatism. I fail to see how his background is of relevance to Anglo-Irish relations given he has no history in Northern Ireland politics.

True conservatives in the past have had a poor record with regards to Anglo-Irish relations however in a 1997 referendum the conservatives did support devolution for Northern Ireland signalling a change in direction. The Conservatives initially opposed the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly but have since decided to accept them and do not plan to reverse the reforms made.

With regard to Bertie Ahern. He has strong republican roots, his father fought in the war of independence, the civil war and was a strong supporter of DeVelera and the anti-treaty IRA. Ahern himself regarded Padraig Pearse as a hero and had his portrait in his office as Taoiseach. Therefore I would not regard Fianna Fail moving into Northern Politics as a benign movement under his leadership.

Radical Republicansim is countered by the PSNI which Sinn Fein now supports. Do not underestimate the progress that has been made over the years.

At the end of the day Britain will decide if David Cameron and the Conservatives are fit to lead the country and not us. I don't expect to see great improvements in the North under a conservative leadership but at the same time they are unlikely to destroy the work that has been done already and I wouldn't write them off before they have even been given power. New Labour changed the political landscape just as Thatherism did and the Conservatives have had to adapt.

Orchard Rebel

The key man to watch in any Cameron administration will be Michael Gove, MP for Surrey Heath and currently shadow spokesman for schools. He is one of Cameron's key advisers and also regarded as one of their leading experts on Northern Ireland.

The problem is that Gove is also an unrepentant neconservative and unionist who believes passionately in the "War on Terror". His articles in the Times in the late 1990's argued against the peace process, advocating that peace in Northern Ireland should be based on the complete military defeat of militant Republicanism and that the wishes of the Protestant majority ahould be prioritised. Unsurprisingly, he also supported the Iraqi adventure.

It's difficult to see how the peace process could be unravelled after so long. Nonetheless, the attitude of the next Conservative government to Northern Ireland will bear watching and Gove's influence on their policy could prove important.

Sponge Bob

I feel the generally warm British Irish relationships since Major took power will prevail , irrespective of the nutty or neofascist tendency in the Tory party .

Mr.Micro

Orchard Rebel wrote: »

The key man to watch in any Cameron administration will be Michael Gove,

The problem is that Gove is also an unrepentant neconservative and unionist who believes passionately in the "War on Terror". His articles in the Times in the late 1990's argued against the peace process, advocating that peace in Northern Ireland should be based on the complete military defeat of militant Republicanism and that the wishes of the Protestant majority ahould be prioritised. Unsurprisingly, he also supported the Iraqi adventure.

Its the likes of Gove who would love to have the populace believe that state is under siege and introduce draconian laws, and before long the UK would have a homeland security etc and all that BS. Cameron should be careful about Gove and his type, who do not really believe in democracy. Its man and superman.

Orchard Rebel

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Its the likes of Gove who would love to have the populace believe that state is under siege and introduce draconian laws, and before long the UK would have a homeland security etc and all that BS. Cameron should be careful about Gove and his type, who do not really believe in democracy. Its man and superman.

There is a problem for the Conservatives though. Whilst Cameron will undoubtedly get in with a workable majority, his MPs will almost exclusively be English. Conservative support has not recovered in either Scotland or Wales, meaning the Conservatives are unlikely to pick up seats except perhaps the odd one in the Borders or Monmouthshire. Anti-Labour votes in Scotland and Wales are more likely to go to the nationalist parties (SNP or Plaid) or to the Lib Dems.

This of course will prompt the "reverse West Lothian question" (let's call it "the Surrey Heath Question"). To what extent will an exclusively English Conservative administration be able to impose policy on Wales and more specifically Scotland, where the memory of the poll tax remains strong?

If Salmond picks his moment right, he might see an opportunity to push through a yes vote for independence. The Tories may be hamstrung in opposing any referendum - particularly if English fringe parties like the English Democrats (who favour dumping the Scots and Welsh anyway) and UKIP (who have little support outside England) make electoral breakthroughs on a tide of English nationalism. Many English feel that they subsidise Scotland and would be happy to set them free.

If Scotland departs, Wales may begin to agitate for greater evolution or even
independence. Should that happen (or even if it doesn't), will England choose to go it alone? If so, whither Northern Ireland?

That Cameron will be prime minister in the next 12 months is not in doubt. Whether the Union will survive his administration is another matter.

Carlow52

Question: Will a Cameron lead government be a disaster for Anglo-Irish relations!
Answer: a Cameron lead government be a disaster.

mike65

Plenty here geting ahead of themselves, Nostodamus is in the ha'penny place.

A Dub in Glasgo

Hopefully the days of the Scottish people voting for anybody with a red rosette are over. Unfortunately, with the first past the post system, it is quite difficult to unseat a red rosette guy when people blindly vote for them.

The Tories will rule with a majority in England but they will get very little in Scotland. That will not matter though, just ask Thatcher.

ejmaztec

I think that it will be business as usual, should caring-sharing Dave become the British PM.

Orchard Rebel

mike65 wrote: »

Plenty here geting ahead of themselves, Nostodamus is in the ha'penny place.

You don't have to be Nostradamus to realise that the next UK government will be English dominated - the Tories can barely muster 10% of the vote in Scotland, even now.

mike65

Doh! :rolleyes: I was talking the confident assertations that a Cameron led governmebnt would be a disaster for Anglo-irish relations.

irish_bob

Orchard Rebel wrote: »

There is a problem for the Conservatives though. Whilst Cameron will undoubtedly get in with a workable majority, his MPs will almost exclusively be English. Conservative support has not recovered in either Scotland or Wales, meaning the Conservatives are unlikely to pick up seats except perhaps the odd one in the Borders or Monmouthshire. Anti-Labour votes in Scotland and Wales are more likely to go to the nationalist parties (SNP or Plaid) or to the Lib Dems.

This of course will prompt the "reverse West Lothian question" (let's call it "the Surrey Heath Question"). To what extent will an exclusively English Conservative administration be able to impose policy on Wales and more specifically Scotland, where the memory of the poll tax remains strong?

If Salmond picks his moment right, he might see an opportunity to push through a yes vote for independence. The Tories may be hamstrung in opposing any referendum - particularly if English fringe parties like the English Democrats (who favour dumping the Scots and Welsh anyway) and UKIP (who have little support outside England) make electoral breakthroughs on a tide of English nationalism. Many English feel that they subsidise Scotland and would be happy to set them free.

If Scotland departs, Wales may begin to agitate for greater evolution or even
independence. Should that happen (or even if it doesn't), will England choose to go it alone? If so, whither Northern Ireland?

That Cameron will be prime minister in the next 12 months is not in doubt. Whether the Union will survive his administration is another matter.

why does the BORDERS in scotland lean conservative , i realise its geographically close to england but the north of england is pretty anti tory

Orchard Rebel

irish_bob wrote: »

why does the BORDERS in scotland lean conservative , i realise its geographically close to england but the north of england is pretty anti tory

The constituencies are very rural with a large emphasis on farming - no large urban areas and traditionally much more anglicised than the more industrial suburban central belt. This has always been a place where Conservatives have polled well, although recent boundary changes may not have helped. Northern England has large urban centres (Newcastle especially) in which Labour has dominated, although the Tories have traditionally tended to do better in the rural constituencies immediately bordering Scotland.

If the Tories are to recover in Scotland, they really need to take seats like Dumfries and Galloway (currently Labour) and Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Lib Dem) at the next UK election.

Affable

If Scotland or even Wales gets independence, we'll be much more likely under consistent Tory rule to 'frightfully decent chaps' that middle England likes to doff their caps to. Even without that Cameron'll get in for a while. He is a nasty piece of work with an unnecassarily high opinion of himself. Not to mention a lightweight by all accounts.

Orchard Rebel

Affable wrote: »

If Scotland or even Wales gets independence, we'll be much more likely under consistent Tory rule to 'frightfully decent chaps' that middle England likes to doff their caps to. Even without that Cameron'll get in for a while. He is a nasty piece of work with an unnecassarily high opinion of himself. Not to mention a lightweight by all accounts.

That's why Labour should seize the chance and bring in PR. They had the opportunity at the beginning of this decade and Blair passed it up. The Tories have no interest in PR, as FPTP could well keep them in power in perpetuity should England go it alone.

I don't think there will be any immediate change in Anglo-Irish relations as a result of the election of a Cameron administration. However, any shift in the status of the Union or an aggressive pro-Unionist policy in NI could have an indirect effect in the longer term.

brianthebard

Op has an interesting point, the unionist movement and the tory party have always been friendly, partners from the start, so its not that unlikely that members of the cabinet would be union minded. That could have a significant impact on the North, but that depends a lot on outside factors, like Scotland and Wales as already stated.

mike65

Affable wrote: »

If Scotland or even Wales gets independence, we'll be much more likely under consistent Tory rule to 'frightfully decent chaps' that middle England likes to doff their caps to. Even without that Cameron'll get in for a while. He is a nasty piece of work with an unnecassarily high opinion of himself. Not to mention a lightweight by all accounts.

Laughable post, tbh. Middle England is in a near constant state of seething revolt. I suspect you are not actually paying much attention to reality and are indulging in Irish sterotyping of the English.

Affable

Orchard Rebel wrote: »

That's why Labour should seize the chance and bring in PR. They had the opportunity at the beginning of this decade and Blair passed it up. The Tories have no interest in PR, as FPTP could well keep them in power in perpetuity should England go it alone.

I don't think there will be any immediate change in Anglo-Irish relations as a result of the election of a Cameron administration. However, any shift in the status of the Union or an aggressive pro-Unionist policy in NI could have an indirect effect in the longer term.

I've got nothing against PR at all. I think though, that that we are far too inward looking and tradionalist to ever change things, same goes for the Euro etc. It's these delusions of grandeur which are effectively burying this country.

They may not just be pro-unionist with northern Ireland, they may do something about Scotland too. Devolution was apparently a founding aim of Labour which Blair first installed.
So yeah I probably broadly agree that Labour would be most likely to help a united Ireland occur long term. Though if we are all gonna be EU states and have most of our laws and policy from Brussels, what difference does it make?

Affable

mike65 wrote: »

Laughable post, tbh. Middle England is in a near constant state of seething revolt. I suspect you are not actually paying much attention to reality and are indulging in Irish sterotyping of the English.

Huh? I AM English. They are only in 'seething revolt' against changes to tradition. Things like, illegal immigrants, and Scottish PMs.

mike65

Then your post makes even less sense! Look whats happened regarding MPs expenses, no-one is doffing caps to anyone. I'm frankly amazed you, living there, have that view. MPs are nearly being hunted down in some
constituences.

The English are right to have concerns about Scottish domination of English affairs.