One of my former managers had a catchphrase “tolerance of ambiguity” to the effect that one of the qualities that characterised your potential to rise to senior management was the ability to tolerate ambiguity. The greater one’s responsibilities became, the less black and white the choices become. You have to be able to tolerate situations where there are many competing points of view and no right answers. The solutions are at best messy compromises which may have to be tweaked ... Read more...
One of my former managers had a catchphrase “tolerance of ambiguity” to the effect that one of the qualities that characterised your potential to rise to senior management was the ability to tolerate ambiguity. The greater one’s responsibilities became, the less black and white the choices become. You have to be able to tolerate situations where there are many competing points of view and no right answers. The solutions are at best messy compromises which may have to be tweaked from time to time as circumstances change.
He rose to the top of the management tree, so he should know.
But I also felt there could be virtue in arguing the merits of a particular point of view and having the courage to stick to it through thick and thin. George Bernard Shaw noted that “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”
That may be so, but it can also be career limiting. I had a persistent habit of being right at the wrong time. The art of politics (and management) is often as much about timing as having the right policies. I knew I had messed up when another top manager once said to me “weren’t you very brave to have made that suggestion at that meeting!”
When he made that same suggestion at another meeting some time later it was greeted with thunderous applause compared to the silence that had greeted my proposal. He had prepared the ground by speaking one to one with the key stakeholders and potential blockers beforehand.
The Alliance Party of Northern Ireland (APNI) has made a virtue of being ambiguous on the constitutional question, preferring to focus on more mundane day to day bread and butter issues instead. It enables them to draw support from people of various political backgrounds who might have very different constitutional views but are prepared to cooperate with one another on other issues of more immediate concern. It has worked for them electorally, up to a point. So why change now?
Over the past 50 years the APNI’s vote share has fluctuated between 5 and 15%, some of it due to tactical voting by supporters of other parties voting to “keep the other lot out”. But contrary to much wishful thinking, it has never really challenged the leading Nationalist or Unionist parties for leadership of Northern Ireland as a whole. It remains a fringe party, even if it can sometimes combine the fringes of both nationalist and unionist leaning voters.
The “radical centre” has been very conservative in practice, focusing on making the status quo more bearable. That also means it hasn’t been much of a player in Westminster or Irish politics, being regarded as a mostly domestically focused local government party in Northern Ireland.
These thoughts came to mind when I read Andy Pollack’s excellent OP on a speech and interview APNI leader Naomi Long gave to ARINS ((Analysing and Researching Ireland North and South) recently. He concluded his piece as follows:
During question time, Long returned to the issue of the Border poll. She accepted that Alliance was largely ignored in the Republic, although she believed this was part of the larger weariness with the North by Southern politicians, the media and the public as they dealt with more immediate problems like the Covid pandemic and the housing crisis. “We’re not relevant to them these days – we’re a place apart.”
However, she went on: “Actually, we are the group of people they should be interested in. Because if there’s ever a Border poll, we’re the group who will make the key decision. Nationalists will vote nationalist, and Unionists will vote unionist, and it will be the people who haven’t made up their minds yet who will decide what actually happens. So we’re the group of people who they should be most interested in because we’re going to be the ones who will be the deciding factor.”
All well and good, but precisely what are the factors that would induce APNI voters to vote one way or the other? And why would most southern voters take a huge interest in the APNI when it is almost exclusively focused on domestic NI issues and has shown no interest in registering as a political party in the south or competing for votes or attention there. Has the lack of interest not been reciprocal?
Alliance has made much play of its support for the GFA and its provisions for “parity of esteem” for those of either a nationalist or unionist persuasion. But what about those in the south who are neither nationalist nor unionist in narrow political terms, but who believe that the future prosperity of all on this island is best served by both north and south working much more closely together in the short term, and greater infrastructural, economic, and political integration in the longer term?
As the economic well being of Northern Ireland gradually declines relative to both southern Ireland and England, does the APNI not owe it to its own supporters to map out alternative futures for Northern Ireland and what those might look like under either Irish or British Sovereignty? You can’t deliver on the domestic bread and butter issues if Northern Ireland’s finances continue to deteriorate under British sovereignty but if any Irish alternative badly needs to be spelled out in much more detail for voters to be able to judge its merits.
If Naomi wants to spur much more southern interest in APNI supporters, one way she could do so is to start the process of mapping out precisely what it would take to make Irish sovereignty look much more attractive to them. Precisely what would they require to even consider voting for a United Ireland?
Helpful soul that I am, and with my usual lack of good timing (I was a latecomer to the party), I made the following proposal in the comments to Andy’s piece:
“Given that Alliance claims to be agnostic and pragmatic on the issue of a border poll, and that its focus is on practical standard of living, public services issues etc. , would it not be helpful if Alliance laid out the criteria under which it would judge any proposed decision on a border poll?
E.g., Would Alliance support a yes vote in a border poll if the Irish/British governments promised the following:
1. No reduction in the NI standard of living.
2. Civil servants given a choice of continuing to work in NI under Irish sovereignty or transferring to Britain to work under British sovereignty with the same terms and conditions and pension rights
3. Improved funding for infrastructural development and public health and education services
4. Full freedom of religion and freedom to express a British cultural identity
5. Reduced corporate taxation, so NI could attract FDI on the same basis as the south, with the IDA as the lead agency.
6. Full rights to British citizenship, participation in Commonwealth events, and common travel area with Britain to be maintained
7. A new British Irish treaty to be concluded providing for security cooperation and maritime and airspace security much as is now provided on an informal basis.
8. A gradual harmonization of current NI and Irish tax rates and social welfare benefits with a guarantee that current taxpayers/social welfare recipients would not be disadvantaged by that process.
9. Irish government to fund major sports stadium and sports complex in Belfast and a full university in Derry
10. Irish language will not be compulsory in schools and all state funded schools to be governed by a board elected by the parents.
The above is just a top of the head list, but you get the idea. Precisely what would it take to get Alliance off the fence in the event of a border poll?
If Alliance can’t specify what it sees as its minimum requirement to support a UI, can its claim to constitutional agnosticism be accepted as being in good faith, or is it just a unionist party with a small u?
Just for balance, Alliance could compile a similar list of demands to the British government for it to support a No vote in a border poll – and see would the British government support those demands.
How can Alliance claim to be focused on the betterment of the people of Northern Ireland if it can’t specify what would constitute a better future under either jurisdiction?”
David Ocado helpfully responded to my proposal as follows:
“A great try Frank, but Alliance will never abandon constitutional ambiguity until it has to.
The simple truth is in places like N Down, Ards, E Antrim (Greater Belfast in general) Alliance voters are 80%+ soft Unionists, they want nothing to do with the OO or loyalism in general, they want to live in peace and comfort and are generally very happy, they live happily in prosperous neighbourhoods with their equally soft Nationalist neighbours, their kids go to great schools, many have comfortable public sector jobs, their lives are good as it is, they are like the middle class anywhere, why rock the boat? Why risk so much for perhaps a slight improvement in their lives?
I’m the first to recognise what a stellar job the South has done economically and socially, it has outdone the North by a long, long way but as long as the Brits keep on sending £10-15bn a year Alliance voters will not be greening any time soon.
Sometimes I think Nationalists would be better focusing their efforts on the ‘Protestant working class’ as they would probably gain more from a UI than I would”.
And our part of the discussion then continued:
Frank Schnittger:
All fair enough, and as I would expect, but then why is Naomi bemoaning the lack of interest in the Alliance Party in the south? Why is she bemoaning the lack of influence of the Alliance party anywhere?
I want to call her bluff. I get it that Alliance wants to maintain their constitutional ambiguity for as long as possible so as not to upset their oh so nice neighbours, but you can’t have it both ways.
Either you are committed to exploring all avenues that might lead to better outcomes for NI people as objectively as possible, or you are not.
If you are right, then nationalist criticisms of the Alliance Party on this thread are justified. They are just in it for themselves and will never amount to more than a marginal regional lobby group looking to have somebody else pay for having their potholes fixed….”
David Ocado replied:
“I think there is a disconnect between the Alliance voters and their members, the latter being greener but knowing where the unspoken boundaries are, and you are of course correct that they are trying to have it both ways for as long as possible”.
So, there you have it. The APNI is a conservative small “u” unionist party more than happy with the status quo so long as the €10-15 Billion subvention is maintained, and the good times (for them) continue to roll. If that means they are trying to have it both ways, lecturing others for their lack of vision, moderation, and interest in their affairs while having little interest in the concerns of others, then so be it.
They are happy to maintain good relations with the south, but really not too interested in anything other beyond good manners and good neighbourliness. The odd academic seminar or church reconciliation service will suffice, thank you very much. Anyone seeking to move beyond that (like myself) is wasting their time.
They possibly have even less time for Orange Order marches, fundamentalist protestant proselytising, and for loyalist paramilitarism but are relatively insulated from the worst of that. It is an embarrassment, but not a deal breaker so long as law and order in their neighbourhoods is maintained.
Those who believe that politics is also about leadership, having a vision for the future, and preparing for worst case scenarios are dreamers and idealists compared to the pragmatic concerns of good schools, roads, jobs, and pensions. Why risk any of that for an uncertain future?
David Ocado goes on to argue that nationalists might have more success persuading unionist working class people of the merits of their cause, as they might have, objectively, more to gain from a change of dispensation. But it seems to me that the less people gain from their British affiliation, the more fiercely they are attached to it. Political allegiances, like religious belief, are often more a product of birth and upbringing than rational choices based on objective criteria.
But I have one question for APNI supporters (of whom David is not necessarily one). What happens if the Barnett subvention is dramatically reduced, and the good times no longer roll? What happens when the infrastructural and public services deficits in Northern Ireland begin to affect even the comfortable middle classes?
Wouldn’t it be a wise move to have a plan for all eventualities, and crucially, to have an input into what the future shape of Irish sovereignty might be? Shouldn’t they at least try to find out what the best offers of the Irish and British governments might be?
Because if a border poll is “lost” by unionism, virtually all their bargaining power will have gone. The default position is that Down will become part of a United Ireland in the same way as Donegal or Louth are now will apply. If you want something different, the time to argue your case is now. Why not put it up to both the British and Irish governments to define what their best offers for the future will be, and perhaps play off one against the other while you still can?
But I have to admit my sense of timing was never great. Aren’t I the brave man to be making that suggestion to deafening silence now? If you want to get ahead in business or politics, tolerance of ambiguity is a marker of having senior managerial or political potential, and aren’t APNI supporters doing just fine at the moment?
If your ambition extends no further than maintaining the status quo, tolerance of ambiguity will do just fine. Only unreasonable people would want to put the current dispensation at risk, or perhaps those not doing quite so well out of it. APNI supporters must be praying their numbers do not increase too much.
Either way, if you have nothing much to say, don’t be surprised if people north or south aren’t too fascinated by, or interested in you or your supporters. And in fairness, you are in good company. Perhaps a majority on this island are primarily interested in what benefits mé féin in the here and now. Looking at possible future scenarios and eventualities is for nationalist ideologues, academics and dreamers.
But shush!… don’t ask the English what they are getting from this arrangement, or their reply might consist of a very few choice expletives.
