15/03/2012 Hearts and Minds

Hello and welcome to the programme. I am standing in for Null Thomson,

who is on holiday. Coming up: Will it be a two way or a three-way

contest for the Ulster Unionist leadership, and how much of a

poisoned chalice is it? As commemorations get under way,

can we read a history of Aids toxic legacy?

And are the SDLP in or out of the Executive, when they don't back its

programme for government? The latest candidate for the Ulster

Unionist leadership is not bothered about it being the Ides of March

today. Mike Nesbitt has become the second runner to declare after John

McAllister earlier in the week, with Danny Kennedy expected to

throw his hat into the ring tomorrow. Can anybody arrest the

party's steady decline? I am joined by seasoned observers are Martina

Purdy and Liam Clarke. We did ask the party candidates to join us but

the party chief said not until after the nominations close. Are we

seeing a party trying to exert more control after reason public spats?

The party is very conscious of the damaging image it has of a party

continually in crisis and biting. Ironically, the Ulster Unionists

were able to make peace with the nationalists and the SDLP but they

never made peace with each other. The feuds that other parties have

behind closed doors, they have in the open. They are trying to

stabilise the party because it can be very damaging. It is damage

limitation right now. It is going to be a short campaign but it is

off to a faltering start with John McCallister declaring quickly. We

hope to hear from Danny Kennedy. There had been negotiations or

contact, at least, between Danny Kennedy and Mike Nesbitt about

forming some kind of dream ticket where Mike would lead the party and

give it its tone and re- invigorate be the minister and take the lead

in the assembly. I understand that Mr Kennedy turned that down but I

think there is another meeting this evening, so you never know - there

may well be an announcement before the morning, or there is a meeting

on Saturday or all the candidates who have declared to decide how the

campaign will be run. That is another opportunity. On what

grounds do you understand he turned the offer us down? And my

understanding is that he felt it was best for the leader to be

Minister, as well, because the UUP had been criticised in recent polls

not to be thought of as having much authority. He thought that you

needed to have the full authority of a minister and a leader to have

the negotiations that are going on until the end of the deer. There

has got to be some sharing out if there is a deal. What does it tell

us, Martina? We have Mike Nesbitt and Danny Kennedy out of the same

stable and they can't agree a way forward. I think it damages Danny

Kennedy that he has not come out and nailed his colours. Almost

immediately, speculation began whether he was serious and he got a

bit sharper with me on the phone the other day when I asked about

the rumour and I asked when he was coming out. He said, "when I am

good and ready"". The damage done when you are seen to hesitate means

that people think that you don't want it. It is not helping his case

and it has not been helped by the fact that his assembly private

secretary has come out for Mike Nesbitt. Pretty embarrassing. But

let's look at the three candidates as we know them. Ulster Unionist

membership has quite a decision on its hands, doesn't it? There are

three diverse characters. The safe pair of hands, some might argue, in

Danny Kennedy, Liberal in John McAllister, and the newcomer to the

party in Mike Nesbitt. They do really have a clear choice and it

has not always been so clear in previous contests. John McAllister

is a most radical alternative and he would take them into opposition

because that is the only place you can rebuild your strength after

taking a hammering. Danny Kennedy has stuck close to the DUP and he

is a team player in the executive. He said to me today that he did not

want to be the last leader of the UUP. But he is seen as being closer

to that camp. Mike Nesbitt is coming in as a technical manager to

improve their image. How well do you think Danny Kennedy's close

association with the DUP will play with the electric? It is always

said that Unionist electors want unity. -- with the electorate.

People who vote for the UUP, in many cases, vote for them because

they are not the DUP. It is not popular in areas like Fermanagh

where there is a preponderance of membership but a lot of bad blood

for electoral reasons. That seems to be where Mike Nesbitt is

focusing. Pulling into that area at that is such a strong hold. This is

any U-turn now, -- a new to her much. The mythology around the

manor has sprung up that it was the powerhouse and if you can win

Fermanagh, you will win the leadership. I am assured that that

is merely a myth. Fermanagh is important but Tom Elliott could

have won the leadership last time without Fermanagh. People have been

watching this leadership for a couple of months now and have seen

Mike Nesbitt hoarding Fermanagh. It is one member, one vote and the

fact that Fermanagh is in the race, if you like a top that they might

just stay at home. How much of a fight has he got on his hands? We

often think of Fermanagh as the traditional order UUP membership

collection. Would they not see Mike Nesbitt as the antithesis of all

that - the city slicker, the new boy? I think they will and he has a

charm offensive on his hands. He is totally different from any leader

they have ever done for. He is an unknown quantity because he is

known as a media presenter. But what does he stand for politically?

One of the people I spoke to this week in barricaded's camp was quite

disparaging about Mike Nesbitt. You can have a baby in nine months but

you can't necessarily Electa leader, they say. -- in that Danny

Kennedy's camp. There were comments saying that journalists sometimes

crash and burn when they enter politics but I would point out that

Winston Churchill was a war correspondent. Turning to the theme

of the cultural vote and the farming community. John McAllister

- what do you reckon to his chances? He has only the support of

one MLA besides himself and that is Basil McRae. It is not a good place

to start, with just one of your colleagues are backing you

wholeheartedly. But he does present a good case and I think there is an

appetite for opposition... Even without the structures, the

mechanics to make it happen? think there is some appetite for it,

because when you want committee chairmanships and things you just

would not have a minister. John McAllister - you could not say he

is a favourite but he is a very clear choice. He has the advantage

of everybody many what he stands for. The other two with a combined,

that would help get all the MLAs behind it and that would be a very

powerful ticket. I am going to ask an awful thing - call it for us.

think before this week I was saying Danny Kennedy, but it is his to

lose because he is the unknown quantity. He has been in the party

for so long - they know what they are getting, he has experience and

he is everybody's friend. But I think the fact that he has held

back might damage him. But calling it depends how many are in the race.

If it is a two-horse race, it is easier. A three-horse race is

harder to call but I would not write tough job altogether. He is

quite conservative in many ways. -- would not write to John off

altogether. He can be very charming. He goes down well in farming

circles. Liam? I would have said Danny Kennedy a few days ago. It is

now starting to look like a Mike Nesbitt now. You see the peers and

MLAs coming out in favour of him. A couple of weeks ago Sinn Fein's

Declan Kearney penned a piece about the need for old enemies to put the

past behind them and work together for a better, brighter future.

Progress, he argued, is only possible with authentic

reconciliation. What puzzled me, though, was how he knew - before

the rest of us - that another UUP leadership contest was around the

corner! I say "another" because it was just five minutes ago that Tom

and Basil were wrestling in jelly in search of the Holy Grail that is

the Ulster Unionists' recovery plan. Yet the trouble with the UUP is

that it doesn't really want leaders who make decisions. All they want

them to do is some gentle management and plodding along. They

want the leader to be like the slightly deaf, slightly doddery old

uncle who sits at the head of the table during family gatherings:

mostly smiling, generally bewildered and occasionally

breaking wind. But they don't want him coming up with ideas - bearing

in mind the sort of trouble they got into with O'Neill, Faulkner and

Trimble. The ongoing problem, of course, is that the UUP is still

not a political party. You can have all the rules you like, but rules

only work when you are dealing with an organisation which agrees on

most things and accepts the concept of collective responsibility and

loyalty. So a leadership contest is a bit like watching a group of

five-year-olds pinning the tail to the donkey: the only difference

being that the kids will eventually get the hang of things and then

grow up. In some early Star Trek adventures Captain Kirk would

return to a pivotal moment in history to see if events could be

changed. And in this latest episode of the UUP's soap opera, three

would-be captains have found themselves on board the Titanic.

Danny doesn't want to rock the boat at all, happily ignoring the

distress signals as the band plays a funeral march. One gets the

feeling he has been strapped in place, tied to the wheel by a group

of officers in grey suits. John wants to turn it around, and boldly

go to what he hopes will be a promised port of warmer waters and

sunnier climes - albeit with fewer crew on board. Mike wants to steer

a course between the two - which is a bit like strapping an electric

blanket to the hull when you see the first iceberg. McCallister's is

the most daring of the options. The UUP has nothing to show for its

presence in the Executive. It's locked in a loveless, lifeless

marriage, kidding itself that it has influence and respect - when it

quite clearly doesn't have either. He wants a clean break and his own

house. Yep, it's a high risk strategy, but it's a darn sight

more sensible than the present option of remaining like mushrooms

in the Executive cupboard: Kept in the dark about most decisions while

still being covered in poop when things go wrong! No leader of the

UUP - particularly since 1972 - has ever actually outlined the party's

role, relevance or purpose. It has just drifted into one iceberg after

another while passengers fall over the side or scramble into life

boats. The UUP has to stop reflecting on the past and begin

focussing on a new, genuinely bold direction. The same-old same-old

will get it nowhere. A fudge will get it nowhere. It has to face the

fact that it is no longer the natural party of government. If it

doesn't get its act together on March 31 then soon it won't even

have enough MLAs to form a credible Opposition - let alone live long

The thoughts of Alex Kane. This week David Cameron and Enda Kenny

said the centenary commemorations of key events in the history of

these islands now offered a chance to look back in a spirit of respect,

inclusiveness and reconciliation. And with that in mind, the Irish

government has set up a panel of historians to see how that can be

Belfast City Hall has seen busier days. Its pan -- it's been the main

focus since it was built more than 100 years ago. In 2012, -- 1912,

thousands of Unionists came here to support Lord Carson and to show

their vehement opposition to home role. They pledged an assigned

covenant to use all necessary means in their struggle. The table the

Unionist leaders used is still in City Hall. Edward Carson and his

followers who signed the Ulster Covenant by implicitly threatening

violence to deny a home rule, helped to define the physical force

tradition in Irish politics. Parliamentary democracy today is

very different from them. Women now have the vote and there are no

property owning allocations. Events that eventually led to the demise

of the Home Rule Party and to partition, after General Sir John

Maxwell crossed the 1916 rising. John Maxwell, who put down the

rebellion, became quite a student of Irish history. He said there was

latitude given to the Unionists that led to 1916, and that the

public had swung to a belief that more had been cut from 1916 in one

week that Mr Redmond had been able to achieve in a lifetime. But after

all that delirium subsided, people want jobs, they want children

educated. Naturally invade voted for that. The delirium of

revolution also give rise to a mini Cold War. Ian Paisley was not the

first Unionist to a polls at following of relations with the

Republic. There was still plenty of mileage in no surrender and Brits

out. 50 years after the rising, Nelson's Column was blown up in

Dublin. The man charged by the Irish Government with chairing a

committee on centenaries says there are lessons to be learnt have a

century on. 1966 is a very good Template of what to avoid. 1966 was

simplistic, romantic, triumphalist, it produced only one version of

history. It all came in a sense to the inevitability of the rising. It

was extremely on historical. GPO in Dublin, the centre of the

rising, has long since returned to be in a poll stoppers. In the

intervening years, especially during the Troubles, history was

used as a weapon in the ideological battle by those on different sides,

traditional bursars revisionist. The past all too often in Prague --

interpreted through the prism of what was the present. Another

historian on the Irish Government committee says are myths and

misunderstandings must be challenged. Some people see a him

as a great patriot. Others see him as the progenitor of the men of

1916. There is a sense that car cent United the Fenian flame of

rebellion. -- Carson. Last year's royal visit to the Republic held to

challenge other versions of history. The Queen and President

acknowledged those who had died for Irish independence and that those

who had served the Crown, but tens of thousands of Irishmen who had

fought in the First World War, so long forgotten in the Irish state,

now remembered as never before. Another historian hopes the

goodwill associated with recent political developments, will still

allow for a warts-and-all approach to the centenaries. The emphasis

has to be on reconciliation and on a shared histories and on

respecting diversity and being inclusive. That is fine to a point.

But you're also have got to be aware of all very contrived

commemorations. There is not point in air brushing some of those

difficult questions, particularly the subversion of democracy in the

1920s. The committee will also look at the role of Labour and the

Greater Dublin lock-out of 1913, and women's battle for the vote.

Although parliamentary democracy may have been subverted, historians

say that subversion was temporary. 100 years on, we still have a

democratic system, elected politicians, power-sharing. In many

ways parliamentary democracy has triumphed despite the wars and

civil wars of the early 20th century. Ireland North and South is

not unique in having a difficult historical legacy to confront. The

Centenary Committee chairman thinks a good example is being set.

years is a very short time. For example, in France, 80 years after

collaboration, it is impossible to have an open objective discussion.

The Spanish Civil War, ended in 1939, again Spain is not in a

position to have an open comprehensive debate. In the next

few years, historians will continue to debate the issues of the

centenaries, like the executions of the Easter 1916 leaders hearing

problem. While we may be less prisoners of the past, that same

past can still cast a shadow over an island emerging from decades of

mistrust and violence. Shane Harrison reporting. The parties

might seem to be agreed that the latest wage increase for MLAs is a

bad move. But there's not much sign of consensus on the nationalist

side, with the SDLP this week voting against the Executive's

programme for government. With me is Dolores Kelly of the SDLP, and

Sinn Fein's Phil Flanagan. Dolores, you're minister sits on the

Executive. You Party agreed the Budget. What is this? When the

programme for Government was published in draft form there were

many people who responded to it in a critical way. Is not just the El

-- the SDLP who said there were a number of things wrong. Not least

the failure of the Executive to recognise and make account for the

welfare cuts to protect people better. The SDLP would not support

something that is not right. We are there to hold ministers to account.

You are right in the heart of Government? Yes, and our Minister

has done a very good job, unlike some other parties whose ministers

have had to step down and other ministers to have been controlled -

- called control freaks. The SDLP takes a wider view and will

actually hold and say what is right and what is good. We were very

constructive about the economic investment strategy. We are not

happy about the programme for Government. You say your voice is

not being heard? It is being heard. It was being heard when Alex

Attwood had discussions about some of the welfare proposals. We do not

think it up has been done to make a special case for the people of

North affected by the cuts. This demonstrates that fear lack of

leadership from the SDLP. I am very disappointed with the stance taken

by the SDLP. Since I entered the assembly it has been nothing but

negativity from the SDLP. It has been doing a quicker service to

nationalism. I am very keen that we in the assembly send a very

positive and progressive message to the electorate, that we are there

to make a difference, to deliver for the people. This programme for

Government is not delivering. We are part of Government. They are

the largest parties. Sinn Fein have a veto. They can veto the worst of

the DUP. They do not do that. They have a certain mentality when it

comes to be people in the south. They say it is OK for the people in

the north to face cuts. The point is that the Executive works on the

basis of collective responsibility. Your Minister is administering the

decisions. It also works on Power share thing -- power-sharing, not

power car up. You don't like criticism that is not from within

the bigger parties? I would just pick up on something Dolores has

raised. It is great to see the SDLP take an interest in politics south

of the border. This is to be negative agenda. The SDLP and

recently came out to say they were in support of an austerity treaty

in the south, but against progress in the north. Sinn Fein have

progress about the welfare reform agenda being pushed by the Tory

Government. But the SDLP promised us that when the SDLP went to

Westminster, they would make a difference. They have not made a

blind bit of difference in terms of welfare reform. At least they were

there. They were there but what had they done? We have a clear policy

of Stead's -- of abstention is them. We believe positive difference can

be made in the Executive. Why was Alex asked -- why was Alex Attwood

not at the last executive meeting? Why West Alastair Macdonald not

part of the debate? First off, Alastair Macdonald was off to

Westminster to welcome the Taoiseach to Westminster. He wanted

to strengthen those ties. suggested he was at a funeral.

was Alex. Alex was on route to Brussels and attended away cows on

the way. He has had to go to Brussels because of the mess that

has been left behind in relation to the Strangford Lough scenario,

where there are potential infection proceedings. In the last executive

when Sinn Fein and the DUP held the two ministries with responsibility.

There is huge concern about infection from Europe. Is this not

just party politics? It is a political situation. There are

party politics. The SDLP has been very positive in terms of what we

seek to do. It has been very positive through difficult times,

violent times in the past. The SDLP has always thought to have positive

outcomes through dialogue and move Northern Ireland forward. We

believe now we have Sinn Fein and the DUP Arcady centre ground of

politics, we have achieved quite a lot through a positive outlook.

There is a survey that suggests the Ulster Unionist Party has no

influence within the Executive. How much influence as the SDLP had?

Mijas edition deadlines. -- we have sufficient influence. He began this

discussion by saying that your voice was not being heard. Now you

say that Alex Attwood would not be bullied. What I said was that where

we have influence and can make the decisions, we do that in the best

interest of people. Alex will make his own judgment on that. Alex got

amendments to some of the social reform coming down. When the worst

of some of these cuts came down, Sinn Fein and the DUP had at the

top. They used in the case of the just Minster -- justice minister.

Phil Flanagan cap --, Heidi you answer the criticism that

essentially you like the smaller parties under the tent but you

don't like to hear the criticism q macro we have no problem with

criticism. Public consultation exists did give the public a voice.

As a young nationalist and somebody was 10 years of age when the first

IRA ceasefire was announced in 1984, I find it somewhat ironic that the

SDLP joined with Jim Allister him traipsing through the Laulala

breeze for the programme for Government. -- the lower lobbies. I

don't see how welcoming and the Kennedy to London is part of the

SDLP strategy. Phil has got an agenda to attack the SDLP. That is

very clear. It is very disappointing that rather than work

with us in the best interest of people facing very difficult times,

that Sinn Fein on a regular basis go through the lobbies with the DUP

were very much Centre Right politics. There are and number of

voices within the SDLP who want to work productively and positively to

make a difference. Are you suggesting the party is divided?

The party is all over the place. There is a clear lack of leadership.

There are some MLAs who want to make a difference. I would not like

to single about. You're talking nonsense. Some of the younger MLAs