Prime Minister Terrence O’Neill – a Career Unfulfilled?

There aren’t enough Northern Irish questions on this forum, so here’s one for the Ulster folk.

I have always been sort of interested in Northern Irish PM Terrence O’Neill. He was arguably the most progressive PM Stormont had ever seen but despite his efforts to bridge the gap between Protestants and Catholics, his tenure ultimately ended in failure – lacking sufficient support from the British government and undermined by his own party. So, my question is, did he achieve all he could or was his a career left unfulfilled? Had he had more support (from the public, his party, the British government) could he had helped resolve the Troubles (for the most part) prior to their start?

Russell
 
Personally I think O'Neill achieved as much as he could have, he was in a near impossible position, the Ulster Unionists have always been a snake pit of squabbling factions and many were opposed to any concessions to the Civil Rights Movement. In turn they regarded O'Neill's reforms as not enough and demanded more further exacerbating the pressure on O'Neill. He didn't have much of a support base in the Party and people like Faulkner, Chichester-Clark and Craig all wanted to oust him, it would have needed a Nixonian political operator to play the various factions off against one another and O'Neill didn't have the cunning and ruthlessness needed. In the end I think he was just fed up with all the back biting and just gave up.

Russell if you're interested in O'Neill have you read Stormont in Crisis the memoirs of former NI Civil Service head Ken Bloomfield who was O'Neill's Private Secretary for many years? It's a great insight into what went on at that time.
 
O'Neill was a man who definitely realised N. Ireland could not continue as the appaling sectarian state it was! He was in sharp contrast to some of the buffoon N. Ireland PMs that went before him!
 
The Ulster Unionists of this era are yet another reminder that when you create a one party state (which was what Ulster was really) the rise of factionalism within party is inevitable.

As to the OP he only had limited room for manoeuvre and he couldn't hope to bring his party with him.
 
O'Neill was a man who definitely realised N. Ireland could not continue as the appaling sectarian state it was! He was in sharp contrast to some of the buffoon N. Ireland PMs that went before him!

Well there were only 3, Craig was smarter than people give him credit for but Andrews and especially Brooke were indeed complete buffoons!
 
There aren’t enough Northern Irish questions on this forum, so here’s one for the Ulster folk.

I have always been sort of interested in Northern Irish PM Terrence O’Neill. He was arguably the most progressive PM Stormont had ever seen but despite his efforts to bridge the gap between Protestants and Catholics, his tenure ultimately ended in failure – lacking sufficient support from the British government and undermined by his own party. So, my question is, did he achieve all he could or was his a career left unfulfilled? Had he had more support (from the public, his party, the British government) could he had helped resolve the Troubles (for the most part) prior to their start?

Russell

Two huge ifs in the last sentence. If large sections of the public and the party had been more reasonable in the first place, there wouldn't have been a crisis to resolve.

O'Neill meant well, but once the latent tensions were released in 1968, events happened too fast for him (or anyone else) to get matters under control. Maybe if he had undertaken major reforms a couple of years earlier, matters wouldn't have come to a head the way they did, but there would have been major problems with the unionists themselves in that case.

To the extent that the British government was at fault in 1968, it wasn't that they failed to support O'Neill. Like the rest of Britain, it was caught completely off-guard by the protests and didn't know what to do for the best.
 
The Ulster Unionists of this era are yet another reminder that when you create a one party state (which was what Ulster was really) the rise of factionalism within party is inevitable.

As to the OP he only had limited room for manoeuvre and he couldn't hope to bring his party with him.

Apparently when the nominations closed for candiates at Stormont elections the UU's were almost already guaranteed victory as many seats were uncontested, this is actually a major reason why the UUP have collapsed in recent years to the DUP. Years of facile victories meant that the party's campaigning organisation withered away, many elections in the post Stormont era saw joint Unionist candidates run in some seats and the only thing they had to do was get enough of the voters to the polling stations. When they faced a head on challenge and had to give people reasons to vote for them they failed completely.
 
Brooke, who was evidently a Taig hater, while PM used to spend a considerable period of time yachting about for upto 6 months a year at a time, I wouldn't have him anywhere near a yacht or government buildings for that matter!
 

Morty Vicar

Banned
O'Neil may have managed to lessen the tensions at the start, but once it had kicked off it was only going to escalate. And it was inevitable, given the history and climate it was only a matter of time until conflicts arose. It wouldn't make much difference by that point if it was O'Neil, Paisley or Gerry Adams as Prime Minister ultimately.
 
Personally I think O'Neill achieved as much as he could have, he was in a near impossible position, the Ulster Unionists have always been a snake pit of squabbling factions and many were opposed to any concessions to the Civil Rights Movement. In turn they regarded O'Neill's reforms as not enough and demanded more further exacerbating the pressure on O'Neill. He didn't have much of a support base in the Party and people like Faulkner, Chichester-Clark and Craig all wanted to oust him, it would have needed a Nixonian political operator to play the various factions off against one another and O'Neill didn't have the cunning and ruthlessness needed. In the end I think he was just fed up with all the back biting and just gave up.

Russell if you're interested in O'Neill have you read Stormont in Crisis the memoirs of former NI Civil Service head Ken Bloomfield who was O'Neill's Private Secretary for many years? It's a great insight into what went on at that time.

It's a book I’ll look out for - thanks very much. I just found it so strange that such a reforming figure could make it into power and yet ultimately leave such a small impact. Most folk (outside of NI) haven’t even heard of him, and the literature on him is also considerably limited.

Russell
 
As I understand it he was put there more as a figurehead than anything, to show that the Ulster Unionists where progressive and reforming but without actually doing anything.
 

Morty Vicar

Banned
It's a book I’ll look out for - thanks very much. I just found it so strange that such a reforming figure could make it into power and yet ultimately leave such a small impact. Most folk (outside of NI) haven’t even heard of him, and the literature on him is also considerably limited.

Russell

Because the idea that a Unionist politician, with an Irish/ Ulster surname no less, could be anything other than a fascist Dictator has to be whitewashed from history.. ;) Ian Paisley did more for Republicanism than Wolfe Tone and James Connolly combined.
 
Because the idea that a Unionist politician, with an Irish/ Ulster surname no less, could be anything other than a fascist Dictator has to be whitewashed from history.. ;) Ian Paisley did more for Republicanism than Wolfe Tone and James Connolly combined.

Indeed that son of a bitch did a lot to soil Unionism. An ideology wich all things considered should be anything but sectarian as religious tolerance is very much a part of Britain and has been so for over a century!
 
Russel
I have posted a few posts on N. Ireland that may be of interest to you including one in the future forum on the Statelette being preserved within the Union when there is a catholic voting majority which will happen at the very latest by 2048. The Union will be maintained effectively by the catholics who will vote to keep it then!
 
Top