Something very odd happened in local politics last Friday. We got a Secretary of State who could, without being aided by a staffer, point to Belfast on a map.
Moreover, a Secretary of State who understood the multiplicity of the problems he faces, yet seems capable of doing the joined-up thinking required to either resolve them fairly quickly or kickstart the process for speedy resolution.
After a longish line of bargain-basement predecessors (I’m excluding Julian Smith, by the way), it really is good to have someone with gravitas again. Someone capable of the small talk required for civil engagement while also able to understand the complexities and nuance of what passes for politics here.
So, welcome to Belfast and the NIO, Mr Benn. I hope it will be the beginning of a mutually beneficial friendship.
The biggest difference between now and 2016 is that we don’t have a governing party at war with itself. Keir Starmer leads a united government with a huge majority. He doesn’t need to be propped up by a handful of MPs from here and nor is there a Labour equivalent of the ERG subset which imagined itself to be the real government.
Fair enough, Starmer may be dullish but, let’s be honest, British politics could do with a period of dull stability rather than rampant boorishness and dysfunction.
There has been a lot of talk of reset since Starmer crossed the Number 10 threshold. There are four particular resets of relationships required here.
The British and Irish relationship, which came close to hitting rock-bottom a few times as they fell out over their contradictory positions on a post-Brexit agreement.
The Irish government and unionist relationship, which disintegrated when unionism – most of it, as it happens – believed that Leo Varadkar was threatening a return of violence if a hard border was put in place.
The relationship between the British government and the smaller pro-Leave parties (Sinn Féin, SDLP, Alliance), who believed they were being deliberately sidelined once the May government and DUP reached their confidence and supply deal in 2017.
And the relationship between unionism – especially the DUP – and the Labour Party, which withered into something just short of mutual disdain when the DUP cosied up to the ERG.
Each of those relationships needs to be fixed if something resembling stability is to reemerge in local politics. Right now, with a Labour majority, a bruised DUP and an Irish government which also prioritises repair and stability, is the time to do the fixing.
Starmer certainly won’t be rushing into a return to the EU, but he may be minded to acknowledge and address unionist concerns, albeit stopping short of a removal of the Protocol and Windsor Framework. Crucially, if the EU knows it is dealing with a stable, united government, it may also be minded to stretch itself.
It would be useful, too, if Benn were to use his influence during the honeymoon phase to convene all-party talks and agree an overarching strategy for tackling the mountain of decisions which have been avoided for years. The executive clearly can’t do it itself – the silo mentality takes over when it comes to prioritising and allocation.
But maybe, just maybe, if they agreed on a thought-through five-year plan (carrying them forward to 2029), Benn might be able to persuade the Chancellor to underwrite it. For the past 14 years successive Conservative governments have pursued a bizarre approach which either punishes or indulges the executive. That approach needs to end. Stability and certainty have to be the new approach.
But there is one issue which could still destabilise the entire structure and process: a border poll. Benn seemed to rule it out last Sunday and then Starmer hinted at flexibility when he arrived for a flying visit on Monday.
My view – and it has been for quite some time – is that it is more likely than not that a Labour government, while not calling a poll, would clarify the exact terms and conditions under which a poll would – not could – be called.
That would spook unionists. It doesn’t need to. Deep down they know one will come at some point and I believe that knowing the terms and conditions would actually make it easier for them to agree a collective strategy for promoting and protecting membership of the UK.
There is no certainty one way or the other at the moment. In my opinion that is actually a disadvantage for those of us in the pro-union lobby.