Does electoral performance affect funding from Government ?

Davros,

Yes. If you are Republican as electoral strength increases ruses to remove funding increase exponentially.

Ahem, what I was wondering - if the APNI don't run candidates , their share of the votes decrease - will this impact upon the party finances ?

Yet another reason that Alliance's decision was so utterly daft last time!

Glad that the party as a whole has learned the lesson and, furthermore, chosen a truly outstanding candidate in North Down.

Slugger's quotes 'sources' (Only Alliance but still a 'source'). How excellent it's just like the real media now.

Not impressed.

Wonder if the 'source' was tellin us they hadn't decided in the most recent Alliance bluff about standing aside in an election.

Maybe we'll get sold 'Just Politics, No Action' this time?

Goodness Mark, you're as bad as Henry!

An 'Alliance bluff' would require political cunning. You can take it from this 'Alliance source' that the terms 'Alliance Leadership' and 'political cunning' do not go together in the same sentence! If they did, there would have been no withdrawals last time.

I'd love to say all the lessons have been learned from last time. For now, suffice it to repeat that the party has chosen its candidate very wisely in North Down.

IJP
Are you referring to the selection of Westminster candidate or a certain local government candidate? ;o)

Interesting strategy: We were rubbish, we are still rubbish, we don't look like changing so what's the point in attacking us? but I've a lovely 'mate' running in North Down)

IJP

I dont understand how one can say that Dr, David Alderdice is an 'outstanding' candidate.

The best thing Dr. Alderdice did was go on the Ali G Show, even then he didnt impress too much.

Bottom line is, no matter what, North Down has an immensely hard and dedicated worker in Lady Sylvia Hermon who will without doubt hold her seat as a reward for her efforts for all the people in North Down.

All Alliance are going to do in the upcoming elections is loose their election deposits... what they do after that is their own lookout.

Will

I was referring to the Westminster candidate. That same candidate is of course a very good local candidate too. As for his running mate, don't be fooled by his unquestionable good looks... :)

Mark

No harm in attacking Alliance and starting a debate (all publicity is good publicity after all), but it'd be sensible if you attacked it for something it's actually guilty of!

Stephen

Whatever its faults, Alliance remains the only Assembly party that is even trying to answer the right question, and is the only one with a consistent heritage of utter opposition to all forms of sectarianism and violence. There are some people who are particularly good at representing that heritage and making it relevant to our collective future, and the candidate in North Down is one of them.

Whatever the current incumbent's merits, she represents a party with a heritage of ignorance/discrimination, turning a blind eye to violence (as long as it's the 'right kind'), and oft blatant sectarian outbursts.

The people of North Down should read the cover carefully - the candidates in the end represent exactly what it says on the tin.

IJP

So you are trying to tell me that David Alderdice will pose a serious challenge to Lady Hermon?

Perhaps the Alliance are more out of touch than i thought

no matter what, North Down has an immensely hard and dedicated worker in Lady Sylvia Hermon who will without doubt hold her seat as a reward for her efforts for all the people in North Down

"Absolute baloney" - look at the Assembly election results and add together DUP & UKUP v UUP - she may retain it with a fight but it is not "without doubt". Weren't you one of those (along with the Party Leader!) predicting 35 Assembly seats Stephen - complacency like that is our most dangerous enemy.....

If the Alliance vote in N.Down is over 5000 then the DUP will have won it. This is a seat that has been moving strongly towards the DUP.

East Antrim will be a DUP victory but I dont think the DUP can beat Burnside particularly given the number of Papists there that will vote tactfully.

The UUP will retain S.Antrim and that will be all.

God Save The Queen.

"Tactful" voting: how polite those "Papists" are becoming.

Peter Brown why do you assume that MCCartney voters are DUP voters by right? Also McCartney so far has stated that he will stand, so it will be a matter of how many votes he beats weir for 2nd place

Steven
Bottom line is, no matter what, North Down has an immensely hard and dedicated worker in Lady Sylvia Hermon who will without doubt hold her seat as a reward for her efforts for all the people in North Down."

If you call hard work propping up the green benches at Westminster all day every day, in between trips to the bars and tea rooms of Westminster then yes she's a real hard grafter. Shame she's not seen anywhere on the ground - appart from popping up at a few 'society' events so she can get her mug snapped for the local paper.

I'm not the Alliance Party's biggest fan, but if you think they will lose their deposit at the election then you are living in a parallel universe somewhere.

Lets remember your glorious leader in the run-up to the 2001 General Election predicted that the UUP would win between 7-10 seats, and that it would be "at the upper end of that scale". Your party also predicted it would take 1000 people to its party conference in Londonderry and didnt even manage 300 and James Cooper predicted you would win 30 seats at the 2003 Assembly election.

I'm not going to any UUP members for this weeks lottery numbers.

I dont understand how one can say that Dr, David Alderdice is an 'outstanding' candidate.

Yeah, Stephen, but you're just blinded by the luminescence of the political Galacticos of the Ulster Unionist Party. The UUP is lucky to be so spoiled with up and coming talent.

jonty are you seriously suggesting that Bob will beat Weir into 3rd when Weir beat him by 300 votes last year and the DUP outpolled UKUP over 2:1 overall - if this is the level of your analysis no wonder you believe Lady Sylvia is a shoe in. You go with your opinion but I prefer to rely on the facts which are much less rosy for the UUP in North Down and elsewhere...

Stephen

I'm saying that Dr Alderdice is a better candidate.

Quite simple, really!

You may ask Al Gore about whether the better candidate always wins...

Peter in the 1998 assembly election Bob
took 8000 firs pref votes ,
In the 2001 election he polled nearly double that

Peter will you not be supporting the democractic
selected UUP candidates in the forthcoming elections?

IJP: "Whatever the current incumbent's merits, she represents a party with a heritage of ignorance/discrimination, turning a blind eye to violence (as long as it's the 'right kind'), and oft blatant sectarian outbursts."

Ian, I have always very much respected your viewpoints - oh but I do think you're being incredibly unfair to the UUP & David Trimble here. You can go through Trimble's recent conference speech line-by-line and I'd be amazed if you could find a "sectarian outburst" in it.

"So, when people in Ballymena cannot attend their place of worship, we stand with them. When people who come here in search of a better life are attacked and intimidated, we stand with them too... That´s Ulster Unionism. Sectarianism is not in our DNA."

I do feel it's unfair to go decades back in history, or to cite the outbursts of unpresentative party members to undermine the contributions David Trimble has made to progress in Northern Ireland these past years.

All the talk right now is of the DUP doing a deal with SF - but with a few t's crossed, and a few i's dotted, that's basically gonna be the exact same deal Trimble had the courage to go for back in '98.

As for North Down, from everything I've heard Sylvia Hermon has been an excellent grassroots constituency MP - and i hope she'll be returned.

You may ask Al Gore about whether the better candidate always wins...

He did!

in the 1998 assembly election Bob
took 8000 firs pref votes ,
In the 2001 election he polled nearly double that

But in the most recent election the result was as I outlined - like all the other lackies on this site you choose to ignore the most relevent facts when they are unfavourable!

Peter will you not be supporting the democractic
selected UUP candidates in the forthcoming elections?

When have I have ever supported anyone else - why don't you ask Ivan Davis, Lord Maginnis etc and the others who have a clear track record of failing to do this the same question?

"Peter in the 1998 assembly election Bob took 8000 firs pref votes , In the 2001 election he polled nearly double that"

Jonty,
1998 was a lonnnnnng time ago. Yes I know everyone in the UUP thinks the world stopped turning back then, but it actually moved on.

In 2001 there was no DUP candidate against Bob - nice try.

Lets work with the last available election results where we can make a comparison.

"Peter will you not be supporting the democractic selected UUP candidates in the forthcoming elections?"

Surely that requirement was done away with in 2001 when the democratically selected candidate for North Down was removed to make way for her 'lady'ship.

Glad that the party as a whole has learned the lesson and, furthermore, chosen a truly outstanding candidate in North Down.

APNI really are living in some sort of dream world where everyone is a nice non sectarian person REALLY. (personally I object to being called "tribal", which is why I never even consider transferring to your lot.) You seem to neglect the fact that if not for UUP transfers, APNI wouldn't exist today. Seamus Close may well have held onto his seat, but at a scrape. Bite the hand that feeds, and you starve. Goodbye Alliance.

Michael
"You seem to neglect the fact that if not for UUP transfers, APNI wouldn't exist today"

"Bite the hand that feeds, and you starve"

And you seem to forget that were it not for nationalist and Alliance tactical votes (but mainly Alliance) that the UUP parliamentary party would consist solely of Martin Smyth!

It is ironic that you choose to use the phrase 'biting the hand that feeds you'. Why is it that after Alliance saving the UUP from implosion in 2001 they now seem to think that they can treat that particular party as if they are somthing scraped from the bottom of James Coopers slip-ons.

You have to wonder how people could ever have described Ulster Unionists as arrogant!

Well you have to seriously ask what is the point of Alliance standing in Westminster elections? They don't have a hope, anywhere! I think that that tactical voting is not dependant on the Alliance standing, people know they are wasting their vote. Their standing will however get people into the habit of delibratly not voting for the Alliance, which will harm them at council and stormont elections, as well as discouraging UUP voters from transfering to them in the future. The Alliance are finished if they stand at the next Westminster election.

Indeed, there'd be more point voting for the monster raving lunatic party on the mainland than voting for the Alliance party here, they're a great idea in theory but it just doesn't quite work in NI.

Well you have to seriously ask what is the point of Alliance standing in Westminster elections? They don't have a hope

Well, you could also ask what's the point of the UUP standing anywhere except South Belfast this time as well as you're going to lose all your other seats. I mean, do you seriously think that Allance voters are going to vote tactically to save Burnside's ugly hoop again in South Antrim? Sure, he's even more bigotted than McCrea!

Michael, no harm to you mate, but you're the one living in the dream world. The UUP's 100 year dominance of NI politics is over. The DUP have been throwing you about the place like a rag doll, they're going to crush you in the general election and the UUP's only counter-strategy is try and out-DUP the DUP. You don't deserve to win. The DUP are in position to dominate Unionist politics for a generation.

As for your long term future - where are the bright young things coming up through the ranks? Where are your future party leaders? Better yet, where is a credible successor to Trimble?

At some point our wonderful future DUP-Sinn Féin grand coalition will get corrupt, lazy and stupid and something will come along to challenge it. I'm sure, however, it won't come from the bones of the Ulster Unionists or the SDLP. You can't breathe life into a corpse.

Weird how the UUP regard the Alliance as so irrelevant that they spend a fair amount of time trying to persuade them not to stand because, errrr... they might mean the UUP loses seats.

For the electorally desperate in the UUP, Alliance is obviously very relevant.

"Bite the hand that feeds, and you starve"

Isn't that exactly what your attacks on the Alliance are going to do in North Down, East Antrim, Upper Bann and South Antrim as well as East Belfast? the crumbs of comfort offered by the Alliance voters in 2001 will not be there this time....

Micheal
I dont really care who you voted for - just a bit of fun on my part. I couldnt care less who the UUP selected, its simply a comedic sideline.

Now,
Would you please tell us all why you are getting quite so steamed up at the prospect of Alliance running. Surely if you are so confident about the UUP and the bright new dawn for Trimble then the piffling amount of votes the 'irrelevant' Alliance Party will get would be nothing more than an irritating sideshow for you as the glorious UUP candidates sweep to victory.

Surely candidates in all these 'natural Ulster Unionist areas' would be so confident it wont matter who runs against them. A very early admission of defeat Michael.

David C

Thanks for your kind words - reciprocated!

I daresay we'll agree to disagree. Was it not Trimble who appointed an unreprepentent Loyalist terrorist to the Civic Forum? Was it not Trimble who referred to the Irish Republic as 'pathetic'? Was it not Trimble who galled Nationalist Ireland with his triumphalism over parades? And as for his 'moderate' colleagues - was it not McGimpsey who seriously attempted to defend sectarian protests outside a new block of flats purely because the residents of them happened to be Chinese and Catholic? I'm not going back decades, I'm talking about the leader and his supposedly 'moderate' fellow party members here and now.

That does not for one second mean to suggest that everyone in the UUs is bigoted. Most UUs I know quite clearly are not. But in our game of lowest-common-denominator politics, actions speak louder than words.

Michael

APNI really are living in some sort of dream world where everyone is a nice non sectarian person REALLY.

They would be if that's what they thought, yes.

I don't know anyone who thinks this. To be brutally honest, we're all sectarian. It's when that turns into blind intolerance you have a problem.

The Alliance are finished if they stand at the next Westminster election.

Nonsense. The statistics universally show that in the long term it is better to put up a show than none at all. If Alliance had stood everywhere in 2001, it would be in a much stronger regional and local position than it is now - www.ark.ac.uk/elections will show that.

YF

At some point our wonderful future DUP-Sinn Féin grand coalition will get corrupt, lazy and stupid and something will come along to challenge it. I'm sure, however, it won't come from the bones of the Ulster Unionists or the SDLP. You can't breathe life into a corpse.

110% correct.

Will

Would you please tell us all why you are getting quite so steamed up at the prospect of Alliance running. Surely if you are so confident about the UUP and the bright new dawn for Trimble then the piffling amount of votes the 'irrelevant' Alliance Party will get would be nothing more than an irritating sideshow for you as the glorious UUP candidates sweep to victory.

Also 110% correct.

The monster raving looney party don't stand in elections on the mainland. they only stand in elections in britain.

Here's how some in Alliance I spoke to view this whole episode.

Alliance - rightly or wrongly - stood aside in a few constituencies in 2001 to help the SDLP and UUP believing it was the best way to defend and stabilise the Agreement. There was, AFAIK, no quid pro quo, since it was a unilateral decision.

Many in the party have viewed the UUP in particular (and more lately the SDLP) with utter dismay since the 2003 election.

Alliance people were also concerned that with the DUP and Sinn Fein in the driving seats that there would be little chance of reaching agreement to restore devolution.

That has, however, not been the case. I think there are some who have been pleasantly surprised by the ability of the DUP and Sinn Fein to compromise.

Certainly, there are real concerns about the DUP not meeting SF, and concerns about the slow pace of bringing an end to paramilitarism. But the gridlock hasn't been as bad as expected, although it has actually been exacerbated by the UUP and SDLP trying to prevent the extremes from reaching agreement.

Things are progressing at a faster rate since the DUP and SF took over from the UUP and the SDLP. There is more pragmatism, and while the posturing continues, it seems to be for public consumption.

For the average Alliance type, the question has to be asked: What is the point of standing aside for the UUP and SDLP, given their disastrous records since the 2001 election? The answer for many would seem to be 'None'. What has Sylvia Hermon done for community relations? What has Mark Durkan done to reform the Agreement?

Things have changed a lot since 2001, and the UUP ingratitude over last time only made standing aside this time less likely anyway. The SDLP are finished, so there’s no point in helping them, even if they were pro-reform.

In fact, bypassing the UUP and SDLP and dealing directly with the DUP and SF seems to be taking things forward more quickly than before. There is the added benefit of not having to deal with irritating UUP arrogance and the SDLP's simplistic 'let’s not change a thing in our Hume Agreement’ attitude.

The DUP and SF are not in direct competition for votes, so maybe that’s why they now deal with Alliance people like they are human beings rather than something stuck to the sole of your shoe.

In other words, Mr Trimble, go take a running jump. And if that means the UUP losing seats to the DUP, or the SDLP being finished off by SF... I don't think Alliance will be losing any sleep over it.

A friend of mine in 2001, voted DUP then transferred to the Alliance, at the time I couldn't understand this. Listening to the attitudes of some of the Ulster Unionists on this thread, I'm beginning to think I might do the same!

Then again, at least one of the UUP Councillors in Pottinger is worth a 4th preference!

Thanks Alliance Voter:

Here's how others in Alliance view the entire episode: 2001 was a strategic blunder and it's not a good idea to repeat strategic blunders!

Just in case you missed it, there...

Alistair Campbell's article on another thread referred to the Tories, but we can all learn from it!

IJP & Alliance Voter,

What? Learn from your mistakes?!? You dont want to be falling into that kind of trap now. Its those kind of things that will end up with you making a comeback or some nasty outcome like that.

Peter you cannot automatically assume that the assembly election results are going to be duplicated in a westminster one.

In a head to head, McCartney will be Weir hands down

A friend of mine in 2001, voted DUP then transferred to the Alliance, at the time I couldn't understand this. Listening to the attitudes of some of the Ulster Unionists on this thread, I'm beginning to think I might do the same!

Then again, at least one of the UUP Councillors in Pottinger is worth a 4th preference!

Ain't that the attitude that elected Joe O'Donnell? You go right ahead Chris.

UUP DUP handbags at ten paces!

At the risk of sounding like I'm breezing in to blithely repeat what's already been said (sorry) Alliance stood aside for the UUP in 2001 and secured them several seats (including North Down and the party leader's seat in Upper Bann which I'm afraid is now toast - sorry Dave). The main justification was that maintaining the ailing UUP's strength was critical to keeping the Agreement going. Boy did that turn out to be wrong.

Unfortunately one prevalent theme in this thread is still this idea that certain people consider themselves clean when it comes to paramilitarism.
David C, the UUP has done wee favours for loyalists throughout it's entire history, such as seats on the civic forums, and even a stint at Lord Mayor of Belfast. Is that how you conclusively reject terrorism ? I don't think so. The DUP are hardly any better, with McCrea's little stunt on the podium with Billy Wright along with many other things. Folks, please think about this. We're not going to get anywhere if people keep pointing at each other for being bad. What you should be doing is bite the bullet and say "yes, sometimes we've made some bad judgements, yes sometimes we've relied on terrorism when we shouldn't have" and then get on with the business of trying to sort this place out. There are signs that this simple fact has finally been driven home in the DUP.

Michael

Ain't that the attitude that elected Joe O'Donnell?

How on earth does that follow?!!

The Ulster Unionists obviously have nothing good to say about themselves and so are heading down the SDLP road to Desperateville. I can see it already - 'Two good reasons to vote Ulster Unionist...'

Roger

Excellent post.

yes, sometimes we've made some bad judgements, yes sometimes we've relied on terrorism when we shouldn't have

As I've said clearly above, we are all guilty of the former. Alliance, unlike the Ulster Unionists, is not guilty of the latter. Also Alliance, unlike the Ulster Unionists, would be quite happy to move on and talk about the future.

Roger
Agreed

IJP
Should the sins of the father be visited upon the son?

Perhaps, people and parties can change. I do see a difference in postion of both the DUP and the UUP. The problem for both is that they are both attempting to become more moderate. Is this a bad thing? Of course it does give problems for the Alliance party. In a similar manner, SF's move towards the centre is giving problems for the SDLP . Will the assembly work if dominated by two parties? Will the Alliance eclispe the UUP?

MU

Should the sins of the father be visited upon the son?

No, but the sins of the son should be visited upon the son (unless the son admits he's wrong)! As I've clarified above, I'm talking Trimble's Ulster Unionists here, not Craig's!

Has the 'moderate' Hermon had any effect on the party? Helped remove the direct Orange link? Helped destroy all connections with Loyalist criminal elements? Helped stopped racist and bigoted campaigns such as the Sandy Row flats? No. The party remains the same (aside from its loss of influence during her stint). She has demonstrated zero influence in her own party, which hardly bodes well for the whole of Westminster!

I want an influential MP, one who will be linked to a significant block in the Commons yet hold the respect of all sides, one who will represent Northern Ireland wholly and positively, and one with proven ability to make a real difference.

The problem for both is that they are both attempting to become more moderate. Is this a bad thing? Of course it does give problems for the Alliance party.

Good questions.

Many in Alliance would justifiably claim that the fact the 'extremists' deal' is being developed on ground Alliance has occupied for over a generation just proves Alliance was well ahead of the game to start with.

However, like you say, it does present the problem of the 'squeeze'.

On that point (as on many), I'm entirely with Young Fogey above: At some point our wonderful future DUP-Sinn Féin grand coalition will get corrupt, lazy and stupid and something will come along to challenge it. I'm sure, however, it won't come from the bones of the Ulster Unionists or the SDLP.

IJP wrote: Was it not Trimble who appointed an unreprepentent Loyalist terrorist to the Civic Forum?

--> Good point that I accept. Back in 1998 I, for one, held big deep hopes that the loyalist parties were very serious about peace. I won't even start on counting the ways those hopes have been dashed...

IJP: Was it not Trimble who referred to the Irish Republic as 'pathetic'?

--> Actually he referred to it as a "pathetic, mono-ethnic, mono-cultural, sectarian state". I would have preferred he left out the word "pathetic" - but the "mono-ethnic, mono-cultural, sectarian" accusation is dead-on and struck way too close to the bone for many uber-sensitive southern nationalists. (I defended this p.o.v further in

http://www.reform.org/TheReformMovement_files/article_files/articles/quiet.htm
(Quiet Minority)

There was precious little open-mindedness and tolerance when I was growing up in the Republic in the '80s. There was a pair of brothers in my primary school who both loved the sport of hurling to bits - one was welcome onto the local Craughwell team, but the other was refused, just because he was born in England.

You don't see that sort of thing nowadays, but even as recently as the 1980s, the Catholic Church / Fianna Fail combination was a very dominant and overbearing influence on many local communities.

Incidentally as a unionist I've always really enjoyed GAA sports, though I was never any good at them, but boy is hurling an exciting game to watch!

I know I'm not the only unionist to think this way - I'm very glad that the GAA have ditched Rule 21 - I remember a couple of years ago seeing the RUC play the British Army at Gaelic Football and thinking boy, there's progress for ya. Now, if only the SF army council could get a decent cricket eleven together... :)

--

Was it not Trimble who galled Nationalist Ireland with his triumphalism over parades?

--> That first Drumcree seems a long time ago now. I remember back then, I think I was 17 or 18, feeling just so incensed that the OO were being refused permission to walk.

It seems a little strange looking back - nowadays I can much better appreciate both sides point of view on the Garvaghy Rd and so forth - but back then, from a unionist pov, it was like shit we've been clobbered with sectarian shootings, bombings targetting civilians, can't even go shop on saturday afternoons in safety, and now the IRA are getting the SDLP, Dublin and Irish-Americans in a giant-all-powerful front against us - and now they won't even let us walk the roads in peace...

In hindsight, I don't think it really was about a few hundred yards of road. It was much more about unionists taking a stand on something, anything, that we could do something about. When the OO got to walk Drumcree, that was an empowering experience for many grassroots unionists, including me. It gave us a sense of faith in ourselves that had really been eroded by 30 years of violence. I think it gave many the self-confidence not only to accept that the OO weren't gonna be able to walk Drumcree for ever, but also to approach the peace talks in a more self-confident, constructive fashion.

Finally, by way of rather dishevelled summary, I just don't agree that the UUP have, in recent years, been a sectarian, dividing influence on NI politics.

Ulster Unionists, under Trimble's guidance, have been a key architect of the present process - including any agreement the DUP may now belatedly decide to conclude with Sinn Fein. It's been Ulster Unionists taking the risks, Ulster Unionists doing the "donkey work" - and Ulster Unionists who were willing to put the entire future of their party on the line in the interests of the good of *both* communities in Northern Ireland.

I want an influential MP, one who will be linked to a significant block in the Commons yet hold the respect of all sides, one who will represent Northern Ireland wholly and positively, and one with proven ability to make a real difference.

And thats David Simpson, Peter Wier and Peter Robinson is it?

Actually he referred to it as a "pathetic, mono-ethnic, mono-cultural, sectarian state".

Trimble had nothing to shout about, coming from a bi-ethnic, bi-cultural, sectarian state.

David C,

You're not going to get away with this one. Hugh Smyth was appointed as Lord Mayor of Belfast before there was any "peace process", ceasefire, decommissioning or anything else. You can look at things more recently, where David Trimble and David Burnside have actively and publicly been talking to loyalist paramilitaries who declared no intention whatsoever of going on ceasefire. The further back you go the more instances of this you find; the Ulster Resistance and Anglo Irish Agreement turmoil; Paisley's strike; the UWC (still actively defended on this very board by unionists who claim there's nothing to be ashamed of because the guns were silent); the various quasi-military organizations associated with individuals in the Northern Ireland government and so on.

Unionist politicians publicly like to say that terrorists are scum, but when it comes to the bit, they very much like to leave the pilot light on when it comes to dealing with paramilitaries.

So let's cut the crap and stop pretending that the people we've all supported are free from sin, and concentrate on trying to sort the problem out.

David C

Thanks for coming back - no need for me to reply to you, as Roger has already expressed my view more succinctly than I could!!

Michael

Think you've got the wrong guy! It quite clearly isn't Simpson or Weir or Robinson.

Close and Alderdice do qualify, though!

Sorry for the double-post. On the subject of Trimble's enthusiasm for the agreement.. well I appreciate the point of view that he took a lot of risks (including personal ones) to try to get it through, but I always had the impression that if he thought he could get away with opposing it, he would. For the first time in a long period the unionists were collectively finally put on the spot.

While there's no documentary evidence of it (I guess we'll have to wait a few years) it's widely believed that the unionists were told rather directly that they'd either do a deal, or would be subjected to joint authority and a slow British withdrawal, the signs of which were already entirely prevalent by the time of the Downing Street Declaration in 1993 where Major quite clearly reiterated that the British government didn't give two figs about the place.

IJP
There is no monopoly on good candidates. If a good candidate from another party set forward similar views to the ones that you set out, in terms of looking to the future etc. would you support them? or do you think that a unionist, is a unionist, is a unionist(or SF, SDLP, DUP btw).

Close and Alderdice do qualify, though!

Who never have, and never will have a sniff at being elected. 1995 By election was your last chance at a seat, you lost out and are now a pointless distraction at Westminster elections.

Hi MU

If a good candidate from another party set forward similar views to the ones that you set out, in terms of looking to the future etc. would you support them?

Of course.

But I don't understand why they would be in a party designated 'Unionist' or 'Nationalist' - if they put forward the views I put forward, why join a party dedicated specifically to representing only one communal group?

or do you think that a unionist, is a unionist, is a unionist

As ever there are exceptions, people who join a party precisely to try to get it to reach out ('Unionists' who canvass outside Catholic churches, for example, could hardly be seen as representing only one communal group). So yes, I would consider voting for the Trevor Ringlands and Carmel Hannas of this world, people who act responsibly on behalf of everyone. That they have chosen to join the parties they have is a minor tactical mistake in my view, but I probably wouldn't withhold my vote from them for that alone!

I have to say those are rare exceptions and that's never a choice I've had to make where I live. Of course, we usually have the advantage of STV to separate those nearer to my views, regardless of affiliation.

So you should vote UU instead of Alliance not because UU candidates are more capable (from Michael's lack of defence on that point I have to conclude he agrees they're not), not because they will deliver a fairer deal (from Michael's lack of defence on that point I have to conclude he agrees they won't), but because, er, well, they have a sniff whereas Alliance hasn't...

This is the sort of nonsensical arrogance that will deal the Ulster Unionists' demise.

SF didn't have a sniff anywhere outside West Belfast until 1997... times change, and if you cannot defend your own party's abilities, policies and candidates, you can be sure they are a-changing

(I refer once again to Young Fogey, who has it absolutely correct: At some point our wonderful future DUP-Sinn Féin grand coalition will get corrupt, lazy and stupid and something will come along to challenge it. I'm sure, however, it won't come from the bones of the Ulster Unionists or the SDLP.)

Reg Empy, Lady Hermon et al are more capable as their personal vote demonstrates. They are also more capable of obtaining a better deal, as their deal is a deal for unionism and the union, which is in the best interests of Northern Ireland. Now I know that APNI agree, but they pretend not to be unionists, and therefore are not in the best interests of Northern Ireland. That is why they are a uneless distraction, and that is why voters ignore them.

I think that it was a political adviser to Bill Clinton who talked about the need for 'Triangulation', to move the political debate off a line drawn between stalemated forces. Alliance lost their ex NILP edge long ago, along with their ability to grow a vote.

In their more together moments they are moderate liberal Unionists which is fine if they knew how to kick and gouge politically, or to speak out for right, but too many times they were just used as thinly spread salmon paste by the NIO to make a sandwich out of two big sectarian heels.

A cross community cult without the commune. Short on analysis, but impressed by their own importance, they just sounded sanctimonious.

The situation demanded anger, not angst.

Too nice, too late, too bad.

A very accurate analysis.

aquifer
I agree with your analysis but it might be more kindly put. There was a time when the Alliance party was relevant. They were a single issue party. The development of non sectarian politics. The move to the centre by all of the main parties represents a victory for them but also removes their raison d'etre.

IJP
I respect your point of view on many subjects but as moderate myself, I can't help thinking that the Alliance party lacks the critical mass to claim the centre ground. I am not sure if a party will emerge that can claim this position. We may be down to a two party state DUP/SF. I don't view this with any great confidence.

Of the three potential centre ground parties (SDLP, Alliance, UUP), only the UUP appear to have the critical mass to make it. The DUP may be in the ascendancy at the moment but only just. The terms of the deal will affect things and successful political parties will morph to reflect the views of the electorate or they become irrelevant. I don't see any movement coming from Alliance or SDLP (with all due respect) but I do with the UUP, DUP and SF.

I think there's a logic in what Alliance Voter says, but as a resident (part time) of North Down with sort of Alliance sympathies I could not stomach voting for anyone who could hasten the return of "you know who" (best not mentioned for legal reasons).

The Alliance Party has been undermined by having its own ground cut away from it as the extremes become less extreme, hardly it's fault. Things though have not been helped by having poor leadership since Cushnahan. The Alliance party brand is now, rightly or wrongly, associated with self-satisfied, middle class, smugness.

Young Fogey may well be right, but can anyone see David Ford providing the spring board.

I'm sure he's a decent enough man but in the chrisma stakes he would be best suited to the Tory front benches. (Granted the SDLP/UUP seem almost equally moribound)

Michael

Reg Empy... [is] more capable as their personal vote demonstrates.

Eh???

They are also more capable of obtaining a better deal,

Why did they not, then?

as their deal is a deal for unionism and the union, which is in the best interests of Northern Ireland.

Perhaps. Why then the attachment to an exclusively Protestant organization? Why the support for the blatantly anti-Catholic and anti-ethnic Sandy Row protests? Why the failure to tackle Loyalist criminals outright when they attacked people for the grievous offence of being Catholic? Sorry, doesn't add up.

That is why they are a uneless distraction, and that is why voters ignore them.

Was your own esteemed leader ignoring them when he tried to bribe Alliance last week?!!!

If they're a useless distraction, why spend so much time and angst on them?!

Hi aquifier

You make many useful and interesting points.

but too many times they were just used as thinly spread salmon paste by the NIO to make a sandwich out of two big sectarian heels.

Not unreasonable.

In fact, Young Alliance has just passed a motion that one of the reasons Alliance is perceived as 'really unionist' is that it appears to be overly 'pro-[British] State'. We in the youth wing would prefer to see more coherent attacks on Government when they act out of line with Alliance principles (which, bluntly, is most of the time). In short, our view is that bit less 'agreeing to differ' and a bit more anger, as you put it, wouldn't go amiss. Would that sound a fair assessment, in your view?

Short on analysis, but impressed by their own importance, they just sounded sanctimonious.

I would also accept that Alliance has in the past sounded somewhat arrogant, although I wonder if there are any specific recent examples of this?

However, 'short on analysis' is very unfair. Since the mid-70s Alliance has been putting forward proposals that have formed the basis for future deals (most obviously the 1988 Governing with Consent document). Indeed this year Alliance was the first Assembly Party to put forward its proposals and has led much of the debate and discussion at talks such as Leeds Castle on the back of this.

So while I would accept Alliance's communicative failings (not that these are unique to Alliance among NI parties) and have therefore called for something to be done about them urgently by the Party Leadership, I would argue strongly that Alliance has, throughout its existence, provided the most coherent, accurate and progressive analysis of any party involved.

Hi MU

The move to the centre by all of the main parties represents a victory for them but also removes their raison d'etre.

I would argue the opposite.

In 1970 Alliance was formed to provide an alternative to the two big blocks (in those days the 'Unionist Party' and the SDLP). These days those two blocks are still the same, albeit represented by different ascendant parties. Still there remains the need for a party determined to represent NI, all of NI, and nothing but NI (albeit while being realistic about the global context, of course).

I can't help thinking that the Alliance party lacks the critical mass to claim the centre ground...

Well of course the 1970 reference was to the launch of a new party. Is an entirely new party now required to challenge the SF/DUP line-up, do you think?

To reverse a question, I could easily see myself in the same party as the Gillilands, Hannas and Ringlands of this world. Could you?

I don't see any movement coming from Alliance

I would argue Gilliland constituted movement.

A lot of people, particularly in the youth wing as indicated above, want movement to be much faster of course. But in this imperfect world, unfortunately, it is one step at a time!

DCB

The Alliance party brand is now, rightly or wrongly, associated with self-satisfied, middle class, smugness.

What do you feel can be done about this?

Was Gilliland a step in the right direction, do you think?

I'm sure he's a decent enough man but in the chrisma stakes he would be best suited to the Tory front benches.

Oh boy, if David F finds out where you live...!!! :)))

G'night all!

In a head to head, McCartney will be Weir hands down

Its this level of analysis that believes the UUP should have won 35 seats in the assembly and will have 10 MPs again next year - but its not reality!

IJP, I respectfully disagree - aquifier's points aren't interesting, they're junk with an agenda. Let's go through the twaddle step by step.

(1) Alliance are irrelevant. Well gee, they're so irrelevant that all these people are queuing up to post in this thread about what a bunch of irrelevant bastards they are. How is it that Alliance manages to invoke so much more comment than (say) the Greens or the Worker's ? I think the truth is that certain people *want* Alliance to be irrelevant, because they can't handle dealing with something other than taigs or prods.

It wasn't long ago when the DUP were irrelevant, and kindly SDLP and UUP types didn't really care whether they were involved in government or not. Following the Agreement's signing and the Doc's infamous rant (while being heckled by loyalists), the signs were very much that the DUP were finished. Things change. It was slightly longer ago when Sinn Fein were irrelevant, and their vote was small enough such that it was safe for them to be ignored. Things change.

(2) Alliance are moderate liberal Unionists. Why are Alliance being called unionists when they quite publicly say that they are not ? People don't understand what the word "unionist" means. Do you think a unionist is defined solely by support for the union ? Does that mean that David Trimble and Ian Paisley - both unionists - are basically the same people politically ? Is the fact that Ian Paisley supports the union the only thing that defines his politics ? No on all counts.

The basic principle of Alliance is that we have to transcend the two nationalisms and come up with a proper political environment, otherwise we can never have more than an uneasy unstable peace here. The idea is to try to get away from silly prod/taig sectarian headcounts, such as the fact that if you put down "none" on your census form, a kindly bureaucrat will still shoehorn you into one camp or the other. Are unionism or nationalism really going to challenge that absurd pigeonholing ? The party rejects that unionism or nationalism can provide stability in the long term. If you want to argue with Alliance's POV, that is the position that you must take issue with. I know it's hard that as soon as someone says "the union might be a good idea" to react "you're a dirty unionist hun-loving git", but you're going to have to try to come to terms with it.

(3) Alliance are single issue. Excuse me, exactly what are NI elections fought over these days ? I somehow must have missed the complex debates over issue such as social welfare provision, public transport, growing indigenous business or tackling inequality in the education system. Huh ?

There is one issue which dominates politics right now, and only an insane idiot would try to pretend that it doesn't. Alliance is the only significant party which rejects a debate along those lines. How can that be described as "single issue" ?

(4) Alliance are "middle class". Hmm. David Ford's a social worker. I believe Eileen Bell is too. Social work is a right bourgeois money spinner isn't it ? Let's have a look at the line up on the Schoolteachers, Doctors and Lawyers Party. Maginness, Durkan, Hanna, McDonnell ? It's lawyers all the way through, all of whom live in big feck off houses in leafy suburbs of Belfast, safely insulated from the day-to-day bullshit that goes on in our more regular neighbourhoods. Hendron ? Doctor. Attwood ? Lawyer. That didn't stop them getting any votes - and for a lot of the time they got those votes from working class areas.

I can't see how much more middle class one could get than the UUP, with it's close association with such proletarian stalwart institutions such as the Reform Club.

Now let's try to get a bit of sense out of this. In the major parties there are working class members and there are middle class members from professional circles. Increasingly this is the case in Sinn Fein, and it's already the case in the DUP which already has the odd barrister knocking about at a senior level. It's being increasingly shown that these parties all manage to have appeal right across the perceived class boundaries that people seem to put so much store on.

I think we can consider the matter firmly put to bed. If you think Alliance's vision of an all-community partnership where people truly didn't give a flying one about the other guy's supposed "religion" is rubbish, then let's talk about that.

So less than a 4% vote share makes Alliance a relavent and essential feature of the political process? Face reality, they are a pointless side show.

Aquifier's points are interesting, Roger, because they put very articulately what a lot of people think.

Your responses are, of course, 100% correct.

But this takes me back to something I have maintained on Slugger for years - Alliance is the only Assembly Party seeking even to answer the right question (not 'How do we get a United Ireland', not 'How do we maintain the Union', but 'How do we get democracy, fairness and prosperity in NI?'), but its communication is extremely weak.

Of course there are people out there who don't want to hear the non-sectarian cross-community political message. But there are also a lot who genuinely don't understand it (and so just vote for their 'automatic' party of choice), and that's our fault as much as theirs.

Michael

Face reality, they are a pointless side show.

Why spending so much time on here making that point then?

Why did your Party Leadership try to bribe Alliance?

Why unable to give us a single positive reason to vote Ulster Unionist?

A while ago people were saying that Alliance were irrelevant when they had 12% of the vote. I think they'd still say it if the party had 20% of the vote.

Roger
I take issue with your assertion that only the Alliance party offers a non sectarian point of view. We are moving down a road (some at different speeds) where we acknowledge that the different “tribes” in Northern Ireland must work out how to get along with each other. Perhaps in time, the idea of different tribes will disappear, but in the meantime people on both sides need to be reassured that their culture will respected and that they will not be forced down a path they don't want to travel.

The Alliance party is not irrelevant, else we wouldn't be talking about it, but it's chances of winning a Westminster seat are pretty slim (IMHO). It is a both a failing and a strength of the first past the post system, that there is only one winner.

So Alliance will influence the election result to a greater or lesser extent, whatever they do. My view is that if they think it advances their strategic political agenda they should stand. However, the electorate in Northern Ireland is very sophisticated. They understand the “knock on” effects of voting for one party. It has been said that in Northern Ireland, many people do not vote for anybody, only against somebody else. This is a problem for the Alliance party. The forthcoming elections will define the political landscape for the next five years (possibly longer) and this will concentrate peoples minds.

The point is APNI don't actually stand for anything in particular. All it does stand for is "we're above the constitutional issue", which is not a valid reason for a political movement. If you're above it, then why not join the Tories or Irish Labour?

To assert that, frankly any of the big four don't ask 'How do we get democracy, fairness and prosperity in NI? and address that issue is false. The very reason SF/IRA can't go back to war, is because since 1998 there has been prosperity (provided by the executive, and may I say Reg Empy)in their own areas, and their own people wouldn't stand for it.

Also, the reason that Seamus didn't survive on MY UUP transfer in November is that he offends me by calling me tribal. Ther Ulster Unionist Party is not tribal or sectarian, it is simply pro union, as well as being centre right.

Ther Ulster Unionist Party is not tribal or sectarian, it is simply pro union, as well as being centre right-

someone should tell Sylvia the Blair babe.

David Brewster, are you saying New labour isnt centre right???

Hi Michael

The point is APNI don't actually stand for anything in particular. All it does stand for is "we're above the constitutional issue"

No, the point is that the UUs don't actually stand for anything in particular. All they do is stand for "maintenance of the Union". Not a valid reason for a political party when one considers that "maintenance of the Union" will be decided by the consent principle (i.e. through referendum, not party-based election) and that all NI Assembly parties accept that principle!

Ther Ulster Unionist Party is not tribal or sectarian, it is simply pro union, as well as being centre right.

It is tribal and sectarian and it's frankly nonsense to suggest it's not. I've already given three cast-iron examples of this, under present leadership, to prove it. And you brought up Reg Empey and Sylvia Hermon who, along with the McGimpseys and Cobains of this world, are not remotely 'centre right'.

I can well believe you are not tribal or sectarian which, being the case, means you should try a non-tribal party. If you're committed to ending tribalism and sectarianism, you'll be more than welcome with Alliance I'm sure. If you genuinely believe left-right politics can be established without a focused 'Centre' movement beforehand and you are 'centre right' yourself, how about the Tories?

The UUP is a broad church, however boradly speeking, it is indeed centre right. We stand for rention of grammar schools while improving secondary schools. We stand for fair and low taxation. We are also pro union, and you insult me by calling me tribal, which is why I and others like me do not condiser voting for APNI, and don't very often transfer APNI.

Sorry Michael, but a 'broad church' which includes people whose actions show them clearly to be unreservedly anti-Catholic (and 'tribal' is exactly the way to describe such instincts) is not one I would want to have anything to do with, and I have to say that failure to oppose such actions clearly and openly constitutes a clear 'blind spot'.

Out of interest, why would you not join the local Tories?

Michael, standing for being above the constitutional issue is a valid reason for a political movement, because that's what we need to do to secure a long term solution here. It is no more or less valid than standing either for the union or against it. Hmm, while I don't think either of those ideas are a long term solution, at least I don't put them down for being invalid.

If the UUP isn't tribal and is simply about being pro-union, then what makes it distinct from the DUP ? Is it more pro-union, or less ? Or could it be that they are even *more* tribal ?

[Of course the UUP's ideology is tribal, and is about far more than the union itself. That's why it continues to be linked to the Orange Order, and why it won't complain loudly whenever the UDA breaches it's ceasefire - it's all about sticking to, dare I say, tribal customs. Ah but sure, the taigs even have their own wee "Catholic unionist" association - a tribe within a tribe as it were. ]

Moderate Unionist, putting my ideological hat on (and I respect that it is a bit patronizing, sorry), my position is that the "tribes" we're talking about are an artificial construct of the tribal political parties and don't really exist. They are invoked when politicians and paramilitary organizations need to invoke them in order to secure their own political objectives, for example if you've shot somebody and you want to be able to get away with it (just put it down as a non-tribal attack - "the incident was not thought to have been sectarian"). The illusion that the tribes do exist is one which is needs to be actively maintained by politicians here, that is why there are recruiting quotas in the PSNI, and why on your census form if you put down "other" the state will designate you into a tribe against your will (apparently I'm a "Catholic" even though I decided long ago that I was an atheist - how stupid is that?) - a practice which if it continues will artificially keep the tribal thing running for longer than it needs to.

Therefore we don't need to find away for the tribes to get along, as a solution constructed along those lines solidifies the notion that the tribes exist in the first place and therefore cannot work. Instead we need to get people to question the pigeonholes they put themselves in, and reject the pigeonholes which other people put them in. Exactly what does separate us from the folks on the other side of the peaceline, apart from bricks & mortar ?

Any solution here, including the one being cobbled together at the moment, is relying on the fact that people believe it's possible to square a circle. But the only reason a deal is possible is because a sufficient number of republicans think that they will get a united Ireland soon, and a sufficient number of unionists think that they can hold off the threat of a united Ireland for the foreseeable future. Obviously only one of those can actually be true, and eventually that fact will be faced up to.

which includes people whose actions show them clearly to be unreservedly anti-Catholic

name them.

IJP
It is tribal and sectarian and it's frankly nonsense to suggest it's not. I've already given three cast-iron examples of this, under present leadership, to prove it.

As ordinary voters from the Unionist tradition, many voted for the Good Friday Agreement, we want to share government with our fellow citizens provided there are no weapons involved, we support the principle of consent on the constitutional issue and we believe that religous belief is a personal and private issue which should be respected by all.

Many are dissappointed that the guns were not decommissioned in the time scale we expected. Which is why the DUP are currently in the acendancy. Whilst I respect your right to a difference of opinion, I am somewhat disappointed.

Roger
There is a difference of culture between the various tribes in Ireland. You could argue that one is more into song, art and enjoying themselves, whilst the other might be dour, industrious and self reliant.

The point is not that there is no difference, but that neither is better than the other, both will have strengths and weaknesses. Our diversity (as in any collection) is therefore an opportunity provided we can find sufficient common ground upon which to build trust.

What is the difference between the UUP and the DUP?In my opinion, the DUP (in common with SF) is a party with a strong command and control culture. The DUP would also appear to appeal to people with a more fundamentalist approach to their religous beliefs and perhaps to be more vocal in their opposition to things.

The UUP on the other hand appears to be a decentralised party, where the grass roots are able to influence policy and selection (This may be to their detriment as a political party but it is probably closer to the Ulster Scot community they attempt to represent.) At least in the last 10 years, the UUP appears to be more willing to take risks and to consider imaginative strategies for tackling the difficulties that confront us.

Would you say that the DUP is a "Loyalist" party or a "Unionist" party ?

Michael
In every single post you have written on this thread you have failed to tell us all why, if the Alliance Party is so irrelevant and gets such a trifling share of the vote why you are getting quite so worked up about them.

I happen to agree with the some (but few) of the things you have said. However, i'm happy for the electorate to decide how irrelevant or otherwise they are.

You cannot escape the fact that the Ulster Unionist Party are incredibly pissed off that the Alliance Party aren't going to stand aside in order to stave off (temporarily) the Ulster Unionist suicide mission.

You cannot square the circle of calling them an 'irrelevant side-show' and the fact that you are desperate for them to stand aside because the fact you cannot rely on their borrowed votes could well cost you 3 Parliamentary seats.

If the UUP were ever hoping to encourage Alliance voters to help them, do you really think that your continued rantings against Allianec would help to persuade them?

MU, thanks for taking the time to make your point in a polite manner. However I take issue with the thrust of your point which is that ordinary day to day unionists are entirely in favour of powersharing provided the other lot get rid of their weapons. I have no arguments with "guns before government" as a principle; the problem is that unionist politicians have never applied it to loyalists.

The relationship between unionist politicians and loyalist paramilitaries is simply too fuzzy for them to be able to justify halting progress until the issue of the arms belonging to one particular group is addressed. That doesn't mean I think the IRA should keep their guns; just that unionists you don't have any right setting preconditions when they have not committed themselves to peaceful and democratic means. To me their history (1974 UWC; 1978 Paisley; 1985 AIA and 1996 Drumcree; Vanguard w/ Trimble; Burnside and his UDR departure; McCrea on a podium with Wright etc etc etc) shows that they are entirely willing to either work with paramilitaries, or sit back while they take over and do nothing, if it suits them politically to do so. How can we be sure they will never do so again ? We can't, but yet we aren't folding our arms and refusing to do anything until they disarm.

The tribal differences you talked about are nothing other than stereotypes and I don't think they should have a role in deciding how the country gets run or (worse) how it's resources should be allocated. The "Protestant work ethic" and the other stereotypes which go alongside it are - pardon me - pure bullshit and we need to get away from them. I know people who work very hard, and people who don't, and people who know how to enjoy themselves. Guess what, there isn't a consistent pattern in their perceived religious background. Further, guess what, these prejudicial assessments don't exist among people in other countries these days - probably because they're rubbish ? I take this only as a reminder of how dated and meaningless these artificial "religious" dividing lines really are.

On your point about the differences between the DUP and the UUP .. well the DUP's vote has gone up a lot recently. Is that because a lot of people have found God in the wee Frees ? Nope, I think it's more simple than that.

I have no arguments with "guns before government" as a principle;the problem is that unionist politicians have never applied it to loyalists.

And of course that might be because there hasn't been a hope of the loyalist paramilitary parties getting sufficient electoral support to have a chance of getting anywhere near government...

Hi Roger
Regarding the increase in the DUP share of the vote. I think that in the main this has been caused by voter fatigue on the one hand and a general dissatisfaction with the progress towards decommissioning on the hand.

What happens after the current negoitations is anybodies guess. Will SF and DUP be able to work together for a long term future?

We live in interesting times.

Will
I don't see any problem with the Unionist's exploring the possibility of an electoral pact with Alliance, nor do I see any problem with Alliance deciding such a pact is not in their interests. I don't think it demonstrates weakness on either side, just the exercise of common sense. No harm in asking!

However, I do think the Alliance vote will be under pressure, but the UUP need to come out with policies and positions that give such voters some reason to vote for them. In much the same way that DUP will presumably target certain types of UUP voters. This is modern politics.

"Regarding the increase in the DUP share of the vote. I think that in the main this has been caused by voter fatigue on the one hand and a general dissatisfaction with the progress towards decommissioning on the hand."

Not so MU. THere have been dozens of elections since 1972 , and the DUP never broke through before. Dissatisfaction with decommissioning is a general Unionist complaint. The real reason for the DUP increase in vote is twofold-firstly the unavoidable evidence of the UUP's incompetence as a political party, compounded by an aging and uninspiring group of leaders; and secondly the clear realisation by the DUP that they needed to be on the inside of the process to influence it, combined with the increasing sophistication of some DUP politicos.

This isn't a new thing by the way- in 1982 the UUP complained about the "Democratic Alliance" alleged pact to isolate the UUP, which was designed to get the DUP into the centre of the Assembly, and would have had interesting outworkings if the AngloIrish Agreement hadn't destabilised politics. Of course in the Prior Assembly it was the UUP which was so divided between its wings that it mounted a botched boycott.

People should not be surprised that Paisley is prepared to explore every possibility to have a deal, given his devolutionist beliefs. It should also be able to eat into UUP voter baseby reason of its superior constituency service, just as the Lib Dems targetted Tory seats which had been Conservative so long that the Party took them for granted.

It's revealing of the UUP mindset that Alex S onn another thread sneered at Jeffrey Donaldon's local profile and inaccurately complained that he was neglecting the business of making contacts at Westminster (like Cecil Walker did?).Donaldson has helped the DUP to spend more time at Westminster but the fact is that you can buy every MP a gin and tonic five nights a week and you'll be very popular, but when the Government decided to shaft Unionists your "friends" will fade away. Your primary responsibility as a Unionist MP is to build up your community. The UUP never had a strategy beyond the platitude "maintain the Union" until Trimble came along. His strategy was correct-make every effort to be on the inside- but his tactics (if they ever existed ) were execrable and the manner in which his team (which never understood them and which was never expected to do anything other than what they were told anyway)botched them. UUP people eventually looked on Trimble as another Sammy McIlroy-he talked a great fight but never got close to producing the goods, and most just wished him to go away, but hadn't the guts to force him out. Less charitable souls saw the arrogance and vanity so prominent in Trimble -unlike the fundamentally decent McIlroy - and concluded that this was not the style of leader Unionism wanted.

And style is important. Ian Paisley c1975 version would not be able to harvest middle class Unionist votes. But Paisley 2004 is seen as an old man who has stuck to his principles, and now many repose their trust in him because the contrast with UUP wriggling is so stark. It remains to be seen if Robinson or any other DUP figure could retain that advantage. Indeed its not too big an exaggeration to say that Paisley is unique in political life in that there is a widespread affection for him now. Equally true is the irrational loathing from that section of semi-engaged Unionism which Trimble has plugged into. In fairness, he has activated the garden centre Unionist base well-though never the garden centre post Unionist Prods in places like North Down, East Antrim, Coleraine. But then he couldn't, because he's not one of them either. There's never been any affection for him (Daphne excepted).

Most of his lieutenants-Cooper, Allen, Maginnis-have been recent converts, formerly opponents, who support what he advocates rather than what he is, and since he is notoriously poor and consulting, this often means being presented with policy aA today and diametrically opposed policy b tomorrow. Small wonder the public are turned off- they aren't fishing for a peerage or a some quango post to dull the embarassment of multiple policy shifts

Shilliday,

What's this "the UUP are for low and fair taxation" nonsense? The UUP are behind the RRI which allows NI to borrow money from the Treasury only in so far as we close the gap between local taxation levels here and on the mainland, hence we get water charges and a review of rating.

It wasn't so long ago either that Ken Robinson was advocating a local sales tax. In other words let's disproportionately bash the less well off whilst assisting the Basils and Sylvias of Ulster.

The UUP cannot lay claim to the low taxtion, small government mantle. They have been taken over by socialists such as the McGimspey's. Cunningham House is overrun with reds.

What's with the rudeness of addressing people by surnames ? Seems to be popping up all over the place.

"Cunningham House is overrun with reds"

er, yeah

For all we know Davros might be a surname. Are you Gladys Davros or Sylvia Davros, or Davros O'Shaughnessy, or Davros Carson. It's not rudeness, simply oldstyle courtesy not to use a Christian name except for personal friends-ok so it died out in the 1930s but so did many good things-deference to lawyers,and rickets to name but two.

Bollix David.

p.s. - rickets didn't 'die out' in the 1930's. It didn't even cease to be a pathological entity that presented itself as a clinical condition in the 1930's.

Michael

Name them

I have, countless times, on this very thread! See above!

Then mane them again for the nice boys and girls.

IJP

"You may ask Al Gore about whether the better candidate always wins..."

Indeed you may!

oh alright then,it's a fair cop. I can't help being rude to UUP members. It's a serious flaw in my otherwise sunny disposition. Perhaps it's a rare form of Tourette's syndrome which means I can't be nice about that Useless f***ing G******e Trimble. Damn. Did it again.
I did mean to say he was "poor at consulting", not "poor and consulting", because thanks to Mr Nobel poor he certainly aint.

oh alright then,it's a fair cop. I can't help being rude to UUP members. It's a serious flaw in my otherwise sunny disposition. Perhaps it's a rare form of Tourette's syndrome which means I can't be nice about that Useless f***ing G******e Trimble. Damn. Did it again.
I did mean to say he was "poor at consulting", not "poor and consulting", because thanks to Mr Nobel poor he certainly aint.

Seen it all now - Lawyer trying to excuse what he is by blaming Tourette's syndrome ;)

p.s. you can call me Lord Davros if you prefer to be formal.

David, is it an MP's job to sort out potholes etc, surely thats the role of a local Councillor, the MP's role is to bring investment to his constituency and to scrutinise what is taking place in parliament?

Is it an MPs Job to bring investment to his community ?

Is he not allowed to do both?

Of course he can, but is it, as implied by alex's post his/her prime function?

Seen it all now - Lawyer trying to excuse what he is by blaming Tourette's syndrome ;)

Carson pretended to faint in court when his case was going badly.

Alex s-perhaps Jeffrey was having to make up for the deficiencies of some of his UUP Councillors. Why is it the MP's job to bring investment, and what's the difference between that laudable aim to improve the lot of constituents and doing so by helping them with smaller concerns.

Lord Davros-don't tell me Trimble's got you on the payroll too-BTW Lord of where?

Carson pretended to faint in court when his case was going badly.

That's magnificent ! What a Man!

Lord Davros-don't tell me Trimble's got you on the payroll too

If not actually actionable, that's deeply hurtful!;)

BTW Lord of where?

Skaro and soon to be Earth.

Davros, I didn't say anything about sharing power with loyalists. My point was that there is no reason to believe that unionists are completely wedded to democratic and peaceful means, which they are required to be in order to sit in the power sharing executive. How do we know they won't pull another UWC if they take it upon themselves to decide it won't work ?

If there's another loyalist killing spree, how can we be assured that unionists will use their influence to make it stop ? There have been several serious crimes with UDA involvement in the last few days, where the police have fingered the UDA quite directly. Why aren't unionist politicians speaking out about this, congratulating the success of the police or calling upon their community to reject any loyalist paramilitaries looking for a hiding place (for example) ? These are the simple things I expect from people who describe themselves as the party who support the police, or the party of law and order.

Don't you think these issues are at least as serious as the question of the IRA guns and what's being done with them ? Would the IRA's guns become less important if we weren't sharing power with SF ?

"But Paisley 2004 is seen as an old man who has stuck to his principles "

Huh ?

Although I'm happy that Ian Paisley is interested in doing a deal, it's false to say that he always wanted to do one. Until fairly recently, Paisley said that there would be no powersharing with republicans *ever*. He was also pretty unequivocal over what he thought Dublin's role in the whole business would be. And what have we now ? The man's about to go into government with SF, and is never out of Leinster House these days.

Ian Paisley has never run for election on a specific, constructive mandate. He has always sought election on the basis of wrecking or destroying. I'm glad to see that he's given up his old ways of late.

Regarding his recent success, it could be argued that it may have a lot to do with him stepping out of some of the active running of things. At the moment he seems to be content to be the puppet for the Robinson/Dodds agenda.

Davros, I think you must be an impostor. Everyone knows that Skaro was destroyed by the Hand of Omega.

Davros, I think you must be an impostor. Everyone knows that Skaro was destroyed by the Hand of Omega.

Is that the fate that awaits ?

How do we know they won't pull another UWC if they take it upon themselves to decide it won't work ?

Remember what happened back then ? The pro-sunningdale Unionists got slaughtered at the polls and yet Sunningdale continued. That Couldn't happen in this Assembly . So, that's not a worry.

If there's another loyalist killing spree, how can we be assured that unionists will use their influence to make it stop ?

What Influence ? There are no UDA brigadiers in the ranks of either the UUP or the DUP. We know that there are senior IRA members in the ranks of Sinn Féin.

There have been several serious crimes with UDA involvement in the last few days, where the police have fingered the UDA quite directly. Why aren't unionist politicians speaking out about this, congratulating the success of the police or calling upon their community to reject any loyalist paramilitaries looking for a hiding place (for example) ? These are the simple things I expect from people who describe themselves as the party who support the police, or the party of law and order.

Good questions. Because Unionist politicians are busy with the negotiations ? Have they been speaking out and the media aren't carrying their comments* ? Because they are twats who don't understand how it looks if they don't play the media as well as the SDLP and Sinn Féin ? Lastly - because they are twats full-stop ?
I suspect all 4.

* e.g. was this carried by any of the papers ?

"Speaking at the Working Forum in Belfast, organized by NIPPA, Jim Allister QC MEP made the following remarks,"

"Thank you for your time, and I would like to leave you with one final thought: here in Ulster we are still enduring political uncertainty. Our children and families are continuing to suffer at the hands of paramilitaries. It is the responsibility of those who continue to use the apparatus of terror to brutalize our children and families to put away their guns and bombs in an open and trust-building way. The families and children of today and tomorrow demand nothing less.”
Mrs Dodds on UDA

and curse you for putting me in a position where I have to defend Unionists and even worse visit the DUP website ;) I have Lawyer Daleks investigating my options!

Davros, I remember what happened during Drumcree in 1996, where the country was sliding at breakneck speed into anarchy and unionist politicians simply stood out of the way and allowed it to happen. They allowed the paramilitaries to block the roads, they allowed the paramilitary-inspired demonstrations to close the motorway, the port to Larne and the airport road without lifting a finger or saying a word. Paisley showed up and said "don't come running to me if you get burnt out of your houses" to the police officers - you know those gallant defenders of Ulster who the unionists are eternally greatful to. shortly afterwards there were reports that the crowd had a tank full of flammible liquid and were going to spray it on the soldiers and set them on fire. At that point the Secretary of State reversed his decision that things recovered.

What basically happened here is a group of people threatened to use force, and got away with it while unionist politicians acquiesced. In my view, keeping quiet about people using violence is basically the same as supporting it. But people like Martin Smyth went even further, indicating that people had a right to engage in whatever form of protest was necessary in order to secure their rights. When Willie McCrea takes a podium with Billy Wright and people come onto this very forum to defend it, as other contributors have in the past, it shows the paramilitaries that they have willing voices in the political ranks who'll shout for them. There is very little difference between this and having a paramilitary wing all of your own. Now could someone tell me why I should support sharing power with the DUP when it refuses to discipline someone who jumps on a platform with a known multiple-murderer ?

There are loads of imaginative ways unionist politicians could use their influence on paramilitaries. A good start of course would be not to take platforms with them. Of course the UDA do not take orders from unionists, I know that well. But that doesn't mean there are no ways to get things done. For example they could stand alongside the police and council workers while illegal UDA/UVF/etc flags are taken down, and take the initiative in having those flags removed. That would show that such emblems are not supported by the community (and would be a great stick to beat the republicans with). They could do likewise when murals are painted over and paint is removed from the kerbstones. There are other simple things too. For example when the Assets Recovery Agency makes a successful seizure, how about a few unionist politicians saying "excellent work keep it up" for example ? I've heard very little comment from unionists on the recent UDA seizures. Now if you want to get REALLY imaginative, you could say that unionist politicians who know the identities of paramilitaries in their neighbourhoods (which they do) should go to the police and ask for them to be prosecuted on membership charges where they will stand as witnesses. How about that idea ?

For every DUP comment you can wheel out, I can wheel out three examples of the DUP being equivocal. Do you want to start with Ruth ("I didn't know the PUP were linked to paramilitaries") Patterson ? The Dodds quote you produced is quite useful, as it shows how whenever the government mentions the UDA the DUP quickly try to change the focus to everyone else, even though anyone with any sense agrees that the UDA are far more active and dangerous than the IRA are. See how in a debate about the UDA he started talking about concessions to SF. Why can't a unionist politician simply condemn this organization or that without qualifying it ? Is he afraid the community will turn on him ?

Drumcree in 1996

I thought we were discussing the post-GFA Assembly ?
As I pointed out, the Unionists in Sunningdale had no mandate. The unionists inside the process now DO have a mandate , and the assembly has been set up so that as and when mandates change that change will be reflected in the composition of the assembly.

Roger, are comments being made and not widely reported? Are Unionist politicians asked to comment by the media in the same way as Sinn Féin are ?

I don't think they are as the media know that there's a far bigger gap between Unionist parties and loyalist paramilitaries than there is between Sinn Féin and the IRA.