Slugger O'Toole: David Trimble's successes and failures

By Alex Kane

I usually write this column on a Friday morning and send it to the paper before lunchtime. But this week I'm writing it on the Thursday. The polling stations have only been open for three hours and it will be another full day before we have the first results from the Northern Ireland constituencies. That being the case, I do not yet know how well the UUP generally, or Mr Trimble personally, has performed. But I hope that by the time you read this on Saturday, Mr. Trimble will have resigned as leader. If he hasn't, then I would urge him to go and to go quickly, irrespective of final tallies.

When he became leader in September 1995, he outlined two main priorities; to shift unionism from the margins, where it had been semi comatose for two decades, and to reform and rebuild the Ulster Unionist Party. In the former, he has succeeded beyond his most optimistic expectations and deserves unqualified praise. In the second, he has been an unmitigated disaster. The UUP is structurally weak, rudderless, uncontrolled at the centre and clearly out of touch with the needs and concerns of its own grassroots.

The election campaign, like its predecessors in November 2003 and June 2004, was an appalling, amateurish, back-of-the-envelope mishmash, which lacked vision, inspiration and commonsense. That is Mr. Trimble’s fault. It is also the fault of the officers and advisers who gave the thumbs up to the red bus, to the “Decent People” tagline and to the increasingly desperate soundbites and wild-eyed election predictions. It is not---and I cannot emphasise this too much---the fault of the staff who are simply there to carry out their orders.

Regular readers will know that I have expressed previous doubts about the cabal who surround Mr. Trimble; indeed, I suggested eighteen months ago that he should dump most of them. I have also been making the case for a total overhaul of Cunningham House. Last June, after the Euro election, I expressed my concerns to Mr. Trimble and suggested he should stand down. I was assured that lessons had been learned and that change was coming. I gave him the benefit of the doubt. I shouldn’t have. The party is in a worse state now than it was then.

It would help the party enormously if Mr. Trimble, the entire officer team and his key advisers were to fall on their swords, clearing the way for new people and new approaches. If they are reluctant to do so, then an emergency meeting of the UUC should make the decision for them. One thing is clear: the UUP will not survive under the present leadership. This has nothing to do with overall votes or the final number of Westminster and council seats. It has to do with the fact that the core of the central organisation is a complete shambles, managed by a group of people who have no demonstrable ability to run a modern political party.

Of course, this begs the question of who should replace him? It begs another question, too; who, in their right mind, would want the job? The next leader has three immediate and major tasks: to unite, reform and rebuild. As I see it, the new leader has to be someone who can put a credible gap between themselves and the existing leadership corp. It has to be someone who can reach out beyond the residual voter base and attract the unfairly derided “garden centre” community. It has to be someone whose appointment will generate both surprise and interest.

The worst mistake the UUC could make would be to select someone on the “Buggin’s Turn” principle; or to appoint a temporary safe-pair-of-hands simply to see them through the next year or so. Selecting a new leader will be the most crucial decision that the UUC will make in its centenary year, a decision which it cannot afford to get wrong. In other words, the election process must involve some very frank in-house discussion, and a selection procedure requiring the candidates to set out a clear gameplan for the future.

Of the three most talked-about contenders---Michael McGimpsey, David Burnside and Reg Empey---not one of them can unite the party. And if they cannot unite then they cannot reform and rebuild the party. Now, while it is true that Burnside has the necessary steel for leadership, he is more interested in a UUP/DUP merger than in the UUP itself. Michael and Reg, on the other hand, do not, in my opinion anyway, have the ruthlessness required to clean out the stables and replace the rotting lumber. I like them both and they have a valuable role to play, but not as leader.

So, the UUP needs someone new and unexpected. Whoever wins the contest will be faced with one of the toughest political problems in UK politics, the revival and reinvigoration of one of its oldest parties. That person, whoever she or he may be, will determine the fate of the Ulster Unionist Party. Good luck to them.

First published in the Newsletter on Saturday 7th May 2005

A collective leadership?

PS Word is that SF have lost their seat in Pottinger.

Well, who will this fine person be? Alex Kane has ruled out the three most obvious contenders. Someone new and unexpected must rule out Taylor and Maginnis. The "he or she" bit does not rule out Sylvia Hermon, but then I would guess she does not have the necessary "steel", as Alex puts it. So who satisfies the criteria?

Is there some impressive person out there, sympathetic to the Ulster Unionists, who we are unaware of? I have a feeling Alex has someone in mind.

So its looking like Lady Sylvia then. I wouldn't underestimate. Gentle but steely could appeal to unionists when they get tired of Paisley and his singing.

This is the emptiest column I have ever read: he advocates not a single policy devlopment for the party; he urges not a single personality on the party; all he does is express his own well known bitterness that he long ago ceased being part of the 'cabal' he now denounces.

Let's put Alex Kane's abilities as a political savant in context: he thought Michael McGimpsey would win South Belfast.

And to that end, helped work against Martin Smyth so that McGimpsey would get selected. Alex was on the look out for a job with Michael McGimpsey (in both his 'future' capactities as an MP and party leader), and now that prospect has been swept away, he's looking utterly, utterly gormless. Kane's routine [see above] is to suggest that everyone else is part of the problem but him. Wrong. Trimble followed the line kane thought right, the UUP now have one MP. This is the fruit of following the likes of Alex Kane and their 'advice'.

At least eg King is honest about his motivations. But that, at base, is the freudian and financial root of it: Kane's jealousy for King's face time and salary explains this sort of ineffectual bile. I mean, couldn't Kane have found time to outline just ONE positive policy, rather than say, 'oh er, we've run a bad campaign'? Diagnosing the latter - even on ohhhh Thursday morning ..... - requires gifts some way short of genius. Suggesting the party's way out of the hole Kane et al have landed it in evidently takes more than Alex has to offer.

Sylvia has a lot of positive attributes and would widen the appeal of unionism. I have not seen her do too many TV or radio appearances so I can't say how good she is at media; I thought her radio interviews were a little hesitant and quiet.

Tom the Trad:

You are perfectly entitled to your opinion.

The only thing I would point out is that Michael McGimpsey would never have offered me a job. And if you don't believe me, then just ask him.

And yes, I did believe he would win. That's why I supported him---along with the fact that of the available candidates (Montgomery, Stoker and Irwin being the others) he was the one with whom I agreed most.

Best wishes,

Alex

Alex, I didn't say Michael would have offered you a job. I said you wanted one with him (or to be more precise, you wanted King's job, and are prone to saying you could do Steven's role better than he in fact has). Deny that if you want.

More to the point - suggest something useful for the party. I'll be perfectly clear on what i think should have happened years ago, and is the solitary chance we have left: devolution-scepticism, opposition in any new assembly, and, a link-up with the tories if we can get one.

Alex kane - I'm an East Belfast UUP voter, but not a party member. I thought Sir Reg was the right candidate for us, but I didn't think Michael McGimpsdey was the right man in Suth Belfast.

Why did you think he was the right man? In light of the result he got, do you now think you were wrong? If you don't think you were wrong after all, why not?

Thank you for your answers.

Sara

"It has to be someone who can reach out beyond the residual voter base and attract the unfairly derided “garden centre” community."

This is the key flaw in Alex's column.

The UUP developed blindspots with the so-called 'garden centre' unionist. There has been a classic misinterpretation of who the extra 100,000 voters were.

First they considered them all to be middle class (ignoring the extra turnout in working class areas). Second, they never did any serious research on this group to identify their motivations, hard to tailor an effective message when you don't understand them. They then facillated between targetting them and then shoring up the core - mixed messages dont work.

The belief that all these voters were middle class led the party to obsess on the middle classes and alienated the large working class vote that they held a decade ago. Events also made middle class targeting a dead duck, Patten and the policing reforms made them seriously peeved off.

All of this goes back to the debate about New Unionism in the 1990's. Within this debate there were effectively two schools of thoughts - the compromisers and the professionalisers. In 2005 the Unionist electorate (regardless of class) chose the professionalisers.

Tom the Trad

I don't think your criticisms of Alex are fair. Policy is not the main UUP problem (the DUP's policy is essentially no different): it's communication, election strategy, constituency presence, etc.

fair deal

There has been a classic misinterpretation of who the extra 100,000 voters were. First they considered them all to be middle class (ignoring the extra turnout in working class areas).

I don't follow your reasoning here. If there is extra turnout in working-class areas, surely that indicates that the missing voters WERE largely middle-class?

Second, they never did any serious research on this group to identify their motivations, hard to tailor an effective message when you don't understand them.

Totally agree with this point.

Except the professionalisers are also compromisers.

Willowfield

In the referendum an increased turnout was common to both working and middle class areas. The 100K extra pro-agreement voters were from both classes. However, the UUP just viewed this as a middle class phenomenon. They had immediately cut off a significant section of the 100K before they even began.

The compromisers did the damage the professionalisers are tidying up the mess, making the best of a bad job.

Alex Kane is right in the broad thrust of what he argues. I may disagree with him on some attendant issues but IF the UUP picks either the mild and meek Sir Reg, or the wacko "I'm a Lady" then they will look back on 2005 as a golden era such will be their eclipse!

Fair Deal

OK, thanks.

Why did they not notice that turnout was up in both working and middle class areas?

The compromisers did the damage the professionalisers are tidying up the mess, making the best of a bad job.

The "professional compromisers" have accepted the need for compromise, having previously denied it. They cleverly let the "amateur compromisers" actually take the big step, and are now coming in, not so much to tidy up the mess, but to finish the job, albeit tidying is part of that finishing process.

"Why did they not notice that turnout was up in both working and middle class areas?"

IMO
1. Class prejudice played a part.
2. Laziness - percieved to be easier to work the middle class (i.e. more media based campaigning, access to power would attract them in etc).
3. They made a miscalculation that the PUP and UDP would mop up those votes and in effect partially withdrew from working class areas leaving the task of squeezing the DUP votes to them. This I believe misunderstood the vote, it was anti-paramilitary so wasn't going to embrace those parties. It overestimated the abilities of the PUP and UDP and underestimated the DUP.
4. They perceived more value to chasing the middle classes. The middle calsses could bring votes and money to the party while the working class only offered votes.

Alex,

I went blue in the face explaining here, in the Tele and News Letter columns and on the YU blog exactly where I thought picking McGimpsey would be a disaster for the DUP because it ignored the big "Cooper Lesson": that picking a Trimble Partisan in a unionist seat with a large nationalist minority was asking for trouble. To my amazement your Association didn't learn a tough lesson from that debacle. You know as well as anyone that your Association was in a dreadful state: declining and ageing membership and suffering from the McGimpsey cancer that has wrecked other Associations. An impeccable source told me that a full quarter at that selection meeting would not under any sircumstances vote for McGimpsey on 5 May. You collectively bungled the succession to Martin. If it had picked Montgomery, the UUP would be sitting on a 6,300 majority (on combined 2005 unionist vote), instead of being out of South Belfast contention possibly for ever.

Fair Deal

Thanks for the analysis. Sounds very plausible and very stupid.

Watchman,

Would having picking someone such as Montgomery - the alledged choice of Martin Smyth - have made a blind bit of difference?

He was unknown, doesn't live in Belfast and talks with a posh english accent.

And if you think - he was probably a risk for the SB Association as they would not want to see another Jeffery whereby he would jump ship, especially at this meltdown of the party.

SB constituency was a difficult win to call.

Does this mean that Alex is voting for Lord Kilclooney?

David (Re 10.00pm post)

I may be eccentric and often inaccurate, but I am not barking!

Best wishes,

Alex

The problem the uup has is a simple one we dont know how to go out and get votes for so long we just expected people to go out and vote for us we have to work for every single vote.

neil

can this really be - a UUP politician who does not subscribe to the view that it the UUP automatically owns votes as of right! (or alternatively if you have been in the UDR and are an Orangeman then it is positively indecent if people do not vote for you.)
Where were you when the pact on F&ST and SB was being discussed? Perhaps all those with any potential for rational thought were excluded!

Michael and Reg, on the other hand, do not, in my opinion anyway, have the ruthlessness required to clean out the stables and replace the rotting lumber. I like them both and they have a valuable role to play, but not as leader.

Theres your first problem Alex you are out of touch with unionist views and the fact is these two men especially Mcgimsey are a liability to your party.

Secondly Alex you seek to allienate the Orange order and by doing this you are minimising the unionist support which the UUP will get, its ok to look at how to make the UUP a broad church again but if you cant appeal to your ordinary protestant unionist voter then you are lost.

Finally you agreed with Trimbles pact proposals as you stated in the newsletter at the time, if you had agreed with the DUP's then the UUP would have 2 MPs today instead of one so on a whole I feel you are the wrong man to point out the UUP's problems, I actually believe you are part of the problem.

Bertie
Political parties are just another branch of sales as councilors,mlas or mps it our duty to go out and act as sales people.

As our party is unpopular at the minute we have to work twice as hard at peoples doors as the dup and sinn fein to win votes, we cant assume just because they were uup voters previously they will always be with us.We took our voters forgranted and paid a heavy price, i suspect many people at party headquarters have some serious questions to answer.

As for doing deals to prevent seats being lost we should have looked more closely at this and no this isnt revisionism.

"Political parties are just another branch of sales as councilors,mlas or mps it our duty to go out and act as sales people."

Any salespersons from any company who discussed the negative side of their product and continued to backbite on the Internet about their company's supervisors would get the sack.

When did you ever read the DUP, Sinn Fein or the SDLP members (salespersons) discuss negativity about their product or backbite about their supervisors?

George Fleeming

When did you ever read the DUP, Sinn Fein or the SDLP members (salespersons) discuss negativity about their product or backbite about their supervisors on the Internet?

George Fleming

Care to offer any names Alex? If you feel its best to keep your powder dry on who you're supporting perhaps even a list of possibilities.

I had a look down the UUP team on the NI Assembly site and my unfortunate conclusion was that there is nobody there with the necessary "steel".

In this context maybe Danny Kennedy or Reg Empey because at least they come accross reasonably on TV.

In general, however, the UUP has a disproportionately large number of ageing amateurs on its team.

"I had a look down the UUP team on the NI Assembly site and my unfortunate conclusion was that there is nobody there with the necessary "steel".

Steel is not necessary. What is needed is common sense, and not nostalgic sentimentality. Unless the UUP affiliates itself with another Unionist party, (DUP or the Conserative Party) or hangs up it's colours, changes its name and unfolds a new standard with a new constitution with stricter (21 century) rules for membership and loyalty it is doomed to a further slippery road to oblivion.

Be prepared for more deflections (even at MLA level) to the DUP. The anachronistic 100 year old UUP is finished. Like an old warship it has served its purpose defending the Union for the past 100 years To save it any more embarrassment it needs (symbolically) towed out into Belfast Lough and sunk.

Neil
Problem is that UUP has no real product. Hence I agree with George UUP should either:
a. Fold (may be finacially well down this road)
b. throw lot in with DUP (same effect as a.)
c. merge with Tories and offer real politics

O well, my questions weren't that interesting. I see that Mr McGimpsey has managed to lose his council seat too. I do think Unionism in South Belfast, and Fermanagh & Sth Tyr, could ahve been better served. And I don;t think that on the basis of this evidence blinkered pro-agmt Unionists like Alex kane are part of the solution. All he seems to be saying is -- "we were right all along". And it doesn't matter what verdict the voters actually handed out on this approach. It seems to me it's not just the people inside Cunningham House who are fairly arrogant, and refuse to pay attention to the real world.


Design: River Path Associates Comments: Big Blog Co Powered: Movable Type 3.15 Copyright © 2003 Sluggerotoole.com All rights reserved.