Saturday, May 13, 2006
a Faustian pact - redux?
I was sceptical of this story when BVG mentioned it on this thread last night, and it’s still speculative, as well as being highly cyncial and highly risky for the UUP if true, but the BBC report that PUP leader David Ervine has been approached to join the UUP within the Assembly [while remaining leader of the PUP outside? - Ed] in order to secure an additional ministerial post in an executive that may not be formed for some time.. There’s currently no indication that the PUP’s Dawn Purvis will follow suit on the Policing Board Update Press Association report that the PUP have confirmed that David Ervine will join the Ulster Unionist Party Assembly Group. More Young Unionist blogger, and Slugger contributor, Michael Shilliday defends the move.
Pete Baker @ 12:41 PM
I dare say the world won’t end as a result of this announcement, but . . .
That’s it for me, I’m outta here. Or at least, I am off out of the UUP never to return if the leadership does give a paramilitary the party whip at Stormont*.
Reg, one last time: a numpty-ministerial [sic] non-job is so not worth this shitty little swerve, and it’s not worthy of you. And if you think you’ll lose activists like me, watch and see what’s left of our electoral base melt away.
[*And obviously (this footnote being for the benefit of Slugger’s plentiful bores and obsessives) we in the UUP should never have played footsie with equally scummy individuals on City Councils.]
Posted by on May 13, 2006 @ 01:05 PMIf true, the hypocrisy is frankly unbelievable and I think would confirm a hell of a lot of Nationalist suspicions.
Unsure what SF will do in response, though. If they controlled 60%+ of the nationalist vote they may have been tempted to force an election; with matters as they are they might still be tempted to try as it amounts to a catch-22 for the SDLP. Then again, there is a lot of political hay for them in it.
Posted by on May 13, 2006 @ 01:11 PMPete, thanks for covering this.
Karl, this stuff has been going on for years. David Ervine has been on the UUP’s group on the Belfast City Council for a long time. In the years past, PUP Mayors and deputy Mayors have been elected by the UUP into office in Belfast. This is not new. Unionism has always, always been getting into grubby little deals with loyalists. The difference this time is that the BBC have seen fit to report it; previously they haven’t bothered.
What disgusts me about it the most is the double standards. I think pretty much everyone concedes that the republicans are moving away from violence, and everyone agrees that “something big” happened last year regarding decommissioning. However there are no signs that the UVF is moving on and indeed it’s ceasefire was de-recognized by the government last year. There has been no decommissioning and no winding down. Yet, the UUP feel that their political representatives are sufficiently good to share a seat with in a legislative assembly.
When are we going to see a proper commitment to peaceful and democratic means from Unionism ?
Posted by on May 13, 2006 @ 01:11 PMIf this is true then the UUP deserve to be wiped of the map at the next elections.
This would essentialy make the UVF the armed wing of the UUP.Posted by on May 13, 2006 @ 01:25 PMTAFKABO,
The UUP didn’t get wiped off the map when they supported Hugh Smyth for Lord Mayor in 1994. The unionist electorate don’t really have a problem with loyalists cuddling up to their elected representatives.
Posted by on May 13, 2006 @ 01:28 PMI’ve made my thought clear over on “We Perish...” but what about what’s left of the UUP? Sylvia what do you think?
Posted by on May 13, 2006 @ 01:29 PMThis is good for Unionism, anyone in the Unionist ‘family’ should see the benefit in having a majority on the executive. As far as I can see, this is a purely political decision, the likes of which happen in every parliament in the world. I find it reassuring that our politicians have the forsight to see a possibility like this (and can indeed count high enough to realise its possible)
As for the UUP being hyprocrites for forming an agreement with the PUP I find a bit silly. I would trust David Ervine who I find open and honest alot quicker than I would trust some of the ‘scummy’ elements found in the UUP
Posted by on May 13, 2006 @ 01:30 PMAn absolute disgrace
Karl, you hang on in there in the hope that something would improve. Part of me always hoped that maybe some day....... but this puts the tin hat on it for me.
TAFKABO
“If this is true then the UUP deserve to be wiped of the map at the next elections.
This would essentialy make the UVF the armed wing of the UUP.”Totally agree!
Posted by on May 13, 2006 @ 01:30 PMAs the UUP are now clearly inextricably linked to the UVF and their political ambitions are dependent on the support gained from their links with the UVF, will the DUP prevent the proper establishment of the Assembly until the UUP and their criminally linked allies end all murders, beatings, drug dealing, intimidation, criminality and disarm etc?
Or will the DUP overlook the actions of a party that developed links with the armed and dangerous UVF to gain political position?
Also, what was Ervine’s price? Have the UUP/UVF decided to give Ervine a ministry?
Posted by on May 13, 2006 @ 01:34 PMHas there been a statement yet Pete?
It really sounds like a retrograde step, although I personally think David Ervine is a man of integrity, the same cannot obviously said of his mates. He comes across very plausibly when he speaks, and seems very interested in a shared future.
He spoke down here in Rostrevor a few years ago, and while it’s obviously not his natural hinterland, he went down very well
Posted by on May 13, 2006 @ 01:50 PMThere’s an update in the original post, missfitz, PUP confirm..
I’ll have a look for something from the UUP.
Posted by on May 13, 2006 @ 01:53 PMThere’s no explanation for this other than sectarianism.
How can it be justified?
The UUP would rather ensure that loyalist paramilitaries were legitimised than give a seat to Sinn Fein.Does anyone imagine for a second that Sinn fein are unhappy about losing the ministerial position under these circumstances?
Mainstream Unionism has just endorsed the UVF.
Who can argue that anyone is now in a position to tell Sinn Fein they can’t be in government whilst an unarmed an innactive IRA exist, whilst at the same time a very active, armed, criminal UVF continue to exist, and are directly linked to mainstream unionism?Posted by on May 13, 2006 @ 01:59 PMThanks Pete
Well its certainly being reported as nothing more than opportunistic politics.I would question whether something like this needed to be done by the UUP when there are going to be no tangible gains, as the executive isnt forming.
And it smacks of being desperate.
Posted by on May 13, 2006 @ 02:00 PMTAFKABO
The UUP is no longer mainstream unionism and they a re giving us all another reason to keep them from being so.
The opposition to having terrorists in government should hold, it just needs to be extended to the UUP.
Posted by on May 13, 2006 @ 02:08 PMI think this is a clever move by the UUP.
Irvine is a great bloke, the effect will be to lower the bar for SF’s entry into an Executive and pressurize the DUP.Posted by on May 13, 2006 @ 02:16 PMFucking stupid. The mass of the Unionist electorate won’t be happy at all and I’d be surprised if some UUP’ers jumped ship.
Whilst Ervine may be quite erudite and I know some Catholics have been convinced by him as a talker, I can’t see UUP’s base being sold on this at all, within the party and those who vote for them.
Posted by on May 13, 2006 @ 02:34 PM“This would essentialy make the UVF the armed wing of the UUP”
as opposed to the RUC being the armed wing of the UUP????
did anyone really suppose that unionists are concerned about arms/criminality/support for the police/"he call us nazis”?
It has always been about keeping fenians out of government. This is just more proof.
Posted by on May 13, 2006 @ 02:35 PMYokel
why shouldn’t the UUP take risks, they’re down to 1 MP anyway, what’s there to lose?
Someone like Ervine is very appealing to Nationalists like myself, because he’s been through the mill, and knows what he’s talking about. Far more convincing than any DUP clone!Posted by on May 13, 2006 @ 02:38 PMI’ve always been more than a little surprised at Nationalists ability to put trust in Ervine.
He’s essentialy a windbag, all he does is say the things he thinks people want to hear.
Does anyone remember him threatening to leave the PUP if it turned out that members of the UVF were involved in racist attacks?
You may not like the DUP, but what you see is what you get.Posted by on May 13, 2006 @ 02:57 PMFirst thing to remember here is that there is no agreement that Executive posts will be distributed on the basis of present balance rather than the first designation submitted after the elections.
I would agree that this will probably not be a popular electoral move among Unionists voters nor PUP voters. PUP research before the last Assembly election showed that when they didn’t run (if there supporters voted) 60% went DUP and 40% went UUP. They may be betting on an election being sometime off so any harm is dissipated.
This move was first muted after the Assembly elections so it is no great surprise. Then the DUP response to it could have been to get McCartney to take the whip and would have cancelled it out but the resignation of Berry means that maths doesn’t work anymore.
I wonder what Ervine is to get in return?
heck
“It has always been about keeping fenians out of government.”
Unionists were always going to get 6 of the 10 Executive seats after the last Assembly election results under d’hondt. A lot of nationalists I talked too never seem to have cottoned onto this. Increased awareness may make them more willing to look at the checks and balance mechanism of the Assembly.
So no “fenian” is kept out by this decision. It effects the distribution of seats among unionists so it is about no “DUP” about the place.
It does get Unionism the first two choices which makes me think the UUP will go for education. Saving grammar schools would be a good way back into the middle classes.SL
“pressurize the DUP.”
From a pure self interest point of view, one less executive seat makes it less attractive to the DUP to join.
Posted by on May 13, 2006 @ 02:59 PM“I’ve always been more than a little surprised at Nationalists ability to put trust in Ervine.
He’s essentialy a windbag, all he does is say the things he thinks people want to hear. “Do Nationalists trust him? I don’t.
The man tried to murder a pub full of Catholics. Welcome to the UUP Dave.Posted by on May 13, 2006 @ 03:15 PMCahal.
I accpet that I’m not in a position to say with authority that catholics trust him, but on purely anecdotal evidence, there seems to be no shortage of nationalists who speak highly of him.
Posted by on May 13, 2006 @ 03:18 PMMy first reaction to this was not to get excited because a denail would sson follow. Now that it has been confirmed i would like to watch some old re-runs od Sir Reg on the decommission question. And if anyone has the last IMC report a few extracts would make interesting reading.
No guns no government? We jumped you follow? What was it all about? We need elections. If UUP/UVF get a mandate I will respect it but as of now they have none.
Posted by on May 13, 2006 @ 03:25 PMfair deal
To change the subject a little. You suggest that the unionist party will seek the education portfolio IF there is an executive.
I am not being flippant but I thought the reason SF got education and health was because everyone else wanted to play at government and went for soft portfolios like culture minister. SF being a much smaller party then was left with the hard jobs. The other exception to this was Peter Robinson who got transport.
It seems to me that it is SF and an element of the DUP who want serious power. The rest (unionist AND nationalist) would rather run up to Stormont Castle and whine and beg at the feet of imported rulers for hospitals, roads, and schools.
I think it was the Los Angles Times, in a review of the brief power sharing government, who said that it was Martin McGuiness and Peter Robinson who were the most effective and professional ministers.
On the subject of grammar schools it seems to me that while the unionist middle class benefit from grammar schools working class and underclass unionists suffer. Why do working class unionists vote for parties that do not represent their economic interests and what is the PUPs position on grammar schools?
Posted by on May 13, 2006 @ 03:29 PMTAFKABO
I don’t get it:
“Does anyone remember him threatening to leave the PUP if it turned out that members of the UVF were involved in racist attacks?”
That’s principled.
Anyway he’s prepared to talk to people, he sounds like a human being, that’s good enough for me.
What’s under that slug though above his lips, now that’s a worry ;)
FD
Any notes on d’hondt for me, and how the whole seats/exec thing is distributed? Am on the simple things like: will people recognise the other person in the room is a human being worthy to be spoken to.Posted by on May 13, 2006 @ 03:31 PM
