Thursday, October 05, 2006
A Victory v A Fair Deal
O’Muilleoir also believed the nationalist community would be “indifferent” to such declarations, would they?
Full quote below
How will the DUP make a deal with Sinn Fein? The precedent, the precedent is the wonderful speech. It was a wonderful piece of political acrobatics that Edwin Poots made on the site of the Maze Long Kesh Prison Camp. In the summer when he agreed to chair the Maze/Long Kesh body which is going to build a stadium and a peace centre, a conflict transformation centre and preserve the H Block hospital and what Edwin did, he did what Ian Paisley doing today, he claimed credit for the peace that we enjoy. He said he had democratised Sinn Fein. He said it was a blow to terrorists that actually they were taking part in this panel, in setting up this panel, setting up this peace centre and stadium. And I think the Dup need to take, they need to take that precedent and they need to say all the speeches. They need to say they have defeated Sinn Fein, they promised they would do it in 1985 “I’ll smash Sinn Fein” I think the nationalist community is indifferent to this, they can say whatever they want but I think they could make a good victorious speech to explain why they are going into government. And the great thing is the half-full glasses, that Gregory Campbell didn’t rule out today, he didn’t rule out making a deal by the 24th November.
Fair Deal @ 11:07 AM
Yes, this is getting to be a common call.
I remember the first few responses on Slugger to the IRA’s “almost decommissioning” before the fall of the Assembly included a suggestion from an “Ed Ucate” that the UUP play it as a win
Posted by on Oct 05, 2006 @ 11:32 AMWould the proclamation of a fair deal suffice to placate the unionist electorate I wonder? I am not sure – maybe some, but the DUP (particularly the good Doc) do love their populism and know how to play their electorate very well, and may feel they need to beef it up a bit. They also need to show that they have won where the UUP lost – so they need to sell it as a victory.
On the other hand, they have no other credible unionist party sniping at them from behind and can afford a little generosity in announcing the deal.
But the Doc will and should sell it as his parting fanfare – his gift of peace to the loyal and the democratisation of SF.
Personally I wouldn’t be bothered by this – anything that gets the majority of unionists behind it. And anyway, I’m used to hearing the big cockerel crowing – it probably would hae been harder to take if it had have been Trimble.Posted by on Oct 05, 2006 @ 11:42 AMMy impression since November 03 is that the DUP have killed off the rhetorical flourishes of winning and losing. I also get a strong sense that a good many nationalists appear not to have noticed this shift: possibly due to watching/listening to the ‘Doc’ too closely!
The current line they have in terms of weathering the negotiation process is ‘keep the pressure up, the Republican movement only coughs up when under pressure’, has been prominent for months.
But Fair Deal is how they packaged their offering from that Assembly Election until now. And I would expect that is the way it will be sold when it is finally done.
Posted by on Oct 05, 2006 @ 11:54 AMIf the DUP can sell it to their electorate I think the nationalists won’t mind whatever crowing is done and whatever victories are celebrated, being slightly more thickskinned perhaps than our stormont bedfellows. If the deal is done and devolution is restored, that’s the most important thing to SF’s electorate
Posted by on Oct 05, 2006 @ 11:58 AMI have to say I dont remember the UUP ever suffering from “over-selling”, if anything their problem was that they refused to sell what they had won to their electorate
Posted by on Oct 05, 2006 @ 12:02 PMIf they can sell, working the deal Dvid Timble negotiated while they were outside the gate,as a victory then they could sell rosary beads on the Shankill.
Posted by on Oct 05, 2006 @ 12:04 PMbootman
Examples of UUP overselling are Ken Maginnis and the claim the RUC had been saved, that decommissioning would happen in a two year time scale
Posted by on Oct 05, 2006 @ 12:11 PMhenry
Not sure that selling rosary beads on the Shankill would be a problem.
After all, one unionist commentator here claimed around the 12th (last year perhaps) that catholics enjoyed going to the field in the past and that the tea and scone stands were manned mainly by nuns.Posted by on Oct 05, 2006 @ 12:25 PMAmusing to hear a Sinn Fein/IRA spinmeister offer advice to the DUP. They should, of course, ignore it. This is as you know, for the consumption of the chattering classes who so YEARN for a deal with the IRA. I sincerely hope the DUP ignore it and treat the government funded governmen appointed IMC report with extreme caution. It’s not what it says that matters....
Posted by on Oct 05, 2006 @ 12:29 PMHenry94
Spot on regarding the unfaithfulness of the unionist electorate.
The DUP are helping Republicans finally cross the Finishing Line of this marathon in which all the heavy lifting was done by the UUP.
The main reason UUP could not sell their victory were three fold
1. The finishing line - although in sight had not been crossed
2. We couldnt sell it internally and substantial energy was wasted fighting the internal battle with people who eventually mostly left. However we will end up with the same arrangement and as would have happened naturally - the Provos are gradually fading away.
Meanwhile more years have been wasted and god knows how many billions of investment have since gone elsewhere.
Like what was the Unionist NO camp all about in the end ??
3. We were poor and reticent communicators of our success
On another note a lot of voters on both sides take their victory from how the other side react.
Therefore if Republicans dont react DUP voters might feel they have been sold a pup !
Also if Republicans dont react to Paisley’s victory speech - which will be boistrously and articulately delivered - then have they really recognised that late 20th Century militant Irish Republicanism was a terrible waste of a generation ?
What did it achieve ?
and before you say Power sharing I can assure you that by this time a whole generation of unionists would have long since recognised that first past the post politics in a tribal society was not the best way to deliver democracy.
Having said all that perhaps the unionist electorate are just canny.
They knew the final driving of the knife into SF had to be done by DUP as the UUP were too exhuasted by then and being honest we probably would have let them go on a bit longer in order to advance NI as an economic entity.However once the beast is finally slain it will be all bets off again for the unionist vote and I have no doubt that with the right candidates that those who have loaned their votes to the DUP will return to the UUP
Posted by on Oct 05, 2006 @ 12:31 PMJEB
It would be easier to believe we could have had power-sharing without a struggle by now if it wasn’t such a struggle to get it now.
The problem the DUP have is that a lot of their voters oppose power-sharing. Any deal under any conditions that brings power-sharing about creates a political opportunity to their right.
Posted by on Oct 05, 2006 @ 12:37 PMJEB - I think the slaying of the best is perhaps a bit too hopeful on your part. SF have not suddenly found themselves in a situation they have not been expecting. For the last 20 years this situation has been part of the plan, and they really won’t be going away you know (see the “sticky” post down below).
Theatrics though are fine - as long as we all get down to business as soon as possible.Posted by on Oct 05, 2006 @ 12:42 PMbest = beast - sorry
Posted by on Oct 05, 2006 @ 12:45 PMNot a bit of wonder that Daily Ireland closed if this the type of crap that O’Muileoir published in it.
There should be no victory speeches, remember approx 3,900 innocent lives were lost and many thousands others injured thriughout The Troubles.Their should be a period of silence instead of victorious speeches to remember all the innocent people whe were affected.
But that goes to show how insensitive republicans are to human suffering.Posted by on Oct 05, 2006 @ 01:07 PMI hear TB talking of a ‘final settlement’.
For you maybe, Tone.
Posted by on Oct 05, 2006 @ 01:09 PMJEB
“Spot on regarding the unfaithfulness of the unionist electorate.”Ahh, the old UUP faithful - if all goes badly then blame the electorate! Now that’s a winning formula. First lesson - these people are actually the peoplt that are supposed to vote for you. If you treat them as if they are stupid, or blame them for being too lazy to come out and vote for you then chances are they will actually not vote for you.
The days of the UUP ‘deserving’ to be voted for are over. You actually have to earn support these days. I know its a tricky concept.
Moving on, even if I agreed with your analysis of the UUP doing all the ‘heavy lifting’ you seem to have ignored a few issues.
“1) Finish line was in sight but not crossed”
Trouble is the UUP showed very early on that they were prepared to settle for much less than their own self-declared “finish line”. Why would the Provos ever bother doing anything when they knew you’d settle for less.
You undermined yourself and then complain that others follow a successful strategy.
“2. We couldnt sell it internally and substantial energy was wasted fighting the internal battle.....
The inability to sell it internally is a failure of Trimble, Empey & co whose job it was to sell the many ‘victories’ they claimed they had won. If you had people who opposed you then boohoo, its still your own failure that you couldnt convince them.
Even if we were to arrive at the same arrangement (despite having already moved some distance from the Belfast Agreement) then it would simply show just how much better others were at selling it than Trimble, Empey & Co. Again, no-one’s fault but your own.
“3. We were poor and reticent communicators of our success”
Bit of a theme developing here. Is there anything that the UUP actually is good at?
“They knew the final driving of the knife into SF had to be done by DUP as the UUP were too exhuasted by then and being honest we probably would have let them go on a bit longer in order to advance NI as an economic entity.”
Oh woe is you indeed. Exhausted? What you actually mean is that the UUP was inept, it didnt know exactly what it had or hadnt agreed, it couldnt agree a line to stick to and it couldnt sell a message to even its own core support. If that exhausts them then they didnt have much stamina anyway.
“However once the beast is finally slain it will be all bets off again for the unionist vote and I have no doubt that with the right candidates that those who have loaned their votes to the DUP will return to the UUP”
Yes, of course once the ‘beast is slain’ the unionist community will immediately forget who done the slaying. I’m not saying that the DUP can become complacent (see earlier about earning votes) but I would think that there will be a decent honeymoon period where the DUP will rightly earn the spoils from delivering a fair deal. Far from the tables turning, especially in the short term, there is actually likely to be an upturn in DUP support. After all, there is no real sign of the base support leaving and even more people who still didnt believe they were serious could now start to look at the DUP as a serious option. Those people who believed they would never share power would have no excuse.
What exactly does the UUP have to offer in the post-deal scenario? The old line of “well we done the work early on” isn’t washing so far and there’s no reason why it would then.
The UUP could work their way back, but the trouble for them is that if the decline continues pre-deal, and if there is any acceleration in their decline post-deal then they may just have gone past the tipping point and make it near impossible for them to make a serious return.
People may have ‘loaned’ their votes to the DUP, but why should they change their vote if the DUP do nothing to make them want to take their ‘loan’ elsewhere. Also, for some people, they have been ‘on loan’ since 2001 - they havent moved back and people can get accustomed to voting for a particular party very quickly. Those people who voted, maybe with some trepadation, in the last couple of elections for the DUP have now realised that the sky doesnt fall in when you “vote for Paisley” - and actually, far from predictions of the UUP et al, that progress can be made with the DUP, and is actually only likely to be made with the DUP.
Your language belies the old UUP attitude. I believe that votes are always ‘on loan’- people can shift them any time. The UUP believes that they ‘own’ votes and that people are only voting DUP out of temporary insanity and will eventually see sense and return to the ‘decent’ party. Good luck with seeing how that goes. The UUP strategy seems to have been stuck since 2003- waiting for the DUP to mess up and reap whatever benefit comes. A strategy which relies completely on things outside of your control isn’t actually a strategy but just an aspiration.
Posted by on Oct 05, 2006 @ 01:20 PMMartin O’Muileoir must be looking for a new job as DUP spinmaster since he closed down Daily Ireland.
Posted by on Oct 05, 2006 @ 01:25 PMDeclarations of victory would underestimate the electorates intelligence. The outcome we have is certainly no victory for one side or the other.
The declaration of victory would undoubtedly come back to haunt the person who makes the declaration.
Posted by on Oct 05, 2006 @ 02:30 PMSlug
I agree with you that there is no victory here for anyone. My sense though is that catholics won’t be too upset if the doctor crows about victory in order to sell a deal since their lot has improved immensely since the start of the current “troubles”. They certainly will never have to suffer being second class citizens ever again.
Posted by on Oct 05, 2006 @ 02:53 PMThis in not a victory for anyone, and should not be treated as such. There has been much pain and suffering for any one side to be victorious.
Republican mouth piece O’Muilleoir is just trying to stir up the DUP into doing this, and then Sinn Fein will cut them down. Simple SF tactics but would be very effective if the DUP fall for it.
Posted by on Oct 05, 2006 @ 03:02 PMJonathan, you said: “Martin O’Muileoir must be looking for a new job as DUP spinmaster since he closed down Daily Ireland”
No no no - Marty’s plans are much greater than that. Ladies and gentlemen we present the aspirant next MP for West Belfast.
Mairtin. Publisher, Peace Maker, Patriot.
Posted by on Oct 05, 2006 @ 04:32 PMPerhaps the DUP needs a ‘victory’ to satsify the vanity of it’s hierarchy or maybe just to hide the fact that they are well and truly selling a pup to their voters - Paisley’s rhetoric seems to be worth nothing as he is being manoeuvered into the type of deal he has often promised his voters that he would never countenance.
This may suit Republicans, as they are playing a much longer game here than this particular agreement. Perhaps Máirtín Ó Muilleoir has been sent out to signal that the DUP can call the agreement a victory if they want - Nationalists and Republicans do not see this agreement as anything near a ‘final settlement’ and will just ignore the DUP celebrations anyway. Nationalists and Republicans will be looking for the next move.
I think Unionism has been outplayed yet again - it desperately needs new thinking and new leadership.
Posted by on Oct 05, 2006 @ 05:33 PMcarson’s cat
“Moving on, even if I agreed with your analysis of the UUP doing all the ‘heavy lifting’ you seem to have ignored a few issues.”
That really is where we diverge therefore there is little point talking around the edges
As far as I am concerned Paddy Provo didnt wake up one morning and decide he was going to surrender to Ian Paisley.
We simply wouldnt be where we are today if it had not been for the Agreement.
The UUP was not interested in electoral success for the sake of it but has laid down its Party for the sake of the Union.
Basically if the Union had any chance of survival we needed to draw the sting of militant Irish Republicanism and make NI a stable political and economic entity.
We remain on course to achieve that. The DUP would never have got us here.
Regarding the existance of the UUP I have always been of the view that a Unionist Party of any description meant we are failing in our ultimate objective of securing the Union.
The UUP is only a movement and I watch the emergence of the Tories and hopefully Labour with interest.
I only want success for the UUP over the DUP as ultimately I consider the UUP is best for the Union. However normal British politics means we have really arrived.
Posted by on Oct 05, 2006 @ 05:44 PM‘Martin O’Muileoir, speaking on yesterday’s Talkback, offered some advice on how the DUP could sell a deal with Sinn Fein. He advocated that the DUP should “make a good victorious speech”.’
Sorry Martin.
Maybe the drone Provisional ‘republican’ supporters are used to swallowing this sort of horseshit and actually believing it, but unionists aren’t.
Unionists have more sense. They are not sold on the empty words of a leadership that takes them for granted and uses them - that’s how the Provos work. In the case of unionism, the leadership actually has to deliver on all the fine words.
The best example of this is the fact that the DUP now holds 1st place within unionism. Trimble tried to sell a pig-in-a-poke, but unionist rank and file didn’t swallow it. They wanted to see results, not wordy promises. Thus they relegated Trimble to 2nd place.
Martin may think that the DUP simply standing up and yelling ‘we won’ will convince unionists of something, but if it isn’t true, unionists won’t believe it. Just as they got fed up with what Trimble was saying.
Long story short - unionists aren’t stupid like the Provo drones who still have faith in Adams and his promises that a united Ireland is just around the corner.
Posted by on Oct 05, 2006 @ 06:47 PMharpo
I think you’re missing a key thing. I don’t think that most catholics were (or are) desperate for a united Ireland. They just wanted equal treatment. But maybe I’m wrong.
Posted by on Oct 05, 2006 @ 07:29 PM
