Thursday, June 22, 2006
“politically, strategically and electorally reckless”
David Ervine’s attempt to answer his critics over the UUP’s Faustian pact is still online for now [but if you want to read it for free be quick - Ed] It’s more ill-tempered fingerpointing than answers though, which is why I didn’t note it previously, but it has prompted a response from Alex Kane in today’s paper in which he raises some other questions of not just David Ervine but the UUP leader Reg Empey too
Why, Mr Ervine (Sir Reg, too, for that matter), do you think that the UUP’s grassroots would welcome an institutional link between their party and any, let alone the most vicious, of these paramilitary groups?
And with a UUP executive meeting scheduled for Friday criticises directly the chosen strategy of Reg Empey:
I would have had far fewer problems with a process which might have culminated in closer ties with the PUP and the wider loyalist community; but a process which begins by establishing a formal connection between the UUP and a still active terrorist group, strikes me as politically, strategically and electorally reckless.
Even if the UVF mounted some sort of decommissioning PR stunt on July 1, it doesn’t make the UUP’s position any stronger, for we would still have to wait for years before there was enough hard evidence to suggest that the UVF was a relic from the past.
And the longer the wait (involving the usual hiccoughs and “unsanctioned” activities), the more ongoing and knock-on damage there will be to the UUP.
So no, Mr Ervine, you haven’t answered this particular critic. I can see no benefits to your membership of the Ulster Unionist Assembly Group and - apart from the increasingly nebulous prospect of a hypothetical seat in a hypothetical Executive - you haven’t actually outlined any other benefits yourself.
Pete Baker @ 01:35 PM
Evidence surely that it is always more advisable to read a dictionary than to eat it.
Posted by on Jun 22, 2006 @ 02:18 PMIs this not part of a balanced diet?
Posted by on Jun 22, 2006 @ 02:21 PMpith[y]
???
Posted by on Jun 22, 2006 @ 02:26 PMWhat exactly is wrong with Ervine using big words? Is he not good enough or something?
Posted by on Jun 22, 2006 @ 02:38 PMJust on a matter of correction of the allusion to Peter Hain as “...he of the Troops Out Movement” contained in the article. I was among the founding members of the Troops Out Movement (TOM) and was relentlessly active in that movement including serving in positions of national office up to 1980 and I also happened to know Peter Hain at the time through a mutual friend, a South African woman who had leave South Africa because of her perceived links to the early ANC.
Mr Hain certainly had no connection with the TOM at that time nor do I recall that he ever expressed much interest on the question at all. After all it was a bit too sensitive too mix with his own anti-apartheid Young Liberal campaign with which he was pretty much consumed. Indeed I don’t recall anyone from the Liberals ever having any association with TOM or its policies which would have been much too contentious for the sensitive fainthearts of that organisation.
Nor do I recall him ever making any notable comments on Ireland at any time since then up to and including his appointment as NI Secretary.
Perhaps others may have different information.
Posted by on Jun 22, 2006 @ 02:46 PMHas Ervine told McFarland about his disdain for “Major this or Captain that”?
Posted by on Jun 22, 2006 @ 03:27 PMErvine’s piece is a significantly missed opportunity. As Alex points out it is a “diatribe against the DUP” and not a very good one at that e.g. plenty of journalists have been having a bash at the DUP based on past behaviour to try and claim otherwise is foolish. Its too long, rambling and attacked the critics rather than addresses the issues or answers the questions.
In the past if Ervine adopted process speak it was usually an indication he was under pressure and having difficulty defending or explaining something. The failure in this article to address the issues could indicate that not only do the UUP not have a clear reasoning/understanding of why they chose this path the PUP don’t see to have one either.
At the beginning of the peace process many Unionists suspended their disbelief in paramilitarism willingness to change. They were consistently let down by Republicanism but more so by Loyalism. Ervine needed to provide an honest examination of why past engagement with loyalists has not produced the results people want and why this approach would produce where it failed. This article doesn’t do that.
Posted by on Jun 22, 2006 @ 03:36 PMThe thing is, fair deal, Ervine has clearly stated the reasoning/understanding of why they chose the pact - as linked in a previous post [also above]:
“Simply, to move one seat to either the DUP or the Ulster Unionists would restore a majority balance on the executive,” he said.
“That is the sole reason why I’m doing what I’m doing.”
Posted by on Jun 22, 2006 @ 03:51 PMPB
If that is it then he should have sent one line to the Belfast Telegraph not this. Also people need a narrative to understand an action which this article could have provided. The Exec seat is a justification not a narrative.
Posted by on Jun 22, 2006 @ 03:54 PMfair deal
I doubt that there is any narrative beyond the executive seat.
That’s why the initial emphasis from the UUP was SF losing a seat - the side argument being that made the UUP better Unionists than the DUP.
But the criticism continued, and so a narrative was created.. but only as a cover-story - one which David Ervine doesn’t appear to be keen to play along with too closely.
Posted by on Jun 22, 2006 @ 04:08 PMErvine’s article is fair as regards the brickbats it throws at the DUP, it fails to address the concerns of UUP sceptics though which is surely the constituency he should have been addressing. He’s preaching to the converted as regard DUP hypocrisy and their malign influence.
Posted by on Jun 22, 2006 @ 04:20 PMNothing wrong with a few big words but he does labour them. He reminds me of Chris Eubank. His sentences also wander all over the place.
Posted by on Jun 22, 2006 @ 05:12 PMThis is one story that is going to grind on and on. Nice one Reg.
Posted by on Jun 22, 2006 @ 05:32 PMHolding David Ervine up to ridicule sends out the message that politics are reserved for the elite.
The disaffected among the unionist community, who are fed up with the elite and junkets of the mainstream, must be allowed representation, even if those chosen are not as articluate, (in the beggining)as the elite.
It seems so pompous to decry David Ervine for any lack of experience, and then try and prevent him from gaining that experence.
Posted by on Jun 22, 2006 @ 06:12 PMIf Davy Dictionary had had a titter of wit he would have answered the key point against any political association with the PUPs: namely that he is happy to be associated with some of the worst thuggish, drug-dealing, black/brown skin-hating, extorting, scum-like low life ever to have stood on hind legs. (Hope I haven’t been too easy on them.) Instead all we have is a rant: against the DUP, oh, and all those long-dead UUPers with distinguished military titles.
Nevertheless, there is one telling statement in his long chippy diatribe (is he in a contest with John Prescott?): his description of paramilitarism as “the product of bad politics”.
So let’s paraphrase:
“It’s not their fault my mates beat up blacks in south Belfast, extort money from law-abiding businessmen, sell drugs, never mind “stiffing Taigs”. It’s all the fault of society for creating the conditions for conflict. They commit horrible actions but it’s not their fault they did them. It’s Big Ian’s fault, or some Old Etonian stuffed shirt from Glengall Street c. 1962.”
As I’ve said previously, one of the most odious features of the PUP is the way in which Ervine and his ilk have lapped up the New Left crap that blames “society” for crime instead of the criminals. Pathetic.
How long has this story run so far? Is it a month? And it’s still going strong.
Posted by on Jun 22, 2006 @ 07:12 PMJust to point out, the comments facility has put asterisks over one of my words.
In case anyone believes it was a profanity, it was a word beginning with “s” and rhyming with “drum”.
Posted by on Jun 22, 2006 @ 07:15 PMTP
“The disaffected among the unionist community, who are fed up with the elite and junkets of the mainstream, must be allowed representation, even if those chosen are not as articluate, (in the beggining)as the elite.”
1. No one is denying them representation.
2. If you mean to imply the PUP is their representation electoral results indicate very much otherwise.Posted by on Jun 22, 2006 @ 07:19 PMTurbo Paul: “Holding David Ervine up to ridicule sends out the message that politics are reserved for the elite. “
Please spare the callow class rhetoric. The UUP has gone on and on about ‘no terrorists in government.’ Then, to gain an advantage in an executive that may never exist, they toss their integrity to the wind so they can pick up this malodorous murderous muppet, namely Ervine.
Turbo Paul: “The disaffected among the unionist community, who are fed up with the elite and junkets of the mainstream, must be allowed representation, even if those chosen are not as articluate, (in the beggining)as the elite. “
The greatest joy and pain of democratic voting systems is that the people almost always get the representation they deserve. Since we are discussing the “disaffected among the community,” they likely get squat all, given the system. If you want progress, you’d best “disaffect” more Loyalists away from the DUP, since that’s where their votes are now.
Turbo Paul: “It seems so pompous to decry David Ervine for any lack of experience, and then try and prevent him from gaining that experence.”
It’s far easier to decry him as the mouthpiece and front-man for terrorists and hold him up as the ultimate personification of the UUP’s abandonment of principle. The fact that his writing style “wanders to is own accordion” is just a bonus.
Posted by on Jun 22, 2006 @ 07:20 PMA true middle class, white collar, conservative, elitist, opinion if ever there was one, demonstrated by the watchman.
If David Ervine is able to remove the criminality question from the whole of the Loyalist argument then he should be appauded by Unionism.
The negociations needed to convince the UDA/UVF to renounce criminality can only be achieved by someone who can speak on equal terms, rather than try a patronising approach, which would be doomed to failure.
Posted by on Jun 22, 2006 @ 07:30 PMTurbo Paul: “If David Ervine is able to remove the criminality question from the whole of the Loyalist argument then he should be appauded by Unionism. “
Mayhaps, but that is one hell of an if…
Turbo Paul: “The negociations needed to convince the UDA/UVF to renounce criminality can only be achieved by someone who can speak on equal terms, rather than try a patronising approach, which would be doomed to failure. “
No, it takes a carrot and a stick, not just someone who can speak “bad English” fluently.
If certain news sources are to be believed, we have the LVF / UVF feud to look forward to this summer, as well as another round of internal UDA house-cleaning over the Shoukri brothers. Its going to be a long, bumpy ride for Ervine and Co.
Posted by on Jun 22, 2006 @ 07:42 PMTurbo Paul
“If David Ervine is able to remove the criminality question from the whole of the Loyalist argument then he should be appauded by Unionism.”I suppose 12 years since the so-called ‘ceasefire’ hasnt been enough to get his paramilitary mates to stop selling drugs to children, extorting money and generally being parasites to the unionist/loyalist community.
Rather ironic that you mention a ‘patronising approach’ - The rhetoric from people like Ervine is about as patronising as it comes. He has the audacity to insult our intellience and tell me that its my fault that his mates sell drugs and kill people. Its my fault that they refuse to hand over their guns and its my fault that his mates are the only people who make the IRA look good!
Posted by on Jun 22, 2006 @ 07:45 PMIf there is to be further bloodletting within the loyalist clans then better a man like David Ervine to be there to try and broker the peace, even sever the links between criminality and the UDA/LVF/UVF once and for all.
Who else can the loyalist community turn to in order to broker the peace, a limp wristed, mainstream, junket junky, who lives in an Ivory tower isolated from the street level frontline.
Let the UDA.LVF/UVF officialy declare:
Any members comitting criminality does so independently and “Not in our name”
Or are we to ask every defendent appearing in court, “Who do you vote for?” then that political party faces critisism????
How many UUP/DUP supporters have been convicted of crime, many, but the UUP/DUP are not held responsible for their actions.
Rather than keep throwing cheap shots from the cheap seats, perhaps we should come up with constructive ways the UDA/LVF/UVF can demonstrate its ability to enter the politcal arena.
Posted by on Jun 22, 2006 @ 07:57 PMTurbo Paul: “If there is to be further bloodletting within the loyalist clans then better a man like David Ervine to be there to try and broker the peace, even sever the links between criminality and the UDA/LVF/UVF once and for all.”
You makes this sounds as if it is Alexander at Gordium. He can’t even get the group he fronts for on a real ceasefire, let alone the whole of the Loyalist alphabet-soup gangs.
Turbo Paul: “ Who else can the loyalist community turn to in order to broker the peace, a limp wristed, mainstream, junket junky, who lives in an Ivory tower isolated from the street level frontline. “
Again, it is not as if he hasn’t had a chance in the past, what, 12 years? What has the silly little muppet been doing in all this time, if all this wonder is his to accomplish?
Turbo Paul: “Rather than keep throwing cheap shots from the cheap seats, perhaps we should come up with constructive ways the UDA/LVF/UVF can demonstrate its ability to enter the politcal arena. “
oh, let’s see… stop shooting one another, learn to “turn it off” the way the Republicans seem to do, realize that dealing drugs and shooting one another does not make for a promising career path, disarm… y’know, the little things that make a difference.
Posted by on Jun 22, 2006 @ 08:07 PMTurbo Paul:
“Rather than keep throwing cheap shots from the cheap seats, perhaps we should come up with constructive ways the UDA/LVF/UVF can demonstrate its ability to enter the political arena.”
Well, first of all, they did try to enter the political arena, through the PUP and the UDP. But no significant electoral breakthrough was made and the PUP is reduced to Ervine in the Assembly, with a few UPRG-linked councillors in Belfast. The simple fact of the matter is that the unionist/loyalist community (unlike the nationalist/republican community)is unwilling to vote for political parties with direct links to terrorists. (A lesson there for Reg, perhaps!)
Second, genuine efforts have been made---through the Loyalist Commission, the UPRG and various back channels---to come up with the “constructive
ways” you talk of. But again, it seems as if the paramilitaries concerned have a greater interest in retaining their criminal empires than in engaging in political dialogue.Best wishes,
Alex.
PS: Am off to the cinema now, so won’t be able to continue with the commenting.
Posted by on Jun 22, 2006 @ 08:13 PMI suppose you’re off to see the new Ken Loach film, Alex. Enjoy!
Posted by on Jun 22, 2006 @ 08:43 PM
