Little to fear from anti-agreement loyalists..?
AFTER last night’s 100-strong Moygashel meeting of anti-agreement unionists, DUP bete noir Jim Allister said it was clear that unease and opposition to the DUP and Sinn Fein in government was growing. “The task now is to channel this opposition – it is a work in progress,” he added, a hint that a new party – led by him? – will be the eventual outcome of these discussions. Among those there were loyalist campaigner Willie Frazer and ex-DUP councillors Robin StIrling, William Wilkinson, Walter Millar and Leslie Cubitt. Whatever the sense of betrayal by these hardliners, I doubt if too many of them can really offer much of a challenge to the DUP. My strong suspicion is that DUP accusations of vote-splitting that benefit nationalism, a lack of savvy or ability to achieve objectives and the inate difficulties faced by any new micro-party will see this bunch of backwoodsmen go the way of so many other unionist splits – another deposit on the scrapheap of history. I doubt if the DUP is worried. ADDS: The News Letter has a fuller account, apparently from inside the meeting, although it reckons there were only 80 in attendance. Only 80! Noel McAdam report that there are divisions over whether a “formal party should be established or, at least at this stage, a pressure group to act as a focal point” for opposition to power-sharing. UPDATE: Paisley has responded: “Their so-called political platform has already been rejected by the electorate and they have nothing to offer in terms of prosperity or stability for the province. Indeed, many are more interested in attacking and undermining Unionism than developing and strengthening the Union in the longer term.” Full statement below the fold.
Best comment was from Robin Stirling from Ballymena, who said he had been contacted by disgruntled DUP voters who had promised “to even vote Sinn Fein as a protest” against current DUP-Sinn Fein cooperation. Because obviously that would help their cause…
UPDATE: Paisley picked up on Stirling’s silly remark in his statement entitled ‘Advocating voting for SF is the height of treachery’:
The safeguard for the Union is a strong Democratic Unionist Party. This was achieved at the last election through the defeat of those who were prepared to go as far as to advocate unionists actually voting for Sinn Fein candidates as a protest.
That same folly arose again last night by those who pose as the only saviour of the Union. We heard again from one prominent attendee about those prepared to vote for Sinn Fein. Their so-called political platform has already been rejected by the electorate and they have nothing to offer in terms of prosperity or stability for the Province. Indeed many are more interested in attacking and undermining Unionism than developing and strengthening the Union in the longer term.
The Democratic Unionist Party has succeeded in strengthening the Union by facing down republicans and insisting upon our demands. That strengthening and defence of the Union must be maintained. Advocating voting for the shiners in any election is the height of treachery.
The Union will only be safe in the hands of a strong and united Democratic Unionist team who, as the largest political party in Northern Ireland, are in the driving seat.”
On the split amongst the splitters, McAdam adds: “Some argue that the group should be ready to stand if Prime Minister Gordon Brown calls a snap General Election, or decides to go to the country in spring. But others argue that a committee could act as a focal point to test the strength of opposition to the Executive headed by the DUP and Sinn Fein.”
BB:
I had earlier posted the “principles” of one anti-SAA serially unelectable protestor.
Perhaps others may recall
I think all these nutters should be locked up in a cage, and left to fight the bit out. I wonder if Lucas would get on with Millar, or would Stirling want to take over from Allister. Let them fight it out, as they will only fall out with each other when they form a new party, because they are only interested in themselves.
“On BBC Lets Talk Edwin Poots put it to Jim Allister that he was arguing inside the DUP to hold off on forming a government that included SF until August 2007.
Jim Allister did not deny this.
So if the DUP had adhered to Jim Allister’s position an executive would now be formed anyway! JA thought until August was a credible testing period”
McBurney
Maybe you would like to reply to this as you have accused me on a previous thread of spreading unsubstantiated rumours in relation to this. Now Jim is not even denying this position so really what is Jim’s reasoning behind a new party now but only to snipe at the Paisley’s?? Something he would have been far more effective of doing inside the DUP.
FD
But that’s countered by Dodds’ opposition to the Maze amongst other things, the tackling of the Irish Language Act, Education reforms being fought against by Sammy Wilson??
BP
It is good it is countered but consistency and thus no need not to counter it is much better.
If delivery on policy issues such as the ILA and academic selection is achieved it will be a useful argument to convince the unsure that taking the ‘chance’ with devolution was the correct decision.
On the maze it isn’t so clear cut as the greatest enthusiasts are within the DUP ranks.
Ballygobackwards
“On BBC Lets Talk Edwin Poots put it to Jim Allister that he was arguing inside the DUP to hold off on forming a government that included SF until August 2007.
Jim Allister did not deny this.”
Actually I remember watching this programme and Jim Allister did strenously deny it. I’m sure there’s a recording somewhere.
I would like to see it again also to clear the issue up. My recollection is that it was not denied; there was a lot of bluster and anti-DUP barracking from JA in EP’s direction.
But definitely no denial.
“they will only fall out with each other when they form a new party, because they are only interested in themselves.”
But sure, thats never happened before… ;o)
It seems it was attended by about 80 people and seems like they were the usual suspects and headbangers hardly a good advertisment for a new Unionist Party
There was only 80 at meeting last night according to the papers they seemed to be the usual crowd, it seems that all the original staff jim Allisatair had when he was in the DUP have now left him for the DUP,
So first it was October Jim Allister wanted an executive formed, now it’s August – is it even possible to form it in August over the summer recess? – how long will it be before the Dundela boys start the rumour that Jim Allister left the DUP in March because he couldn’t possibly wait until May to jump into power?
For anyone who saw it to say Jim Allister didn’t deny Poots’ allegations on Let’s Talk is in complete denial. Fair enough boys you have a difference in political views with people like Jim and myself, and I fully respect that and enjoy the banter we can have on here, but there’s no need for such blatant lies. You do yourselves no credibility by doing so.
Gregory Campbell described them as ‘Headbangers’ on Radio Ulster.
So i have heard , the has beens and never weres of unionist politics are so desparate that they are sending text messages to all DUP counsillors asking them to join JA’s new party, so let me get it straight again, who is the enemy
A noticeable drop off in the number of posts outside office hours. I wonder how many of the contributors are working for the political parties?
Could someone in Dundela Avenue enlighten me as to when Jim Allister changed from being a top rate politician (as trumpeted by the party during and after his euro election) to the current numpty that you have ridiculed all day.
Did it coincide with his disagreement with the party?
Slugger…..You are are a social bigot. very time a Unionist breaks ranks with the mainstream he/she becomes a ‘Loyalist’. This is your way of ensuring you have a bogeyman term to keep people down and ensure that those outside the political elite are kept out. These people call themselves Unionist it is Slugger that calls them Loyalist. Slugger is socially sectarian (a bigot).
Ah remember the time when the Reverend Ian was the perpetual big belligerant, No, No, No, his battle hymn. Heckled Trimble and Hume et al on a regular basis. Whether it was his devout Christianity (the alleged peace loving faith) or maybe common sense, he has somewhat changed his tune, (and for the better of both communities of NI.) And so we have a new batch of belligerants standing on the sidelines shouting ‘No, No, No, Defend the Union, We’ve been sold out’, etc….until they get their hands on the reigns of power, that’s if, and realize the enormous responsibilty they have for ALL the people of NI.
‘A noticeable drop off in the number of posts outside office hours. I wonder how many of the contributors are working for the political parties? ‘
……and don’t forget the NI civil service!
McBurney
Grow up this was on talkback so it can hardly be taken as anyone spreading rumours. How about you answer the question that has been put to you instead of your nonsense tactic of trying to talk down to other bloggers without actually making any substantial points. All you are trying to do is defend a man who when probed has very shaky grounds for being in the political arena in the first place never mind tryibg to stay there. He may be high and mighty on his principles but it’s about time Jim Allister was probed on these facts that have been reported here and the media and put to task over them. If you would like to reply to this post then please do so but don’t just claim that the great DUP conspirators are out to bring down Jim, the evidence does that on it’s own.
FD
“On the maze it isn’t so clear cut as the greatest enthusiasts are within the DUP ranks”
But also the greatest opponents. True it shouldn’t be a case of having to counter it but until someone has a word with the big fella thats what we have to try and do.
btw did anyone see Clifford Smyth on Hearts & Minds last night?? Talk about going off on one it was a reasonable discussion and then WHAM!Clifford goes ballistic! Great tv
I think we can conclude there is indeed “little to fear.”
Unless and until, that is, JA fills the Waterfront for several nights running. I won’t be holding me breath.
As it is, the car park at Moygashel wasn’t even full…
When is the next EU election, please?
BP: I saw that! The words “plot” and “lost” come to mind.
Whenever anyone starts whining about people crying on the phone to them and “very very prominent” people ringing (why him?) to tell of shady deals being done, my “wanker alert” antennae go into overdrive. I didnt catch Prof. Bruces face during the rant, but it was a test of his diplomatic skills…
After some thought I greatly welcome this new collection of extreem Unionist rejects. They will be enough of an annoyance to keep the DUP distracted and will bleed off enough of the hardcore loyalist vote to damage the DUP in their areas while never actually gaining any kind of power that will bring down the Assembly crashing to a halt. What remains of the DUP and UUP will be forced to become more centralist and actually resolve to tackling real politics in a bid to differenciate themselves from the extreem and in my opinion that can only be a good thing.
“Half pint Bob. Well done Peter!”
Is that what he said? I thought he said “half punt”. I keep meaning to get new batteries for the hearing aid……
BP
Clifford Smyth showed that as an historian he has about as much lack of bias and subjectivity as David Irving last night. Steve Bruce – a real academic – looked slightly bemused by his ranting nonsense. Why didn’t Clifford admit that he is one of the movers and shakers behind the Voice 4 Democracy group?
I suspect the shaking has a cause other than political!
Nonetheless it was an enjoyable piece of TV. Welcome back H & M!
Pounder,
An interesting analysis as always from yourself. As usual I will disagree. What you suggest is logical but I would submit that unionist leaders are usually damaged and indeed fall to attacks from the right (such right / left labels are probably inappropriate but good short hand) rather than from the liberal wing. As such, I think it more likely that these groups will cause a more hard line to be taken by the DUP in defence against the usual threat. Of course the fact that that is what I want whereas the opposite is what you want may well bias our respective analyses.
In terms of the various persons in this potential new grouping I accept that they may be seen as malcontents but again I suggest that that is always how new right wing (there I go again) unionist groupings are always seen. Also of course talking up such things by the DUP etc. is a good way to put off some of the traditional unionist electorate from supporting a new party.
In terms of the small turn out: remember that the meeting was by invatation only. I would suggest Allister is at this point being quite canny. If he announced a new party now people would just attack his accolytes and, as has been suggested there is the possibility of early splits. Instead by dangling the carrot of a new party in front of the traditional unionist electorate he can stimulate interest without the down sides of creating a party. I suspect there will be a few more meetings over the next number of months possibly concluding in a public meeting or meetings and a new party later on. This would presumably be timed to ensure maximum public interest and support comming up to the next set of elections.
This strategy would also allow time for things to go wrong in the new executive and hence, ride a wave of discontent. If on the other hand everything works well for the executive and there is little public support for a new party Allister can avoid damage and decide to run as an independent or stand down at the next Euro elections.
As usual Turgon you have got it spot on again. Either the DUPers vere back towards the right or the rightwingers will push them out of that space. The more interesting numbers to watch out for will be the grass roots support in public fora, not slagging about whether 80 or 100 people turn up to an invitation only event.
Comments are beginning to stray close to the ball not man line. Please remember the rule.
Delta Omega,
I agree a large turn out at public fora would be more than possible. The trick will be to try to time such meetings and a party launch to have the correct momentum to carry it forward to an election. If it could then win a decent level of support I suspect the party would be sustainable in the long run.
Turgon
What like the UKUP?
I see where you’re comming from Turgon, recent Goverment and Politics classes in Belfast Met have been teaching me the scary idea of trying to look at all sides of an arguement. I honestly don’t see the grouping making a major impact beyonf leeching the more extreem unionists, but after some thought I think the main support will still give the DUP a number 2 preference.
Splinter groups of the main Unionist parties don’t really last long due to the egos of those involved. Bob McCartney had so little faith in his own party that he pulled the stunt of standing in multiple areas, his party is now defunct and a joke footnote in the Assembly history. The PUP are a joke, Dawn Purvis only being elected off the back of David Ervines death. Gary McMichael of the UDP, who I think was actually in it for the right reasons, was hung out to dry by his “associates” and is gone.
It worries me when a Monty Python movie starts to become real life.
“Was the resignation merely a fit of peak?”
Are you suggesting Allister suffers from vertigo?
I think a survey of the total anti-SAA vote (combining Frazer, McCartney and Calvert) would show what an uphill struggle there would be for such a grouping to win even 1 seat in the Assembly.
Anyone take a guess at what mutltiplier would need to be applied (and where?) to elect JA (the most likely successful candidate) ?
I reckon that 10 times the articulated anti-SAA vote would need to be mobilised and a not dissimilar proportion in one specific constituency.
Turgon
Surely even by hanging around for a couple of months isn’t gonna make any difference though?? Already we have had Robin Stirling telling people to vote for SF and Walter Millar as a spokesman on Newsline last night (left the DUP 15 years ago and subsequently stood for Ulster Independence- some Unionist). How is more support meant to be attracted to this show over months?? Surely the message would only get staler?? Especially when this is the calibre who are leading it at the front.
It also relies on everything staying as it is in Stormont and with all the stuff on the agenda over the next months ILA ect the DUP will start to be seen in a stronger light esp if Chucklevision goes off the air in OFMDFM at the request of both parties. So then in that case the REAL DUP will be still be harping on along the same old lines with progress and delivery being made in Stormont. That may put the DUP on a harder line, i wouldn’t mind that at all, but would seriously damage any REAL DUP aspirations.
In terms of attacking the right we need to put it in context. The DUP was formed by Ian Paisley and Dessie Boal both of whom were already well standing public figures with a popular base. A base which grew and had a support straight away amongst elected representatives of standing and the voters. In recent years we have had many unionist groupings like the UKUP, NIUP, United Unionists, UDP etc. All started with one figurehead with no backing from voters and eventually died out, some slower than others, the PUP is still in terminal mode. They all came saying they were the new hardline saviours of unionism but when people realised who exactly these people were and their policies, it was quickly clear what had to happen to them ie dustbin.
Now you may argue that certain DUP councillors have defected. However they have all been low level with no hope of being elected under anything but a DUP banner, as Walter Millar and David Calvert in Lurgan have found out. However as soon as a new party is founded these people will be thrust forward as the leading lights. I believe that if this is the case then no matter how long JA bides his time the result will e=be the same anyway.
Pounder,
I am genuninely suprised you are still at college / university. Are you a mature student? Your posts seem too mature and balanced. In terms of looking at all sides of the argument do not worry. I did A level politics but managed to dump that nefarious tendancy to see all sides shortly thereafter, do not be concerned it will pass.
In terms of your substantive point I see what you mean about splinter groups, personalities etc. There is now, however, an important difference. It is that now there is a definite issue and difference of principle namely being in the current power sharing executive. When McCartney stood, leaving aside any personality issues (and they probably were a big factor) many did not believe the DUP would enter the executive with SF. Clearly now there is a definite divide between the DUP and any new party on a critical aspect of policy.
I am sure there is a unionist constituency out there opposed to having SF in power. I do not know how big it is but I suspect it will grow if SF annoy unionists more, if the DUP make more concessions, if the government allow on the runs home etc. etc. Even the ongoing love in is likely to be promoting anti agreement sentiment. Finally and also importantly unpopular decisions will reduce support for the deal. If people are in principle quite anti agreement and then it delivers not pratical benefits but the opposite then they may well come around to supporting an anti deal party.
As a final issue remember that the PUP / UDP are loathed by very many in the antiagreement movement. I doubt I am alone when I say that I have not and would never give them a preference.
Who knows whether a new party can survive, flourish or wither. I accept it is an uphill struggle but the ground is a bit more fertile than it has been for some time.
Bigger Picture,
Sorry posts crossed.
As ever very difficult to disagree with anything you say. The scenario you propose is very likely. The alternative I suggest is probably actually less likely. The only thing I would suggest is that in power I would have thought there is a greater danger of the DUP becoming more liberal rather than more hard line. In addition unpopular decisions (some will inevitably come) will hurt the DUP and help any new grouping.
The major thing though as I stated above to pounder is that now the DUP and any new group / party differ on an issue of vital importance and one where the DUP change in stance is difficult to deny. That may/might be enough to tip the balance in favour of a new party surviving.
The fact that there is only one high profile leader (Allister) is also a huge problem. A further big name defection would be extremely useful (and unlikely) and bringing forward articulate new politicans would be important. Bringing forward new people who are not yet public representatives is of course a classic chicken and egg problem.
Turgon
I agree with you that in office there is the tendency to go more liberal than hardline. However i just feel that with many of the more important issues coming up i strongly suspect that the chuckle a day will soon be a thing of the past, hopefully anyway. If not a hardening then at least a return to pre-May speak.
The other thing i think the DUP has in it’s favour is that it knows exactly why it is in the position it has found itself in at the front of unionism – Trimble’s failure. Subsequently i think many of the more conscious MP’s and MLA’S Robinson, Dodds, Wilson, Campbell, McCrea etc will be doing their utmost to make sure that a softening of the DUP position is not portrayed and to put it into practice. This would then obviously go against the wishes of Jim&Co as well.
Whatever happens it will be a challenge for any new group and if actually challenged by the DUP too early could be found very wanting.
Aye Turgon, just doing a few night classes, starting with Goverment & Politics to see what I think. When I was younger I started an ISA with the idea of saving enough to put into a deposit for a house. Shy of a Lotto win thats not likely so I’m investing my cash in a little education and hopefully I can get into university eventually.
Pounder,
Totally off thread (I hope the moderators will allow it) and I hope in no way condescending. Elenwe (the wife if you do not know) went to Belfast tech (as was) as a mature student and then QUB. I can only admire and stand in awe of people who can go back to studying after a break.
“When McCartney stood, leaving aside any personality issues (and they probably were a big factor) many did not believe the DUP would enter the executive with SF.”
Indeed, the waters are muddied by the fact that the DUP, unlike SF, failed to face down the headbangers in advance of this year’s Assembly elections.
Now, the new grouping could use the DUP’s own logic against them. The 2001 General Election was the beginning of the end for the UUP, when the DUP stood candidates in non-safe Unionist seats for the first time, arguing that it was more important for unionist voters to have an anti-Agreement candidate to choose from, than to ensure that seats stayed in unionist hands. Thus several seats such as Fermanagh/South Tyrone went to Sinn Fein. The UUP blamed the DUP for splitting the Unionist vote but the DUP seemed to escape the blame.
In the next GE the DUP and UUP are talking about having a pact to help recapture seats such as FST, but surely by the DUP’s logic it is only right that this new anti-agreement unionist block puts up an alternative candidate, to give unionist voters a genuine choice, regardless of the risk to the prospects of a unionist winning the seat?
Bob McCarthy’s mistake was only standing in six constituencies, not eight. West Belfast and East Belfast unionists of an anti-Agreement persuasion didn’t have a candidate to vote for who reflected their views.
Leslie Cubitt, what a joke.
Ian, theres never been enough votes (since the gerrymandering to ensure SF success) to elect a unionist candidate in west belfast.
Interesting to note that the first ballymena councillor to quit the fold back before the election ie Davy Tweed, didn’t actually bother turning up to the meeting. He’s not totally stupid and has the virtue of being fairly popular in his area and well-known and liked throughout unionism and orangeism so if he didn’t bother I can’t see the dissies getting off the ground any time soon.
BTW JA has no chance as an independent- gets up too many noses and too many of the others fell out over personal gripes eg Mel Lucas, Jim Alexander, yer man in Castlereagh, Jack McKee et al are saddos. Also, rumour mill has it that several of those who jumped ship are regretting it and I also heard it was a certain reverend gentleman sending texts to councillors and that six-bob bit had gone to Australia. (hope he has a few quid on them winning world cup)
I find it interesting that the attacks regarding any new grouping can essentially be grouped into three types here.
Firstly nationalists / republicans who are in general tending to attack a new grouping because it is too hardline unionist. That is fair enough and predictable. One wonders though if they are concerned that a new grouping might do well.
Then there are the attacks from unionists about the realistic prospects of the party making headway. Again reasonable but again maybe there is a bit of concern in there.
Both of the above groups also mention the problem that a number of the personalities involved are seen as malcontents etc. Probaly not unreasonable (though a double negative probably is unreasonable).
The third group attack the potential leaders and say there is no support for them. That may be a rather naive position. I can remember similar sorts of comments both within and without Northern Ireland about our beloved first minister who now has been raised in some surprising quarters to the level of a secular saint.
I am sure I am completely wrong and am probably just another bone head and all those other insults but maybe just maybe.
Some of us attack this group because of its utter political irrelevancy and the hypocrisy demonstrated by its figurehead who was elected to office because and only because of his association with a political party, from which he has now resigned ubt nonethless continues to hold the office which he gained through that association.
Experience has shown that those who hate tend to offer support to others who hate through the internet and other means.
It is up to people of good chaacter not to do or say nothing – but to voice opposition.
I wonder,
Fair enough but to use your own terms surely one must be careful not to hate the haters?
Turgon
I choose my words carefully.
I am conscious of an unprecented (within my lifetime) consensus.
I am also conscious that Lord Faulkner is rotating..
I wonder,
I (usually) choose mine carefully as well. I would humbly submit that I try to avoid hate in my posts centrally because of the demands of my religious views.
I admit to becoming angry at times especially about the deaths of people in this country (I believe you will find no record of my pleasure at any death).
I do feel, however, that one can oppose the current political dispensation from a position characterised as a prodiban or whatever without hating others. One can oppose the current “consensus” as you put it without wishing to have violence. Sadly as I have stated elsewhere I doubt I, let alone my children, will live out their lives in peace in Northern Ireland whatever happens to your “consensus”. On that last point I hope to be wrong.
Turgon
Among others I have reassessed my view of your perspective and as a fellow Unionist, I have to express an interest in wishing to quell a Unionist perspective based in JA and Donaghacloney which is (thankfully) forever quelled by the democratic voice of my fellow Ulster men and women.
I have a young daughter, currently beyond the corruption of electoral politics. I pray (and I do) that those who haunted my childhood with their dreams of *all out war* against Catholics (and currently, Muslims) are beneath the ground, with their forefathers, when she comes to vote.