Unionist Pacts: the recriminations begin
As the likelihood of an agreed unionist candidate for both Fermangah South Tyrone and South Belfast recedes so the blame game seems to be beginning. Jim Allister has noted that the TUV can claim to be innocent in this argument. The DUP and CUs, however, are both in the process of getting their retaliation in first. The DUP of course are far from innocent in the past of the charge of being vote splitters. However, this time they do seem to have a bit more legitimacy in their complaints: unless that is of course one takes Trimble’s non sectarian claims seriously.
The problem of course is that stating things like: “We have said all along that we will not be joining with any party of a sectarian nature” could be seen to sit a little ill with one who made his political reputation tripping along the Garvaghy Road hand in hand with Dr. Paisley: the then leader of the party he is now describing as sectarian.
There is also another problem in Trimble’s comments, he went on to say: “we will be fighting every seat in the UK, and the Province will be no exception.” Whilst that is sort of true it is only sort of true as Norman Tebbit has pointed out on the BBC’s Politics Show (reproduced here on Conservative Home): “Mr Bercow is not a Conservative candidate. He is an independent candidate. And it’s, in my view, not the business of the Conservative Party to support independent candidates. He did cast himself in my mould, indeed. But he has been reworked in recent years. But I don’t think he would really be able to describe himself as a Conservative any more, even if he were not the Speaker.”
Reg Empey’s response was a little less inflammatory: “DUP have nine out of 10 seats and one wonders how many more they want. It was they who gave South Belfast and Fermanagh-South Tyrone to the nationalists and they should return them to us, the new coalition.” Again, however, that form of words ignores the reality that seats are not in the specific gift of a political party and further that in both Fermanagh South Tyrone and South Belfast the sitting MP was retiring at the election where the seats fell to nationalists. In addition the DUP heavily out polled the UUP in South Belfast at the election when the seat was lost and it is far from clear which candidate the out going MP would have felt was his natural political heir.
In Fermanagh South Tyrone it is alleged that Norman Baxter was willing to run as a unity candidate but it was the CU’s insistence that he take the Tory whip which resulted in him withdrawing from the fray. Going back to Buckingham: it is abundantly clear that the MP the Tories are backing will not be taking their whip.
Somehow, however, honouring an age old tradition of not standing against the speaker and, hence, depriving the Buckingham constituents of the option of voting for a Conservative member of parliament, potential government minister etc. etc. is acceptable. However, having an agreed candidate to stop the election of an MP who refuses to take her seat and is an open supporter of the IRA’s campaign of murder, nowhere more brutal, sectarian or indiscriminate than in Fermanagh; is sectarian.
Is’nt it the Orange Order that decides what all the Unionist parties do.
The rest is mere window dressing.
turgon how many MPs will TUV get or is it you just want to help nationalists get elected.?
would not matter if there is an agreed unionist canidate or not,sinn fein will walk it.
Empey:
“DUP have nine out of 10 seats and one wonders how many more they want. It was they who gave South Belfast and Fermanagh-South Tyrone to the nationalists and they should return them to us, the new coalition.”
Jesus wept. The man’s an absolute embarassment.
I hope there is at least three Unionist candidates per seat and there is first past the post voting (not the proposed Australian one. That would change everything).
Dont worry guys, the Conservatives & Unionist are going to win both seats without the need for any deals, just me, honestly!!!
I wish they would also stand against John “Ow What a Brec”, makes the former speaker look like a proper statesman, only reason the Labour MPs put him in was so that he would cause the Tories Hell when the got into power, shows how “contrite” they were over there expenses.
It’s tradition to let the speaker have a free run, the CU’s would be laughed at if they did run. This has nothing to do with FST. It would probably do them damage in England where their priorities are. It would be quite an own goal. FST on the other hand will not have the slightest impact in England and as such, why should they care? It is all about winning.
In the context of “first-past-the-post” [FPTP] Westminster elections, the following is somewhat off topic. Apologies, then, in advance. But it leads me to an on-topic conclusion.
Yesterday, the Irish Times regaled us with Garret Fitzgerald’s regular prescription to reform the voting system in his own image. Let’s pass over that, except for one comment:
Now, of course, that is the generality of what NI politics is about. The ratio of unionists and nationalists shifts only marginally: the make-up of each faction has changed considerably — crudely, SF has displaced SDLP and DUP has evicted UUP over years.
With PR in local and Assembly elections there remains scope for the junior party on each side of the divide to have an after-life, even a share of the spoils. Not so in the Westminster elections. It suddenly becomes all or nothing.
As long as FPTP survives (not long, I would hope), this will persist. Clearly, the party bigwigs cannot manage things (it was ever thus). That means the only way to sort out DUP/UUP (and even SF/SDLP) faction-fighting is by some form of primary.
Now, what about open primaries? They seem to work in seventeen of the United States.
OK: I dream the impossible dream.
Malcolm:
I have heard that Great Britain is thinking of adopting the Australian system of preferential voting (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_voting)
If this were adopted in NI it won’t matter to SF how many Unionists vie for a seat as it is unlikely a Unionist voter will give his/her second preference to SF. A Unionist voter will win if there are overall more Unionist votes than SF’s.
Yes, I think it is an impossible dream about open primaries. I have my doubts about that system, especially the US model and how it managed to elect Obama.
Sorry, should be “A Unionist candidate will win if there are overall more Unionist votes than for SF.”
If unionist pacts start forming, then you will get nationalist pacts forming. Soon you will just have one big unionist party and one big nationalist party and how is that an healthy democracy??
We have got to get away from the green and orange to the red, blue and yellow or else the union with Britain will always be weak at best.
Garza: what does the yellow represent?
Orange = Orange Order
Red White & Blue = UK
Green White & Gold = Eire
weak is no good garza gone is a better term.
TellMeMa
orange = unionism
green = nationalism
red = socialism
blue = conservatism
yellow = liberalism
Oh I don’t think so Michael, not for a good wee while yet. Depends on what road NI goes down, NI is at a crossroads right now.
Garza: I think the orange and the green will be tussling with each other for the foreseeable future.
I mean, how many Unionist parties have selected a Catholic candidate? How many Protestants are in SF/SDLP?
we were at the crossroads in 1996 garza, its now 2010.
Funny old me. I was always silly enough to believe that in elections you try to get your candidate elected, not just try to stop someone else getting chosen.
I do understand that in “normal” places, people often vote against the Party in power but there is a clear difference.
I also believe that an elected candidate is dishonest and cheating the electorate by not representing them through taking their seat.
Yet, as someone said, the people have spoken, the bastards.
Garza @ 06:56 PM:
The cynic might say: exactly where we’ve been stuck this last century.
The pessimist (myself, much of the time), would agree with your appreciation of a never-ending dystopia.
The optimist (myself, after the third full glass) might think: Yeah! Good Start!
Sooner or later, the main parties have got to offer “added-value” beyond denominational purity (they may even, by default, — thank you, Iris! — be getting there). That “added-value” amounts to social policies (employment, housing, education, environment, transport …) which have wider appeal. That need to sell, to find a “unique selling point”, was a small glimmer of hope in my mad, Quixotic “primaries” notion.
Alternatively, we are stuck in a time-warp …
As I see it, the basic problem with UCUNF was they could not manage to sell an intellectual leap and wider outreach: the result, perhaps not wholly fairly, was “Same old. Same old.” Missed opportunity: definitely. Particularly so, because if there was going to be an opening to the middle ground, among unionists, it was more likely to come from the UUP. Cameron squelched that one.
Similarly, quite where SF is going, apart from offering pork-barrel politics to its faithful, is beyond me. It certainly isn’t left-of-centre democracy (though the movement contains leftists and even the odd democrat).
Anyway, sad but true, it’s batten down the hatches for the next couple of months. Then, perhaps, fresh thoughts may be possible.
Waiter! Waiter! Another bottle, if you will!
Wondering why people are so bothered by talk of pacts, alliances etc.. Surely such things demonstrate that politics is alive and well? Would anyone here benefit from 2 permanent parties…one unionist and one nationalist?
Facts matter when allagations are made, so it is important to state in defence of David Trimble that he did not in fact “trip hand in hand down the Garvagh Road with Paisley”. It was a side road of the Garvagh Road and was should be seen in the context of a leadership race within the UU at that time. That is not to excuse the UU’s pathetic attempt to make themselves relevant by hooking up with the Tories. The old addage “if it has legs it will walk” is best kept in mind at times like this. Unfortunatly for the UU’s they seem to think that fielding Political lightweights like Mike Nesbitt will enhance their chances. One wonders will Mike be a challanger fo Reg’s job after he is forced to resign because of leading his troops to the slaughter? Either way the UU are washed up and out of ideas when they are forced to hang onto the shirt-tails of the Tories. They didn’t consult their base on the “big idea” and now they are going to pay. It’s sad to say but the UU are now seen as Sectarian as the DUP, they had a chance to be bold and brave and step into a new political demension but reverted to type. A curse on all their houses.
Los Lobos
Are you suggesting Nesbitt is going to win as that would be the only platform from which he could threaten Empy as leader? Thats a brave forecast!
Los Lobos,
I apologize in advance but I am suggesting an amendment to your post:
..UU are now seen to continue to be as Sectarian as the DUP..
It was a side road of the Garvagh Road and was should be seen in the context of a leadership race within the UU at that time.
What difference does the context make ?
So Elliott is once again Empey’s dog in a manger candidate in FST. How many times does Foster have to wipe the floor with him before he realises it isn’t UUP territory anymore? The UUP will never forgive the DUP for stealing their “birthright” to lead unionism, and the tories don’t care either as the more abstentionist SF MP’s there are the easier it will be to get a majority.
Turgon on CUs “having an agreed candidate to stop the election of an MP who refuses to take her seat and is an open supporter of the IRA’s campaign of murder (nowhere more brutal, sectarian or indiscriminate than in Fermanagh) is sectarian.”
Trimble played the people when he needed to in order to become leader. I don’t understand why the CUs have picked his wife to stand?
The Provisional Sinn Fein IRA gang murdered members of the Conservative Party. Having an agreed candidate to stop SF candidates is not sectarian. The CUs are not dealing with an ordinary political party when it comes to SF. The people of FST deserve representation. It’s still not too late for common sense to prevail and for a more high profile Unionist candidate to stand who can defeat SF.
abc123,
I take it you don’t think too highly of the idea of trying to get away from sectarian politics, on both sides.
While I understand the frustration, even ire, of people in F&ST; not having a working MP, it would be depressing to see one Nationalist/Republican candidate versus a one Unionist/DUP one.
abc123,
Just in case you did not realise: I was being ironic. Of course I do not think it is sectarian to try to stop Gildernew. Trimble, however, now seems to be trying to imply it is and in view of his previous views and indeed support for pacts in 1997 that is rank hypocrisy.
This is aggravated even further when the Conservative party claim to be so obsessed with standing everywhere on principle supposedly to give people a chance to vote Conservative. Then they follow an arcane tradition and fail to stand in the speaker’s constituency and somehow that is also principle.
For what it is worth I think it is fine if they want to stand aside in Buckingham and they should definitely stand aside in FST as it gives some chance of removing a non-MP who does not attend yet takes expenses; has suggested that people should not go to the police over criminality; glorifies sectarian murderers and has suggested that a future generation of republicans might “have to” go back to violence.
abc123 says sinn fein are not the normal politacal party,waken up,both the unionist partys are in goverment with sinn fein,what can be more normal.
Giving the speakers’ job to Bercow was a parting shot from Labour at the incoming administration.
I’d like to see Nigel Farage win that seat for the hell of it.
The DUP have never been interested in anything other than being the ‘top’ Unionist party in NI, going right back to O’Neill.
Mainland politics is beyond the vision of a parochial party that believes the Earth is 6,000 years old.
That’s why SF love them and see them as partners in a’staging post’ British withdrawal.
No difference between voting DUP or their SF allies. Both are wasted votes at our Mother parliament.
It appears this election the DUP instead of actually talking about international and national policies as should be in Westminister elections that would rather cry about pacts.
“No difference between voting DUP or their SF allies. Both are wasted votes at our Mother parliament.”
While the UUP are wasted votes at most elections?
And the funny thing about that non-MP…only happens to get the largest share of the votes last couple of elections. Damn democracy.
From Turgon:
Trimble, however, now seems to be trying to imply it is and in view of his previous views and indeed support for pacts in 1997 that is rank hypocrisy.
From Nicholas Whyte’s Ark page on the 1997 general election
Only the SDLP and Natural Law Party had candidates in all 18 seats. Alliance and Sinn Fein had 17 each (missing West Belfast and North Down respectively, in an odd sort of symmetry), and the Ulster Unionists 16 (they asked their supporters to vote DUP in Foyle and Mid Ulster). The DUP themselves had nine candidates, and the Workers Party and Conservatives eight each. The PUP and Women’s Coalition both ran three candidates, and the UKUP only one – but he won
Ammendment accepted joeCanuck with thanks. The debate on this thread is interestining in that “pacts” seem to be high on the agenda. There is one pact that hasn’t been mentioned however and it is one that would work very well in FST and indeed many other areas where the majority of voters are middle ground moderates. I refer to a pact between the SDLP and the UU’s. I know it is possibly a little late in the day at this stage, but if we as a society really wish to see Sectarianism nipped at the bud we must start somewhere. Tactical voting by both Parties could make all the difference if they dispensed with the negitive infighting within their respective ism’s by trying to look tougher than the big two. The next move would be to inform the public that they would be constructing a solid opposition at Stormont after the next assembly elections as the farce of a mandatory coalition actually weakens democracy (this could also get the UU’s off the Tory hook they have impaled themselves on as well as rejuvnating the SDLP.
We get who we vote for, why should we not be allowed to vote for an oppositon option as opposed to everybody (Alliance) now included, for Government. Think about it, out of the 106 MLA’s, 103 are effectly on the Governments side! This leaves 1 Green, 1 PUP and 1 independent for an oppositon. And this is what we are exporting around the world as an answer to problem solving in areas where democracy is under pressure! The SDLP and UU didn’t (as many in their Parties think) have their clothes stolen, they were freely given away. In one fell swoop they could have the whole wardrobe back if they had the balls to see beyond the narrow margins of the next election.
I predict FST will see one candidate running. Foster can’t win it so the logical choice would be Elliott.
The DUP’s integrity will be seen at this election
To be honest, the DUP would probably get a really good PR victory out of “being the bigger man” and standing down.
Los Lobos,
I suggested a pact between the SDLP and the UUP across the whole province a couple of times in the past month. Not a single person responded (maybe Nevin did).
Los Lobos,
Although I am not exactly a middle ground voter, I can see a logic to your idea and if it could fly it might help Northern Ireland move towards “normality” whatever that is.
However, such concepts of a centre ground pact would vanish into absolute nothingness out here in the Dreary Steeples. I am not trying to be insulting but if you really think such an idea would work in Fermanagh you have absolutely no understanding of this part of the world; the naivety of that suggestion here is extremely touching. I am sure that any Fermanagh people you know would tell you how moderate they are. However, that is because of the way the world works down here. Everyone says how moderate they are in mixed company, even how they do not vote: then come election time everyone votes, the graveyards included.
The DUP will stand aside in FST.
They have nothing to loose and everything to gain by so doing.
Even if the UUP/CONs win it will be a pyrrhic victory and one that will further boost the DUP in the eyes of those 63% of the Unionist electorate who wanted a Unionist unity candidate in the first place.
Knight takes pawn, Queen takes knight.
Turgon
Take your point and broadly agree. No UU/SDLP alliance is likely. But when you think about it Elliot and McKinney are not idealogically (forgetting the constitutional issue) that far apart. A working relationship at Stormont might be very interesting?
alan56,
The United Kingdom/United Ireland question, like it or not, is the primary issue in Northern Ireland. To quote James Clarence Mangan, “the Erne (has) run red with redundance of blood” on the subject.
The UUP and the SDLP stand on opposite sides of that divide.
I ‘hear’ what you are saying but I defer to Turgon’s earlier advice on the point.
Niccolo
But on everyday issues surely it would not be impossible. SNP and Welsh Nationalists work with non-nationalists if not formally a lot of the time
Niccolo,
They may be wise to stand aside but it is not quite as simple as that.
For DUP standing:
If the CUs come out of this election with very few seats (2 or less) then the whole CU project has stalled and the decline in the UUP will most likely continue whatever of the Conservative link. Hence, if the DUP stand they can effectively guarantee that the CUs will not take the seat and that has some longer term advantages for them. However, if Tom Elliott takes the seat people will soon forget that he did so by the DUP standing aside and since the CUs so denounce pacts they will dismiss the relevance of it to getting Tom Elliott elected and claim it a great triumph for the CUs rather than unionism overall.
For DUP not standing:
The electorate may be impressed and help them elsewhere. In addition there is a significant chance that Arlene Foster will do significantly less well than last time as compared to Tom Elliott. Whilst Enniskillen town and Lisbellaw have remained fairly loyal to the DUP (as judged by Foster’s by election performance), the suggestions are that Ballinamallard and Kesh in North east Fermanagh have defected to the TUV and, hence, might vote for Tom (who has a fairly hard line profile) in part to annoy the DUP. The same dynamic may well affect Erne East and Erne West (South east and all of West Fermanagh respectively) though they have small unionist populations. In addition the unionist parts of the Clogher Valley and around Dungannon may no longer be safe for the DUP.
Hence, standing aside might be a pragmatic mechanism to avoid damage to the DUP here prior to the assembly elections.
The final issue which I mentioned in a previous blog is that if there is a unity candidate there is a high chance that many nationalists will move to SF in order to stop the unity candidate. Then although the SDLP are standing it could become a simple head count battle like when the SDLP failed to stand in 1981 against Bobby Sands and then Owen Carron.
Niccolo
many, many people of a Unionist outlook will never vote for the DUP ever again. A lot of UU voters went over in the last few elections as a buffer against SF. That buffer has gone. Pete and Marty are good mates.
The unionist vote will split. I’ve no idea how that will work out at the election, but I can guarantee there is no such thing as unionist unity.
Some Unionists think Evolution is true and the age of our planet is more than 6,000 years. They tend to be educated and not vote for a loony religious cult. Most do not vote unfortunately, which is why the DUP exists and does well in elections. Willie McCrea and Paisley Jnr are an embarrassment.
Some DUP politicians are above average, Arlene and Sammy. the rest are at best mediocre. The double/triple jobbing is pathetic.
Sorry to finish the comment above:
It depends on what you feel the DUP should be aiming for at this time: the good of unionism or the good of the DUP. I often fear that the DUP (and all other unionist parties) see advantage for their own party as synonymous with advantage for unionism: a sort of we are the only proper unionists so we need to be strongest.
If I were a DUP strategist I am afraid at this election I would advise running my favourite battleship (again Arlene if you are reading it is a compliment, as I told you last time we met) in order to stop any CU advance as this is the important election for the DUP to cut off the CUs. Some other time a pact might be good but since the CUs seem to have demanded impossible things of Norman Baxter to accept him as a unity candidate (essentially becoming a Tory) I think they can ride out the charge of vote splitting.
I appreciate that if I am correct Arlene may lose some support to Tom compared to last time. However, much as I hate putting HMS Warspite in harm’s way: I would have overall strategy to consider. Also she always comes through and does the damage to our opponents. Sorry to be cynical and Machiavellian but if I were a DUP strategist, I would run Arlene and blame the CUs for not accepting a unity candidate.
Driftwood & Turgon,
The 3 options on the Unionist table are:
1. DUP
2. UUP/CON
3. TUV
If the Union means anything to you, and hold your nose if you have to first, but tell me hand on heart which of these is the best and most realistic option for maintaining the Union and moving forward.
Please, no wishy-washy ‘half pregnant’ answers.
There was talk years ago of the Unionists & SDLP all falling in behind a candidate (someone like Michael Gallagher) to run against Doherty in West Tyrone.
Turgon has this right the whole issue of a unity candidate falls down when it is considered that the other side could do the same, If we only had two standing one irish nationlist one british unionist every election would be a mini border poll, the tension in the lead up to election day would not be good, As for an sdlp/uup link up it would need to start up not as an election deal but as them working together in the assembly (when there positions improve)as a defacto opposition, They are poles apart one linked to the right (cons) and the other the left (labor)so it is a long shot.
The new dynamic of Feargal running for sdlp could be interesting in FST
Conservative and Unionist.
No contest.
‘Ulster’ nationalism – DUP – is backwater politics, and plays in to SF agenda.
National politics is paramount. Chancellor, Foreign policy, defence etc.
Lireally, Westminster Rules OK
Turgon the Dreary Steeples seem to have seeped into your pen. I, like yourself know this country well, I work there every day. I also know the electoral trends of the same area and have watched with great interest the rise of SF who it has to be said provide a really poor service to the area, even at Council level. What I don’t know is how a younger generation will see things as time moves on. A vote for SF is a vote for the DUP, it can’t be said any clearer than that. So why not counter that with the SDLP and UU’s forging some sort of relationship. My naivety may be really touching, I have often heard worse said about me but if it is naive to dare think that things can’t change for the better, then i admit guilt to that charge as I believe the current system is not set in concrete and is in fact built on sand. I don’t know what will replace it when it falls but it couldn’t be much worse than the dishonest, Sectarian hoods that run the place at the moment. Time the dreary steeples got a hose down with some thinking out of the box.