United Unionist Force?
Sunday Times carry a story today about talk surrounding a possible merger between the UUP and DUP in order to fight next year’s Assembly election. Fears forcing this possible merger rest within the Ulster Unionists’ who are worried that they may not return any MP’s and therefore make them irrelevant come the Assembly election in 2011.
* No link but tried to upload scanned copy of article
Surely this would be a positive thing for Unionism? It’s just a pity that the UUP will not make any agreement regarding South Belfast this side of the election.
“the DUP stood aside in NOrth Down because there was a sitting Unionist MP.”
It was a “sitting Unionist MP” last time as well, the DUP still competed, why?
times have changed and the Unionist electorate want their politicians working together. Those who dont will pay a price
oneill,
I am talking about those elected in the here and now as opposed to those that might (and a very big might at that) be elected in the future I suggest that the vast majority of elected UUP members are also members of the OO which they join to ensure they get elected.
If I am overstating the case please be so good as to provide me with the actual figures? Would it fair to say that they are an acute embarassment to you – that is assuming you have a secular bone in your political body.
There seems to be a total failure here to understand the nature of the contest. Assembly elections are STV, with six seats per constituency. As some constituencies have four seats which are inevitably destined for Unionists, there is room for four flavours of Unionism.
It seems to me an inevitable rule of politics that political parties fragment to the furthest degree, plus one, that the electoral system will allow for. The plus one is because there is always some outfit which is on the brink of extinction, or possibly because not every constituency has the same ideas.
So expect that in constituencies where more than half the seats are currently held by Unionists, four flavours will emerge:-
Liberal Unionist (the Lady Sylvia brigade)
Conservative and Unionist
Democratic Unionist
Traditional Unionist
However in Westminster elections, the system does not admit of such fragmentation, so the tendency will be, in some constituencies at least, for the contest to be between straight Unionist and straight Nationalist.
Paddy Reilly: Liberal Unionist (the Lady Sylvia brigade)
Hardly liberal! At Westminster she voted for ID cards and 42 day detention. Lady Sylvia is more nu-lab Unionist.
The nearest we have to liberal unionism at the moment is UCUNF, though there’s certainly a bit of foot dragging.
”…….. for the contest to be between straight Unionist and straight Nationalist….. ” A bit discriminating there Paddy, where do Gay Unionists and Nationalists fit into the equation ?
Andrew
As I’ve said over on another thread, I am a South Belfast voter and won’t be voting for any communalist ‘unity’ candidate.
I was a UUP voter who finally got fed up circa 2007 and decided I was going to vote Conservative next time (even though they were highly unlikely to win any seats at any level). I was enthused by the Conservative and Unionist project but would be extremely annoyed by any withdrawal in my home constituency.
And I certainly won’t be voting for some sort of “pan-Prod” party in future. Essentially what this would achieve would be to lose people like me as voters at all.
As posts 5 & 6 indicate, a word can have more than one meaning.
UCUNF can hardly be Liberal, as it is aligned to the Conservative Party.
I assume that if either the Liberal or Conservative Party were in power, they would accede to police demands for ID cards and 42 day detention.
Justin Case
Meiow!!! I write to please me, no one else. Now be a good boy and let the grown ups debate.
“times have changed and the Unionist electorate want their politicians working together”
OK, Harry J, inform us what has changed between the last Westminster election and this one… fill us in with the reasons why the DUPes have done a runner this time from N Down?
MU
I am talking about those elected in the here and now as opposed to those that might (and a very big might at that) be elected in the future I suggest that the vast majority of elected UUP members are also members of the OO which they join to ensure they get elected
A party controlled by the OO has (by my reckoning) got 2 candidates out of a total of 18 belonging to the “loyal” orders.
Hmmm…I do hope that a fair % of that 18 have been selected in at least the vague hope of being elected, yet still they have restrained from joining the OO, what’s the MU take on that one?
oneill,
you are changing the point – I am talking about exisiting UUP elected officers not those without a fenian-in-the-Orange-Order-chance of getting elected.
Regarding your seperate point of those 18 who are seeking election the fact that they are mostly not sectarian enough probably explains why they will fail to be elected.
In most cases if you want to be an elected Unionist politician then you not only have to talk the talk during the election but you also have to walk the walk during the marching season.
Paddy
What is Liberal these days? Does anyone know what Clegg’s policies are? Does he? Has Miriam told him?
If I was a party I would be wary of hitching my wagon to the OO. Membership is plummeting as they die off. The vast majority now seem over 65 and it all downhill from here
“Regarding your seperate point of those 18 who are seeking election the fact that they are mostly not sectarian enough probably explains why they will fail to be elected.”
Nope, you’ve missed the point, under whose name in the election will those “not sectarian enough” be standing? Progress or not?
oneill,
I made the original point about elected officers of the UUP, you changed the point to that of those who would like to but probably wont be elected.
But on this seperate point I agree that it is progress and would not deny that there are some good secular UCUNF candidates who (presumably) do not want a loyal order about the place.
Does anyone know what Clegg’s policies are?
Not if they only read the Daily Express. May I refer you to their website.
The Liberal Party stands for reform of the voting system, so that Liberals will always be in power. Funny that doesn’t seem to be much different from Unionism, except that Unionists have already obtained the reform that keeps them in power.
The question remains, how would one describe the Sylvia Hermon brand of Unionism? It’s not Conservative, UCUNF have already bagged that label, Socialist or New Labour sounds a bit extreme for somewhere as well off as North Down. Is she resurrecting the NILP? Not quite. Liberal sounds better, a bit more middle of the road. Pro-agreement would also work, I think.
Yes but saying we always want to be in power isn’t really a policy. In the case of the Liberals its a wet dream
Its like their tax bombshell poster alleging the Tories will put up VAT. Vince Cable was asked, if he was Chancellor, might he put up VAT. Answer “Yes”
Cynic2 -
What is Liberal these days? Does anyone know what Clegg’s policies are?
I’m not sure the British Liberal party would get to define the term, at this stage probably the most abused political moniker.
http://fahayek.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46
dont get hung up on lables, the conservative (small c) party in Australia, and im sure several other countries is The Labour Party.