Friday, September 11, 2009
“But I don’t happen to believe in Unionism”
H/T to qubol for this. On a predictably heated thread on football eligibility from a few years back:
- IJP
Go join the UUP.
Posted by kensei on Oct 24, 2007 @ 11:28 PM
- Why would I join the UUP? Well, the North Down Westminster seat in due course? Or a walk-in for MEP? If I were in politics for the position, I’d have joined long ago. But I don’t happen to believe in Unionism Posted by IJP on Oct 25, 2007 @ 05:52 PM
Now skipping over my amazing ability to peg someone, the question is: given the Mark Devenport report indicating Ian Parsley as a prospective UCUNF Westminster candidate, is it position or fundamental beliefs IJP has down a u-turn on, or both?
Kensei @ 07:58 PM
Kensei: is it position or fundamental beliefs IJP has down a u-turn on, or both?
Or, with the formation of UCU, it is unionism that has changed.
And likewise there will be Alliance people joining SDLP/FF in due course too. With the Alliance vote falling since the end of the troubles, at some point the membership was going to start moving too.
Posted by on Sep 11, 2009 @ 09:50 PMHe’s obviously adapted to life in NI very well and taken that out of the “Sinn Fein is not the IRA” playbook.
Posted by on Sep 11, 2009 @ 10:00 PMReader
Or, with the formation of UCU, it is unionism that has changed
Hahahahahahahahahahahhahahaha.
Ha.
Posted by on Sep 11, 2009 @ 10:04 PMkensei,
As I say above, buried treasure. But Reader’s comments deserve a more sober response.
Posted by on Sep 11, 2009 @ 10:15 PMAs Tony Blair said at his own valedictory speech (Sedgefield):
“I don’t think Northern Ireland would have been changed unless Britain had changed”.
Posted by on Sep 11, 2009 @ 10:21 PMUnionism (as in being pro the UK) has not changed, the vehicle in which Northern Ireland promotes Unionism is the thing that is changing.
Mick - as I posted here during the European elections, I had a number of conversations with individuals who were catholic by religious choice and pro-union by political choice. They explained to me that they did not feel comfortable with any of the Unionist parties as they felt that these parties saw unionism as militant protestantism.
Since the European elections I have continued these conversations and there is a genuine interest amongst some of those I speak with to consider how they can engage with issue led as opposed to religion led Unionism in Northern Ireland.
As I also posted here I personally could not have joined the UUP if I did not believe there was a genuine desire to move from orange unionism to inclusive (UK) unionism.
Still early days, and many many hurdles still ahead, but I am just as confident that the project to produce mainstream, non-sectarian, pro-union politics in Northern Ireland is moving in the forward direction.
Posted by on Sep 11, 2009 @ 10:29 PMOr, with the formation of UCU, it is unionism that has changed.
Like fuck it has:
http://www.uup.org/news/general/general-news-archive/bbc-s-promotion-of-all-ireland-agenda.php
And likewise there will be Alliance people joining SDLP/FF in due course too
Yup, you are a unionist, proven by the fact that you know diddly squat about what is happening on the other side of the border. But for a brief primer: http://www.irishexaminer.com/home/ff-support-plummets-to-17-in-shock-poll-100086.html
Any chance that Fianna Fáil are going to have the time, energy or money to expand into the fourth green field any time soon has gone. Sure, Dermot Ahern will use it as a vehicle to say “I’d be a better leader than Biffo”, but that doesn’t mean it’s going to happen. Fianna Fáil TDs are not going to tolerate money being spent in the North when 30 or 40 of them are dead men walking.
There are huge internal issues within the SDLP; most SDLP supporters lean to the centre-left, and so do most Northern nationalists. Many SDLP members see their natural relationship as being with Labour rather than Fianna Fáil. That’s why Durkan dithered until the real prospect of a Fianna Fáil takeover disappeared a few years ago, and there’s no attraction for the SDLP in merging with a party that is seen as a shower of greedy, corrupt, gombeen men who wrecked the economy, and who aren’t actually polling any better than they are these days.
Wishful thinking abounds here.
Posted by on Sep 11, 2009 @ 11:31 PMI disagree with that analysis SM, I’ve reached a well-considered view that all politics here in NI is pretty much both together Conservative and Christian Democratic in style and action.
That includes the SDLP, very much so, save a few significant members, nevertheless they are still outdone by nationalism and toeing the Catholic line over abortion etc.
As much as I wish it weren’t so.
Posted by on Sep 11, 2009 @ 11:49 PMand toeing the Catholic line over abortion
and not toeing the Catholic line over gay civil partnerships?
Posted by on Sep 12, 2009 @ 12:11 AMWhere they in a position of responsbility at the time?
Statutory Rule 2005 No. 482
The Civil Partnership Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2005———————————————————————————————————————-
© Crown Copyright 2005
Next!
Posted by on Sep 12, 2009 @ 12:32 AM*were
Posted by on Sep 12, 2009 @ 12:33 AMSammy
NI is changing and you haven’t noticed. It is wishful thinking on your part to think it would stay the same.
Many in the Catholic community don’t have problem with the status quo, they see that they are now equal in all things and a UI solution is not high in their list of priorities. They are more concerned with what is happening in the economy, education and health within the UK context.
A friend of mine who is a businessman in West Belfast pointed out that there are entrepreneurial businessmen there who vote for SF but who would vote Conservative if they lived in GB. He suggested that if they felt their business interests were greater than their political ones that they would not have a problem in voting Conservative here and some he knew would not have a problem switching if they saw business policies that were in their interests.
That is the new reality.
Posted by on Sep 12, 2009 @ 03:10 AM“A friend of mine who is a businessman in West Belfast pointed out that there are entrepreneurial businessmen there who vote for SF but who would vote Conservative if they lived in GB. He suggested that if they felt their business interests were greater than their political ones that they would not have a problem in voting Conservative here and some he knew would not have a problem switching if they saw business policies that were in their interests.”
The mysterious catholic unionist strikes again. Who is this person?....why have our paths never crossed? Does he perhaps only exist in some unionist Narnia?
Posted by on Sep 12, 2009 @ 04:26 AMScrewUncleTom: Who is this person?....why have our paths never crossed?
Maybe they don’t want to talk to you. Can you imagine why?
Mind you, on this side of the fence there are Grumpy Abusive Sectarian Gits too, who prevent the Lundys from emerging for debate.
(Inappropriate Terminology used because I can see what I am dealing with…)
Posted by on Sep 12, 2009 @ 07:26 AMThe mysterious catholic unionist strikes again. Who is this person?....why have our paths never crossed? Does he perhaps only exist in some unionist Narnia?
Hardly, New Blue’s house is full of them. They meet there of a Friday night and have conversations and then… meet the following Friday and have… continued conversations. Maybe being as boring as sin has more of a correlation with unionism than religion.
As I say above, buried treasure. But Reader’s comments deserve a more sober response.
Hmmm…..why? In the 10 years since the ceasefire have we seen any evidence that the two unionist parties have moved at all? McNarry’s comments in the Newsletter are mindboggling, and this from the supposidly softer of the two. Its what we expect from RSF, not from a party that claim to be seeking more Catholic votes.
Ordinary ‘Unionist’ people on the street have grown no doubt, but their parties have not. Im with Ken on this, chuckling into my morning stirabout.
Posted by on Sep 12, 2009 @ 07:28 AMkensei: Hahahahahahahahahahahhahahaha.
Ha.
On your second line were you having second thoughts? Clearly there is a gap in the market, and there is someone trying to fill it.
More to the point, IJP is going to have to say just what I said, isn’t he?
Sammy Morse: Like fuck it has:
Do you want a purge? I think you will have to wait for another election or two. And over the past few months Alliance have been like a pack of attack dogs over the UCU. Clearly you recognise it as a turf war. The UCU is still a long way from being disciplined and PC, but at least there is a purpose to their existence.
Posted by on Sep 12, 2009 @ 07:36 AMIf I were a Unionist I would not trust the motives of the conservatives regarding NI and continuing the Union with Britain.
Unionists should be very careful that the conservatives are not using their pro Union stance in NI as a cover for making a deal with the SNP in Scotland. It will be a grand cover as to how important the Union is to them on the one hand and having to make a pragmatic deal with the SNP.
BEWARE CONSERVATIVES BEARING GIFTS.
Posted by on Sep 12, 2009 @ 07:43 AMIt actually makes perfect sense - Unionism back then was essentially “Protestant Nationalism”. The UCUNF project could be seen as a move away from that, towards playing a full role in the UK, given NI’s established status within it.
Having seen him on the campaign trail, I would certainly think that if he was representing NI at UK level, we’d be well represented.
Posted by on Sep 12, 2009 @ 07:55 AMNothing wrong with careerist politicians chasing a seat for a party that can actually govern. Better than wrapping some flag around them and trying to scare people.
What if the Westminster system is broken though?
Will he/she be interested in representing the public interest or in lobbying for some private company?
Posted by on Sep 12, 2009 @ 08:25 AM“A friend of mine who is a businessman in West Belfast pointed out that there are entrepreneurial businessmen there who vote for SF but who would vote Conservative if they lived in GB. He suggested that if they felt their business interests were greater than their political ones that they would not have a problem in voting Conservative here and some he knew would not have a problem switching if they saw business policies that were in their interests.”
I can’t see many NI Catholics/Nationalists ever voting Tory. If it’s the case then it would be a very, very small amount.
Posted by on Sep 12, 2009 @ 09:13 AMGOF
It seems that you move in circles that are very one dimensional, I talk to all sections of the community and there is no doubt that attitudes are changing.
Religion has no place in Conservative politics and Catholics appreciate that they are treated the same as all the other members. All the polling I have seen tells me 20-25% of Catholics are pro UK, so who else would they vote for?.
Posted by on Sep 12, 2009 @ 04:08 PMover the past few months Alliance have been like a pack of attack dogs over the UCU.
Just speaking personally, it’s mainly because I hate people talking out of both sides of their mouths. I have to listen to a lot of pious crap from UCUNF about how progressive and metrosexual they are and then Reg Empey says “No Fenian Justice Minister” and Slasher McNarry says “No GAA on British TV”. If you’re going to be a shower of hypocrites (and particularly sanctimonious hypocrites at that) don’t be surprised when people call time on your nonsense.
I think Reg Empey’s TUV-channelling, if-the-DUP-says-the-sky-is-blue-I-say-it’s-green game playing on justice is genuinely dangerous for this country and I see no sign that allegedly wiser heads in the Tory party are doing anything to contain it.
If the shit hits the fan here, and Stormont collapses in large part thanks to the actions of a Tory-aligned party, what legitimacy does a Tory direct rule Minister have in running the country in the eyes of close to half the population?
That is an extremely dangerous scenario for Northern Ireland. Do you actually think that naïve children like Driftwood are right and if that happens we’ll all suddenly realise we were as British as Finchley all along and skip merrily into a red, white and blue tinged sunset together?
Do learn to distinguish between the usual run of knockabout politics and serious warning.
Posted by on Sep 12, 2009 @ 10:17 PMYou should cut that post out SM and put it on the Alliance website as it makes sense and is aggressive and direct.
These are the vital things that Alliance has been lacking in over countless years.
However, that is the only real flaw with the UUP’s approach at the moment but it is quite a big one nonetheless. There is, I feel, potentially good kudos to be had from toppling Reg and using the Tory link-up to refashion a business friendly party, giving the likes of say Mark Cosgrove and Ian Parsley more prominence. Taking instead a more emollient line to policing and justice and devolution in general.
Reg is very discredited if you care much for history and David McNarry too is a liability. A few quiet words would solve it all simply but unionists always were ones of for losing their cool and cranking it up, unnecessarily at times.
Posted by on Sep 12, 2009 @ 11:12 PMMick
As I say above, buried treasure. But Reader’s comments deserve a more sober response.
O RLY? Last time I checked, it was up to the person making such assertions to prove their claims, not me
to disprove them. I think Sammy has adequately pointed out that there has been a lot of talk by Conservatives but basically zip nada nothing in terms of policy or action.Readers point may become true in the future. But it is not as yet, anything like it. But you seem to be accepting of a lower standard when it comes to CUMBLA
Posted by on Sep 13, 2009 @ 08:00 AMDo you want a purge?
If anybody around here is going to be doing any purging, it will be me.
I think you will have to wait for another election or two. And over the past few months Alliance have been like a pack of attack dogs over the UCU.
Speaking personally, the U-CUNF are trying to steal Alliance’s clothes and are attempting to make out that they are now all about building a “shared future”. I believe quite strongly that the U-CUNF project will fail, but it would be arrogant to dismiss it as an entirely unlikely threat, especially given that it has taken to hijacking Alliance policies, Alliance language and, most recently, an Alliance politician.
People need to understand that the UUP hasn’t changed. It’s still the crowd of bigots that it always was, with the Orange Order connection still firmly in place. Senior UUP members are being allowed to brief against powersharing and the devolution of policing and justice powers in spite of an apparent policy commitment to same. As SM pointed out, the Party Leader wrote to the media recently to say “no fenian justice minister”.
And it’s not only the UUP that have not changed. The Conservatives haven’t changed either. Despite Cameron moving quickly in both cases, we recently saw a senior shadow cabinet member describe the MP salary (itself, before expenses, several times the UK median wage and several times again the minimum wage) as “chickenfeed”, and the party leader in Europe getting together with the uber-right in the USA to attack our National Health Service. Despite Cameron’s Blairite style, the Conservative party is still the party of privilege, fat cats, and further enrichment for the already-rich.
I do not regard it as a credible threat to Alliance, but that applies only as long as Alliance can continue to get its message out. UCUNF is not about reconciliation, sharing, or change. It is about going over the heads of nationalists, and according to some of the UCUNF supporters here, it is about ending devolution and bringing power back to London where it will be exercised with all the effectiveness that it was between 1972 and 1998. It is about placing power and privilege into the hands of the few. It is about going over the heads of the expressed wishes of the Irish people North and South. We need to resist it.
Posted by on Sep 13, 2009 @ 12:03 PM
