Saturday, April 19, 2008
Common interests
Peter Robinson has called for talks with the UUP about co-operation on issues such as voter turnout.
Fair Deal @ 08:36 PM
Come into my parlour said the spider to the fly….
Posted by on Apr 19, 2008 @ 10:51 PMRepublicanism is getting stronger because unionist turnout is reducing. Robinson must have been up all night thinking that motivational policy up.
Posted by on Apr 19, 2008 @ 11:02 PMThe reason the Nationalist/Republican vote is strong is they have choice. A voter can register dis-satisfaction with SF by switching to SDLP (or as we have seen the same in reverse). If the UUP and DUP come together they will remove choice and thus will encourage apathy (or even worse a vote outside Unionism). They best motivation is genuine choice. Unionism needs two parties representing the traditional right and liberal left. That way the fight is for the centre ground and voters can switch without leaving the Unionist ‘family’.
This call is potentially dangerous.Posted by on Apr 20, 2008 @ 06:45 AMRoinson is right if Unionism was United there could be up to ten extra Assembly seats and two westminster seats and dozens of council seats that could be won, the reality is that it would motivate people to come out and vote as it is what the people really would love to see happen!
Posted by on Apr 20, 2008 @ 07:20 AMCode for:
Lets not have an outbreak of real politics, with policies and such, for so long as the issue is protestant unity, the DUP trumps all.
So turn him down flat Reg and invite Lord Trimble to lob one in from the side.
Posted by on Apr 20, 2008 @ 07:44 AMtruth and justice
What utter nonsense. The DUP have no principles, no vision, and no longer term future. What exactly do they stand for now?Unity?
Not a great track record.Integrity?
Dodgy land deals, jobs for the boys and sordid backroom deals with the Shinners.Competence?
Where is the financial package, what happened to academic selection?The DUP are despised in the country.
Posted by on Apr 20, 2008 @ 07:54 AM“The DUP are despised in the country.”
You may be right, Smithsonian, I wouldn’t know about that. The problem is that they have been despised all the way into becoming the majority party in the Assembly. I bet the UUP wish that they could be just as despicable.
Posted by on Apr 20, 2008 @ 08:29 AMDavid
“If the UUP and DUP come together they will remove choice”
Where does he say anything about the removal of choice?
Aquifer
“the issue is protestant unity”
Who mentioned religion? Has nationalsim abandoned trying to get to 50%+1?
Posted by on Apr 20, 2008 @ 09:29 AMAlex Kane has written extensively on the matter of the fall off in unionist turnout and has argued in favour of the need for 2 mainstream unionist parties to reach out to and maximise the vote—-an issue he claims neither the DUP nor UUP has properly addressed.
I heard him on TV the other day saying that Robinson would begin with a year zero approach and blame Paisley for the difficulty in past over closer cooperation. He also said that Robinson would immediately reach out to the UUP—-but only as a strategy to make up for potential losses to DUP from TUV. In other words, a self-interested strategy rather than one based on long term benefits for unionism generally.
I’m not sure where Truth and Justice gets the figures for arguing that a united unionism would deliver 10 extra Assembly seats. The only way of pushing up the seats is for the UUP and DUP to begin to attract the large numbers of voters within the unionist community who choose not to vote.
Porlock
Posted by on Apr 20, 2008 @ 09:45 AMRobinson has always been interested in unity. Only his partners vary.
Posted by on Apr 20, 2008 @ 09:46 AMSmithonian
It is clear you are not a DUP fan so what but when it comes to Uniting Unionism then who ever does it gets my vote
Unfortunetly for you the fact is that an extra 1 Billion for the province came under the St Andrews Agrement the UUP never got a penny under the Belfast Agreement.
Acedemic Selection is hear to stay it was agreed under the St Andrews Agreement Sinn Fein can do nothing about it and they know it!
Posted by on Apr 20, 2008 @ 10:02 AMorlo
There should have been An extra five seats gained by Unionism if they had transferred at the last election between each otherA)North Down
B) Lagan Valley
C) South Antrim
D) South Belfast
E)Norht ANTRIMTHERE IS ALSO THE FACT THAT a 100,000 Unionist Voters do not bother to vote which would create a further five extra seats in
A) North Down
B) Strangford
c) Lagan Valley
D) East Antrim
E)West BelfastPosted by on Apr 20, 2008 @ 10:08 AMRich hearing from the DUP about Unionist Unity when their MLA’s are knifing each other in the back for their own parochial advantage as they set their stall out for when big Peter reduces the number of party fodder at the assembly watering hole. Academic selection can’t have been a big issue in the life of Truth and Justice!!
Posted by on Apr 20, 2008 @ 10:17 AMFD, Paisley wrecked Unionist unity; perhaps Robinson’s reaching out to Unionists will be as appealing as the Adams’ version.
“Direct Rule was Anglo-Irish rule and Direct Rule suited nationalism. Why would we want to go back to that? Devolution protects Unionism, it’s that simple. Thankfully the days of the London-Dublin axis giving in to Sinn Fein wish-lists are over. Sinn Fein now find themselves trapped inside a Unionist majority Assembly, with a Unionist majority executive. As a party we have always been to the forefront of standing up for Unionism. That is exactly what we are doing inside the Assembly and we will continue to do it.” .. Nelson McCausland
Nelson could note that the ‘axis of evil’ still rules over non-devolved matters such as policing and justice.
Mark McGregor’s Ballykeel image [post #10] of Robinson demonstrates his dark side where he was standing up for something else. According to the North Antrim Grapevine, it was Paisley who returned to put out the ‘real fire’ that was in danger of engulfing police officers’ homes in 1986.
We’ve seen what the DUP was doing inside the Assembly and out for a DUP business associate. Perhaps the acronym stands for the developers’ unionist party and their wish lists.
Should we be surprised if the DUP-SF ‘coalition’ continues to do ‘side-deals’ in advance of meetings of the Executive?
Posted by on Apr 20, 2008 @ 10:49 AMWell here is the proof that the DUP is now tacitly admitting that they have bled Unionism dry in terms of ideas as a result of backing it into a corner over the last 30 years.
Unionist turnout is down because unionists chartered a very ideology-limited campaign particularly over the last 10 years that resulted in blistering internal bickering within Unionism over arms and decommissioning.
The fact is that when you hammer a constituency into the ground for so long on very narrow political stances don’t be surprised if there’s no elasticity whenever trying to pull off into a new direction requiring more contemporary substance. Hence the need to tap into the remnants of any liberal unionist, or perhaps more progressive NI, thinkers and voters. They were visibly pulverised by the DUP’s now disproven rhetoric and they remain turned off - rightly so.
It feeds into Fair Deal’s analysis about narrative and the old never-never impinging on the ability of the DUP to hold any new ideas forward from within its own camp. I hardly see why the UUP should step aside in the face of a terrible and hurtful campaign against it. Rather it should round up the wagons for radical new thought given the vindication of that party’s stance taken at the right place at the right time.
Hume, whereas, wrote the Nationalists into Ireland and Europe, DUP-Unionism ground faces into the dirt of decommissioning and anti-SF stances. Look at the case now when both are overcome Unionism is stuck.
Turnout is down, yes, but the proof is that the hard stances over small issues have been harmful to Unionism itself.
Posted by on Apr 20, 2008 @ 10:53 AM“Unfortunetly for you the fact is that an extra 1 Billion for the province came under the St Andrews Agrement”
Truth and Justice please outline where this came from and what it has been spend on
Posted by on Apr 20, 2008 @ 10:58 AMWhat a great idea to even unite both of these parties of the right, leave the TUV for the loonies and extreme right. Then perhaps a party favouring the union could emerge that caters for the centre or even the slightly pinko liberal unionist. You know one that doesn’t have ‘Keep the Irish/Taigs out’ uber alles as it’s raison d’etre.
Pigs might fly.
Posted by on Apr 20, 2008 @ 11:03 AMDC, it was Hume who proclaimed the death of nationalism ....
Perhaps it should also be noted that the street politics of Hume and Paisley set the respective tribes at each other’s throats - and the 50%+1 thingy is likely to do it once again IMO.
Posted by on Apr 20, 2008 @ 11:06 AMHume may well have proclaimed that as such in his own terms but with growing interdependence and a Lisbon Treaty coming up you can hardly refute that there is something in what he was saying.
Re Paisley-Hume politics, you can hardly attribute the two in the same street setting. Paisley was a sectarian set-piecer, Hume was loathed for his insistence on dragging SF and Adams into democratic politics in order to take them off the street. That had its own confusing consequences as to the SDLP’s stance of constitutionality. Paisley and loyalism on the streets had very direct consequences.
Posted by on Apr 20, 2008 @ 11:18 AMIt makes more sense for the UUP to join up with the Conservatives and offer a proper alternative to the DUP. The UUP or the Conservatives will not succeed by themselves. But a Conservative & Unionist UK wide party consisting of people of all religions would be attractive to the electorate. But do the NI Conservatives and the UUP have the courage and leadership to make it happen?
Mark McGregor - “Robinson has always been interested in unity. Only his partners vary.”
I assume it is difficult to control who turns up to such protest events. You should know that given your record.
Posted by on Apr 20, 2008 @ 11:28 AMP&J;
The UUP or the Conservatives will not succeed by themselves.
I think the Conservatives are doing quite well in the UK as a whole without the UUP! :)
It’s actually a fair point, but there is the slight problem that both UU Ministers and its MP are known for, well, basically not being Tories…
Posted by on Apr 20, 2008 @ 12:00 PM>>Perhaps it should also be noted that the street politics of Hume and Paisley set the respective tribes at each other’s throats - and the 50%+1 thingy is likely to do it once again IMO.<<
Yep Nevin, good stuff, a re-working of the tired auld lie about one side being as bad as the other I believe, and just as ludicrous. The 50 plus 1 has been good enough up to now, as long as it suited Unionist hegemony so why would Nationalists consider changing it.
>>Hume was loathed for his insistence on dragging SF and Adams into democratic politics in order to take them off the street<<
Loathed by a small group of people DC, who have been proved time and again to be anything but democratic.
Posted by on Apr 20, 2008 @ 12:02 PMDavid
I’m not so convinced. It depends on whether TUV provides a genuine contender to “out-flank” the DUP. I could see a new, broad Unionism focused around the Robinson-Donaldson axis appealing to quite a lot of people in such a context - as it would remove the charges of ‘disunity’ or ‘incompetence’ while at the same time offering a (comparatively) progressive alternative to Allister and co.
Also, look around Queen’s University and youth politics genuinely and you’ll see more and more people who do not view their choice as confined to “Unionism” or “Nationalism”. I would say that, wouldn’t I, but that doesn’t mean it’s not true.
Posted by on Apr 20, 2008 @ 12:03 PMPE
why would Nationalists consider changing it?
Stability and prosperity, probably.
The increasingly wealthy “Nationalist” “middle-class” in NI isn’t going to risk the nice house and the Audi without good reason, frankly.
Posted by on Apr 20, 2008 @ 12:05 PMTruth & Justice
You are 100% right SMITHSONIAN does hate the DUP probably because he was thrown out by the party many years ago. Don’t they say the ones who got nowhere in a party are usually the most bitter. Smithsonian and the likes of Turgon and others who support TUV have nothing to offer the Unionist people of Northern Ireland never mind the population as a whole. I commend the leader designate for his suggestion and like you I know from speaking too many that they want Unionists to unite thus not allowing Republicans to have their way in Northern IrelandPosted by on Apr 20, 2008 @ 12:37 PM
