Friday, September 07, 2007
DUP seeks talks with the UUP
The DUP have written to the UUP seeking wide-ranging talks to “maximise the Unionist vote at future elections” and UUP leader Sir Reg Empey is considering it. While Westminster seats, and talk of early elections is probably most prevalent in minds, the impression is the talks will be more wide-ranging. In a interview Peter Robinson mentioned the Assembly election results:
“The Assembly election results demonstrated that greater co-operation between unionist candidates could have increased the total number of unionists returned to the Assembly”
In Westminster terms there are two clear target seats for Unionism, South Belfast and Fermanagh and South Tyrone. Another potential target is South Down, where the nationalist split gives a sole Unionist candidate an outside chance under first past the post a la West Tyrone in 1997, (at the Assembly elections the combined Unionist percentage was 32% compared with 31% for the SDLP and SF respectively in South Down) . The YU’s website have recently been discussing the issue of pacts even if one has remarkably high expectations of UUP future performance.
In Assembly terms, greater co-operation could regain a number of seats in key ‘East of the Bann’ constituencies and maintain the existing levels of representation in ‘West of the Bann’ plus maximise representation in the new council structures. A pact for European elections would also secure the second European seat.
Other potenital issues of common concern could be voter registration, turnout for all elections and vote/transfer management in the PR elections.
Fair Deal @ 06:33 PM
The DUP will take FST and South Belfast, the UUP have have South Down
sounds fair
Posted by on Sep 07, 2007 @ 08:32 PMUnionism and base sectarian politics, now who would have thought it!
Posted by on Sep 07, 2007 @ 08:38 PMMy first reaction is to tell DUP to get lost.
Some years ago UUP tried to come to an arrangement to maximise the Unionist vote but DUP did not play ball.
Their objective was to destroy all unionist parties and be “king of the castle”
They now know the UUP will always be there to keep an eye on them and hold them to account.
If they want an accommodation a high price will have to be paid.
Advice to UUP———don’t rush into negotiations as most unionists will not support Paisley. Wait until he goes or is pushed( some hope)Posted by on Sep 07, 2007 @ 08:41 PMAdvice to UUP———don’t rush into negotiations as most unionists will not support Paisley. Wait until he goes or is pushed( some hope) -
I think you will find most Unionists do support paisley if you look at previous EURO, Westminster, Local and Assembly electionsPosted by on Sep 07, 2007 @ 08:50 PMWas in Belfast today and upon coming closer to the City Hall heard what sounded like political rhetoric, but from the tones the language was indistinct although it could well have been Goering giving out his death knell verbals to the putative soviet scoundrel who burnt down the Reichstag such was the wavering and accentuations emanating from a familiar sounding delivery.
But as I got closer, the oratory was from Dr Paisley preaching a sermon but the way it was delivered was still a timely reminder that he remains one of Northern Ireland’s best orators, second to none for having the impact to move the crowd even at his ripe old age.
While I moved past City Hall into shops it was clear that he still has the ability to send a shiver down the spines of people.
I’ll be glad to see him go as when he goes an opportunity for a step change in unionist and indeed N Irish politics will occur.
Posted by on Sep 07, 2007 @ 08:54 PM????
The support to which you refer can easily be lost because of his attitude to the present power sharing arrangement.
I am in favour of GFA even though Paisley sat outside the door during negotiations and then condemned the outcome.
He attacked Trimble and then when he obtained power did exactly what Trimble did and more.Posted by on Sep 07, 2007 @ 09:00 PM“He attacked Trimble and then when he obtained power did exactly what Trimble did and more.”
Very true, oh so hard to take for us all who can clearly see that. But the thing is no-one gives a shit. Welcome to the Alliance political zone, where so many good things count for nothing when voters opt for not giving two hoots for common sense and clear direction leading to a specific purpose.
Posted by on Sep 07, 2007 @ 09:05 PMUnionism needs to come together and do a deal for elections lets put the past behind us and maximize the pro union vote.
Posted by on Sep 07, 2007 @ 09:17 PMqui cum canibus concumbunt cum pulicibus surgent
Posted by on Sep 07, 2007 @ 09:21 PMWhere was the coming together 10 years ago T&J. Eh?
The PSNI is still the PSNI, jailbirds freed, North Southery and whataboutery still all strong.
Nah, better to burn out than to fade away.
Posted by on Sep 07, 2007 @ 09:23 PMConfused
No-one should be more aware than the UUP how quickly electoral support can be lost when trust is breached but once agin the UUP’s supporters rewrite history - the DUP did not abandon the UUP the UUP stepped out of line with the other unionist parties and is now reaping what it sowed. As for post 3 wasn’t it the UUP who failed to come to the table in 2005 and arguably cost unionism 2 seats?
Posted by on Sep 07, 2007 @ 09:46 PMYeah, the letter sounds all well and good but why was it a letter through the media and not a personal letter to Reg. This may seem fair but be foul - while a unionist pact is of course what should happen I have a bad feeling about how negotiations have been opened, its feels at present like Robbo will try to shaft Reg.
Posted by on Sep 07, 2007 @ 09:54 PMThere is a lot of disullusioned Unionist voters out there, we need a new party to represent our views, the UUP/DUP are a mirror image of each other.
Posted by on Sep 07, 2007 @ 10:09 PMDC:
I’ll be glad to see him go as when he goes an opportunity for a step change in unionist and indeed N Irish politics will occur.
I don’t understand why people think that we will enter some kind of bright new dawn whenever Paisley dies.
When the old man goes, all the people who voted for him and endorsed his politics will still be there.
With respect to this move from the DUP, I think they are trying to do what Gordon Brown is doing to the Conservatives, which is to mortally wound them by appearing friendly to them. They are trying to strengthen themselves by appearing to be conciliatory and constructive - this will make the UUP look even more dwadling and indecisive than normal. Like the Conservatives, this move will divide and confound the UUP. On one hand, “constructive” UUPers will jump at the chance for some scraps off the Doc’s table in the name of maximising the unionist vote. On the other hand, the UUPers who watched Paisley smash their party into oblivion will be disgusted at the proposal of an alliance.
Posted by on Sep 07, 2007 @ 10:11 PMUr prob almost right Comrade - this offer will amount to “you take north down, we’ll take everywhere else”, and when the uup say no the dup will run around saying ho unreasonable reg is.
Posted by on Sep 07, 2007 @ 10:13 PMThe problem with such pacts is that the Nationalist electorate is not likely to be amused with such base manipulations of democracy and will heavily back whichever party is most likely to win. You could likely prevent a Nationalist coming through the middle in South Belfast, but Nationalists have 53% of the vote to Unionism’s 46%, and you are begging to up even the high turnout even here. And if Unionism tried it and didn’t manage it, it’d be a huge psychological blow.
As unlikely as I view that one, if you are even thinking South Down you are on more drugs than my mate got through at the Electric Picnic. The Nationalist vote was 69% at the last general election. Unionism had 28%. That’d be some split, there.
Posted by on Sep 07, 2007 @ 10:20 PMShould be 54% to 46% in FST
Posted by on Sep 07, 2007 @ 10:22 PMSo the grand strategy for increasing the number of unionist seats is to hope for a Nationalist split vote so they can sneak through the middle?
Shouldn’t they be, you know, selling the benefits of the union to first time voters etc?
Posted by on Sep 07, 2007 @ 10:59 PMFor the DUP it’s about power and not the pro-union vote. It is about winning 2 of the seats this time, then squashing the UUP completely and winning all 3 seats in the next election.
Posted by on Sep 08, 2007 @ 12:29 AMFor Goodness sake people. Reg would be mad not to take any offer that includes either South Belfast or FST in it. By taking it he would automatically gurantee 1 seat for the UUP, which if polls are to be believed wouldn’t be a bad result.
Posted by on Sep 08, 2007 @ 03:36 AMThe UUP would be crazy to even consider touching this with the proverbial bargepole. They would be consigning themselves to political oblivion.
Here’s the thing: A lot of people, some to be found here, believe that the result of the next assembly election is a foregone conclusion. It ain’t necessarily so!
The current assembly, notwithstanding all the smiles, has not yet had to face any hard decisions. Once “religious” and sexuality issues raise their head at Stormont, and they will (it’s started already), some ugly words are going to be pronounced. It may very well be that some “unionists”, who swapped their votes from the UUP to the DUP last time around, may, indeed will, have second thoughts.
I don’t think that SF are assured of being top dogs on the “other” side either.
So look before you leap and all that.Posted by on Sep 08, 2007 @ 07:41 AMAre the DUP afraid of offering the unionist voters of these constituencies a choice? If I were a unionist, I’d certainly like to think I’d have a choice between the DUP and UUP. There’s also the problem that hardened supporters of each of the two parties may not be able to bring themselves to vote for ‘the other one’ if they are placed in such a quandary.
Posted by on Sep 08, 2007 @ 07:41 AM“The problem with such pacts is that the Nationalist electorate is not likely to be amused with such base manipulations of democracy and will heavily back whichever party is most likely to win.”
Indeed and thus to me it seems that if Robinson and co were really serious about this, they would be discussing it quietly behind the scenes instead of conductions negotiations through the media.
The DUPs are not looking very sincere at the min.
However in terms of base manipulations of the electorate - does anyone remember the shinners terrorising the sdlp until they stood down they candidate in fermanagh south tyrone to let bobby sands have a chance?
Posted by on Sep 08, 2007 @ 07:48 AM“I don’t understand why people think that we will enter some kind of bright new dawn whenever Paisley dies.”
Because the man has powerful rhetoric that involves combining biblical talk with political purpose thus misleading people into thinking he is something devine and inspirational, whenever he exploited the essence of Christianity by mixing it with democratic unionism.
People couldn’t differeniate at times because they believed Paisley’s word was as good as God’s but today we hear that he resigning his head role of the Presbyterian Church over the ability to produce man-made laws. Power over principle.
People of Ulster you have been conned; the Big-man has played a blinder.
You stupid suckers.
Posted by on Sep 08, 2007 @ 07:55 AMkensei:
The problem with such pacts is that the Nationalist electorate is not likely to be amused with such base manipulations of democracy and will heavily back whichever party is most likely to win.
Aye yer ballix. Sinn Fein spent most of their time in the 1990s complaining about the Stoops’ refusal to enter into an electoral pact with them in Westminster elections. That did not appear to damage SF’s standing with the nationalist electorate.
You could likely prevent a Nationalist coming through the middle in South Belfast, but Nationalists have 53% of the vote to Unionism’s 46%, and you are begging to up even the high turnout even here.
It’s times like this you stretch your credibility to breaking point. How can you define “Unionism” as comprising Anna Lo ? Worse, how can you define unionism as comprising Alliance in the context of an electoral pact ?
South Belfast is pretty much an even split, but if the unionists had an electoral pact there they’d clean up. That’s not going to happen of course. The UUP have nothing to give the DUP, and if the DUP want the seat and get rid of Alistair then they can just make the point that supporting the previous most popular unionist candidate is the way to do it. Now that the DUP are being vaguely sensible, you might find quite a few UUP voters are not averse to that idea.
Presbyterian:
For Goodness sake people. Reg would be mad not to take any offer that includes either South Belfast or FST in it. By taking it he would automatically gurantee 1 seat for the UUP, which if polls are to be believed wouldn’t be a bad result.
Pacts are where people do a mutually beneficial deal. What can Reg give the DUP in return ? Spratt is the strongest unionist candidate in SB westminster elections. He only needs to siphon off a few votes from the UUP to take it. Why should he stand down and help them consolidate their vote ?
DC:
Because the man has powerful rhetoric ..
I wasn’t taken in by his rhetoric, and neither were a lot of other people. Paisley’s unionism and religion existed before he did, and they will continue to exist after he’s gone. All he did was provide a very loud and effective voice for it.
The trouble with your argument is the idea that people are nice and friendly types until someone like comes along and turns them into monsters, and that without him everything would be fine and dandy. Reminds me of the argument about how the Catholics used to turn out and clap on Orange parades until the nasty Shinners turned them against them.
Posted by on Sep 08, 2007 @ 08:47 AM
