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 @ 08:33 PM
“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,”
No, you’ve missed my case. Simple people were tricked with Paisley explosive ability to change attitudes by mixing protestant Christianity with democratic unionism.
The key to forging it so sweetly was his voice; that gone - the key ingredient for propagating such nonsense further vanishes.
I didn’t buy into it either but I have a secular viewpoint picking up certain contradictions with powerful said aims and delivery of actual political objectives.
Posted by on Sep 08, 2007 @ 09:53 AM“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.”
Of course, it’s different if it’s your own side! If those pacts had have went through, then Unionism would have been similarly incensed.
“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 ?”
Alliance is Unionist but not terms of electoral pact here :P. I was talking about FST there, and I said later down. A strong single Unionist candidate has the advantage in SB, even with Alliance considered.
Posted by on Sep 08, 2007 @ 09:55 AMCorrections to above - simple should read simply.
Wouldn’t wish to have to define simple.
Posted by on Sep 08, 2007 @ 09:56 AM“Some years ago UUP tried to come to an arrangement to maximise the Unionist vote but DUP did not play ball”
Confused
You need to check your facts. The UUP and DUP did come together before the last Westminster election but their deal was to not contest unionist seats between the two parties and that SB and FST should be the UU’s as this was their natural area (completely rubbished after the poll). The DUP’s was a seat each between SB and FST and everything else was fair game. The UU’s only wanted their deal because they knew they were in for a hiding in S Antrim, U Bann, E Antrim and had no chance of gainig any seats. The UU’S were only out to save their own skin and their arrogance cost them all but one seat.
I do hope the two parties do a deal because both SB and FST are winnable seats with one unionist candidate. However the backlash needs to be wathched on the nationalist side as deals between those two parties could mean a nationalist MP in areas like N Belfast.
Posted by on Sep 08, 2007 @ 10:23 AMDC
You clearly have a strong dislie to Ian Paisley. Now if you would like to contribute to this thread then please do so instead of your tired little rant against him.
Posted by on Sep 08, 2007 @ 10:27 AM*dislike
Posted by on Sep 08, 2007 @ 10:28 AMYes, a dislike based on logic thanks.
Posted by on Sep 08, 2007 @ 10:38 AMEl Matador
For those unfamiliar with stoop-speak allow me to translate El Matador’s comment (0941hrs) above: “please for the love of God don’t get an agreed candidate in South Belfast and put Alisdair out on his ar*e”
Posted by on Sep 08, 2007 @ 10:39 AM#
Yes, a dislike based on logic thanks.
Posted by DC on Sep 08, 2007 @ 11:38 AMsuch a dislike for paisley , but no words for mcguinnes or adams who masterminded 30 years of nationalist murder and mayhem - bigotry at its best
Posted by on Sep 08, 2007 @ 10:58 AMIt doesn’t stack up. The UUP has nothing to gain. The DUP could win Fermanagh and South Tyrone if the SDLP poll well. I think they will take South Belfast of their own accord. South Down will surely be returned to a nationalist again even if only one unionist stands.
Posted by on Sep 08, 2007 @ 11:01 AMObserver
Quite right.
Posted by on Sep 08, 2007 @ 11:01 AMMOG
There is something to gain if they look beyond simply westminster to europe, assembly elections and local government (although getting an easy ride in North Down could be considered a gain and could be part of a deal). Also both parties could benefit from increased voter registration, turnout and better vote management.
Posted by on Sep 08, 2007 @ 11:18 AMObviously after the poor assembly result the DUP no longer believe that Spratt can beat McDonnell, so are offering McGimpsey a free run in South Belfast so Foster can have a straight fight with Gildernew in FST.
South Down I don’t believe can be won even with a single unionist candidate, though perhaps Unionist tactical voting could make the difference for Richie against Ruane.
Personally I don’t believe the DUP should be throwing the drowning Empey a rope, especially as the DUP is the largest Unionist party in both seats. Jeffrey Donaldson should be persuaded to replace Spratt next time round, with Poots replacing him in Lagan Valley.
As a moderate Donaldson he can reach the leafy suburban voters that Spratt can’t and I believe he can win even with the UUP in the field. The main risk is Sinn Fein supporters voting tactically for McDonnell in large numbers. And I certainly don’t see why “second choice” McGimpsey should be gifted the seat after his absymal performances in 2005 and 2007.
As for FST, Foster has clearly beaten Elliott in 2005 and last March and is the only Unionist who can win the seat. For the UUP to run a dog in a manger candidate after being repeatedly rejected by the Unionist electorate would finish them in Fermanagh. Elliott may as well put up Gildernew posters if he has the affrontery to run again.
In North Down I believe Alex Easton should run instead of Weir after topping the poll in the assembly elections this year. The DUP are clearly the largest party in the constituency and Hermon holds the seat only through the borrowed votes of Alliance, Green and independent voters. The new moderate power sharing DUP will surely give Lady Sylvia a good run for her money next time.
With a pact it can be DUP 10 UUP 2, but with a bit of luck it cold still be 12-0. The DUP certainly shouldn’t be giving the UUP suckers an even break.
Posted by on Sep 08, 2007 @ 11:26 AMDC
But not relevant to the current thread so either put up some ideas or shut up
Posted by on Sep 08, 2007 @ 11:37 AMWell ideas would be that the UUP should never surrender the ground to the DUP, I am surprised that the grandiose trickery of Robinson is even being considered.
A man who sells his backgarden to speculators while reaping in thousands already should be met with caution.
Land which is part of Ulster’s soil I imagine - why give it up so easily after so many years telling us to fight for it with passion.
Posted by on Sep 08, 2007 @ 11:42 AMWill commentors please remember the ball not man rule
Posted by on Sep 08, 2007 @ 11:43 AMEaston is a good solid grafter on the ground, as is Weir, but I don’t think he’s Westminster material. Weir deserves another tilt at it.
Posted by on Sep 08, 2007 @ 11:44 AMA man who sells his backgarden to speculators while reaping in thousands already should be met with caution.
Yeah along with the rest of his neighbours [edited by moderator - play the ball not the man]. Jeez, to hear some you’d think PDR acted alone and was frocing the closure of a petting zoo for disabled kids by selling a bit of his backyard.
Get a life.
Posted by on Sep 08, 2007 @ 11:46 AMThis is a very interesting move from Robinson.
I agree entirely with dodrade’s analysis about South Belfast and F/ST. I suspect though even if there is no deal the UUP will be do very badly in SB.
In terms of F/ST I suspect Foster’s best chance was last time had Elliott stood aside. The problem in F/ST and I suspect SB is that there still seem to be a number of UUP types who think that because they held the seat in the past it is somehow their’s by right. Some of my relatives in Fermanagh seemed mystified that Foster did so much better than Elliott. I guess anger that she jumped ship is also part of it.
With a pact there is a danger that nationalists will coalesce around one candidate. This would be unlikely to stop SB falling to unionists but might stop FST from going to unionists. South Down would be very unlikely to be regained.
The way this has been announced is of course interesting and may well be part of a strategy to damage the UUP further. I also just wonder if Robinson is aware that a pact just might cause nationalist coalasence in North Belfast and so make the DUP loose the seat. I wonder if there might be a slight silver lining to such a cloud in his view seeing as the DUP leadership must be comming up quite soon. Dodds loosing North Belfast would hardly be a great springboard for a leadership run.
Posted by on Sep 08, 2007 @ 11:53 AMI apologise editor.
Posted by on Sep 08, 2007 @ 11:58 AMYea it’s called domino effect caused by developers approaching people with a view to snapping up land en mass.
Even more of a disgrace! Intensification of development aided by Robinson.
Anything for a buck or two.
[edited by moderator - play the ball not the man] - what with Gregory Campbell giving evidence onbehalf of the DUP council fraudster who stole ole grannies’ votes from the nursing homes.
The DUP aren’t credible.
As far as UUP are concerned:
1) Go into Opposition
2) Don’t deal with the DUP.Let the weight of government fall on the DUP, and work away outside of it.
As before, ultimately better to burn out than to fade away, if that is to be the case.
Posted by on Sep 08, 2007 @ 12:00 PMThank you Ginfizz
Posted by on Sep 08, 2007 @ 12:01 PM“Intensification of development “
This is public policy. Reduction in rural development and focusing of development in urdan areas in particualr brown-field sites. Intensification of development in urban areas is the only way that will be achieved.
Posted by on Sep 08, 2007 @ 12:05 PMApologies last line should have read:
Intensification of development in urban areas is the only way housing need will be met.
Posted by on Sep 08, 2007 @ 12:07 PMI didn’t happen to know Robinson’s homely backgarden was a brownfield site.
There it is.
Posted by on Sep 08, 2007 @ 12:09 PM
