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
DC
The reference to brown-field was meant as outline of the policy in full not a description of back yard development that is covered by the intensification of development in urban areas. Apologies for the lack of clarity in my post.
Posted by on Sep 08, 2007 @ 11:12 AMThis wouldn’t be the certain same intensification of development placed over land without the intensification of infrastructal development beneath it subsequently leading to flash floods due to intensification of rainfall!
Of course drainage and sewerage are not met by private funds but public money. Not that such funds would dent Robinson’s wallet.
I mean if we are going to carry posts about DUP MLAs drawing DLA, whatabout finance ministers drawing big salaries and profiteering of high land values as a result of a combination of things, not least poor planning; even Sammy Wilson champions that. Sort out Planning.
And indeed the DUP could have helped out with this situation if they weren’t so truculent and vociferous when the UUP were trying to bed-down the GFA.
But still, the DUP have got Sinn Fein to sign up to policing, but even better, it’s a police force that the DUP didn’t support and gave the death to when Patten’s proposals were placed on the table. Remember the hate-filled comments that the DUP spouted over the need to reform the RUC, now they are telling the same unionists that the lovely police force which they seemed to dislike anyway is now great and that the Shinners are supporting it too. Even though neither cared for its development when it was being considered.
It’s just bollix, DUP are tricksters.
Posted by on Sep 08, 2007 @ 11:27 AMDC
Yes every policy problem in Northern Ireland is the result of the DUP no one else’s actions/inactions played any role whatsoever.
Does holding ministerial office mean a loss of property rights? How far does this extend - are they allowed to move house?
” same intensification of development placed over land without the intensification of infrastructal development”
1. Belfast hasn’t had particularly intensive development as shown by its depopulation over the past 30 years. Also the redevelopment of much of working class Belfast on the 70’s and 80’s was less intensive than what had been their previously. The lack of infrasturcture has been much more of an issue in the satelite towns and villages as well as rural areas. Hence the botched attempt to control rural development with PPS14 and the legal challenge by Green groups to new developments in satelite towns as breaching EU laws.
2. The reason people are able to sell off large gardens for re-development is an example of past low-intensity development in Belfast.
3. There is a massive programme of infrastructural development underway in the Belfast area at the moment so there has been an “intensification of infrastructral development”.“Of course drainage and sewerage are not met by private funds but public money”
Where exactly do you think public money comes from? It doesn’t magically appear. It comes from taxes like income, capital gains, corporation, stamp duty and rates.
“Sort out planning”
In urban areas the policy is sorted out, build more houses intensively to meet housing demand. The problem is not the policy but the failure to resource the planning service to administer the new policy, deal with the surge PPS 14 created and the new levels of development demand brought about by the market upturn over the past number of years.
Posted by on Sep 08, 2007 @ 12:29 PMPeter Robinson is selling off land which will line both his and the private speculator’s pocket.
But that speculator doesn’t have to pay for the infrastructure development which will be needed to fund the connection of above development to below ground sewerage services, etc; hence public funds and infrastructure planning needed to meet housing expansion.
Perhaps when sorting out planning some fees should be levied on builders, developers to better assist with the financial demands on publicly funded infrastructure.
But I appreciate the PPS14 argument in terms of over stretching and sprawling development.
Posted by on Sep 08, 2007 @ 01:10 PMHe is selling off his own property. I ask again
“Does holding ministerial office mean a loss of property rights? How far does this extend - are they allowed to move house?”“hence public funds”
Again “Where exactly do you think public money comes from? It doesn’t magically appear. It comes from taxes like income, capital gains, corporation, stamp duty and rates.”
Posted by on Sep 08, 2007 @ 01:27 PMIn regards to funds, will you support local income tax and remove the cap on rates until then.
People like Robinson should pay commensurate with their income, perhaps that would help square off some deficit problems.
Posted by on Sep 08, 2007 @ 01:37 PMDC
Any chance of an answer to my questions?
Posted by on Sep 08, 2007 @ 02:09 PMOf course but it’s the context in which he is doing it seems to be mercenary.
You see landbanking allows the group to get more money than what they would otherwise get on their own if selling as whole. Greater than the sum of the parts you could say.
We have to ask why not how or if he is legally entitled. That he is.
[edited by moderator - play the ball] sums it up, opps Minister!
Posted by on Sep 08, 2007 @ 02:24 PMDC
I’ll take that vagueness as a No ministerial office is not a loss of property rights to the first and further ignoring of the second.
It is perfectly clear your objections to this are simply a animosity towards him and his party about political developments in particular during the peace process. No matter the issues it’ll just be a way of saying nasty things about both, venting your spleen may give you some satisfaction but leads to a rather dull and pointless exchange. It has also very significantly veered from the topic of the thread (although I fully accept my culpability in doing that as well).
Rivalries, personality clashes etc often provide the everyday fare of politics. It is easy to become fixated on them but it serves little value.
There are simply advantages for the UUP and DUP and for Unionism as a whole, in reaching agreement on electoral issues across the variety of elections and increase Unionism’s vote. Personal grudges should play second fiddle to all of that.
Posted by on Sep 08, 2007 @ 02:53 PMA great finance minister perhaps but what about morals and principles and indeed the old adage:
An Englishman’s home is his castle? In that case Robinson’s sold the moat.
Perhaps we are more modern day Irish after all.
Posted by on Sep 08, 2007 @ 02:55 PMThere are simply advantages for the UUP and DUP and for Unionism as a whole, in reaching agreement on electoral issues across the variety of elections and increase Unionism’s vote.
Sure, I’m no unionist in the Ulster sense but if I were the UUP I would stay well clear of working too close with the DUP given the power at their disposal and strong PR which is vitriolic at times.
UUP should go into opposition and not do deals, otherwise if things go wrong you end up being drawn too close to the wrongdoings. And in argument the DUP will likely win due to the twist in its political make-up.
However, thats up for Reggie and his chimps. Good luck with that one.
Re the peace process you must see why there are so many ridiculous contradictions now being brought into play? It’s only fair that comparisons should be made to show the power for power’s sake quest of the DUP. And if you don’t like it or think it’s worth any currency fair enough.
the end (for now)
Posted by on Sep 08, 2007 @ 03:06 PM“Of course but it’s the context in which he is doing it seems to be mercenary.”
Er, for what other reason do you sell something?
[roll eyes]
Posted by on Sep 08, 2007 @ 04:10 PMI hope there is no pact as long as Paisley is in charge of the DUP as I will never trust him to uphold the Union.
I consider him to be an ulster nationalist and will put the union in jeopardy to advance his own narrow political objectives.
Power for the sake of power.
The UU are well advised to stay clear of Paisley.
Their day may come again when people catch on to DUP and their unpopular policies to be announced.
For the first time they are to create a society where all sections of the community are to be respected instead of saying NO all the time.
Lets see what they can do on their own———probably fall on their faces!Posted by on Sep 08, 2007 @ 05:17 PMUnionist pacts to get the balance right (their words) is a totally flawed concept. The SDLP and SF are two parties confident of their own position, committed to their own principles and will not do deals to create ‘Nationalist’ seats. In this modern political arena we need to get rid of the ‘Them and Us’ (aka Unionist and Nationalist). Looking for a pact shows that the DUP are afraid that their tide has turned and they want to consolidate what they have got. Pacts between political parties on a sectarian basis is a pathetic excuse to continue sectarian politics. Are these two parties afraid of standing on their own principles, or are they willing to go back to the politics that caused our problems in the past. Pacts will only Balkanise this country even further. Surely we are trying to get away from that.
A political party is assessed on its success or failure through the ballot box. However, when there are pacts this measurement of success or failure is corrupted as it is the parties telling the people what to do. Surely democracy is about giving people the opportunity to vote for the Party they want to represent them. In a pact scenario, a UU supporter wanting to retain the union would have no option but vote for a DUP candidate. They could of course abstain, but that would mean that they couldn’t use their vote - in other words to be disenfranchised. People will want to vote for the person who does the best job, or for the party that best represents them. Reducing their choice is a corruption of democracy. But then, is that what the Unionists are used to - all these years of trying to appear non-sectarian has been nothing but sanctimonious claptrap. Where have all the good / decent people gone? Will they be told to vote DUP to prevent a nationalist getting a seat?
In the past, unionist have been fond of gerrymandering. Knowing that the SDLP, SF and the Alliance will not do deals with each other (whilst you may agree with their politics, at least they can stand on their own principles) then a pact will only bring back a modern variation of gerrymandering.
So come off it you Unionists. The DUP have been out to kill you off. They almost succeeded, but realise now that you are getting stronger. Their tactic now is to compromise you and make you subservient to them - throught their patronage. Is that what political leadership from unionism is all about. If so, I would prefer voting for a Shinner or SDLP as they at least will not compromise their principles for 12 pieces of silver.
Grouch
Posted by on Sep 08, 2007 @ 05:43 PMA move like this would be the deathknell for the UUP- by acquiescing to the DUP in constituencies such as F/ST, they would effectively be admitting that the DUP is ‘ok’. At a time when their future already hangs in the balance, creating a situation where there is no clear water between themselves and the DUP would wipe them out.
In the short-term, the number of unionist seats may indeed rise following the next general election if such a pact where implemented, but this would merely consolidate the DUP’s strength in preparation for a final killer blow at the general election following that when the DUP would wipe the UUP off the map.
The DUP’s history has been about two things- winning power and undermining the UUP. They wouldn’t be making this ‘offer’ to the UUP without those considerations lurking in the background. If the UUP has any sense, it will remember who its main rival is- it’s not nationalists, but the DUP. It is only the DUP who can finish the UUP and the UUP playing risky games like this at a time when the DUP is so strong is practically asking them to pull the trigger.
If the UUP enters a pact with the DUP, it will be their final fling.
Posted by on Sep 08, 2007 @ 06:01 PM*...if such a pact were implemented…*
Posted by on Sep 08, 2007 @ 06:06 PMEl Matador has it right.
A deal now becomes DEATH later. Is Empty Empey so bereft of brainpower that he cannot see that. Does he think that by not giving an immediate response he is showing exceptionally poor leadership. He should look up Leader in the dictionary - it might help him and his loyal band of supporters. If he can’t make decisions, he can’t lead. If he can’t lead, get rid of him and bring in someone who can. Perhas McFarlane?
Posted by on Sep 08, 2007 @ 06:13 PMI can see the logic in El Matador and Grouch’s statements except that they presuppose a couple of things. Firstly they suppose that the DUP is at or just past its prime and will fall in popularity. That may or may not be the case but there is no guarentee at all that any fall in DUP support (if it occurs) will necessarily decamp back to the UUP. It is supposing that these are UUP votes on loan to the DUP.
It also presupposes that there are no negatives which proceed from not having a pact and so splitting the unionist vote and hence losing unionist seats such as South Belfast. Unionists in South Belfast may be quite annoyed if the UUP ensure an SDLP re election. In F/ST I would suggest the unionist electorate would be very annoyed if the UUP help ensure that probably the last half decent chance to get a Shinner out is thrown away.
The arguments presented I suspect centre around the on loan idea and the suggestion that the garden centre Prods are about to start voting UUP. I suggest both these are flawed assumptions.
It may well be that a pact is death delayed but no pact may even bring death sooner. Yes of course the DUP hold all the cards but considering the current relative state of the parties that is hardly surprising.
Unless something very radical happens I suspect the UUP will slowly fizzel out, it may well take another 15-20 years but the end will slowly come. Looking at the current leadership I cannot see them pulling something radical out of the hat. I mean Empey, McGimpsey with the alternatives being McNarry, McFarland ?
Posted by on Sep 08, 2007 @ 06:50 PMTurgon says:
It may well be that a pact is death delayed but no pact may even bring death sooner.This very statement is one of hypocracy. In other words, let’s give up our principles now so that we can live a bit longer in corruption. Unionism is not dead nor never will be. But Unionists need the UU to stand up. Why do you think people have left them to vote for the DUP? It is because of a lack of leadership and dynamism. UU supporters have wavered because they don’t see the clear water (as El Matador describes it) between the UU and the DUP. That being the case, they have voted for DUP because there is a leader there.
People don’t always agree with a leader, but they respect their leadership skills and will follow. They won’t follow people just because it is a nice thing to do. The only thing stopping the UU from reversing the trend is to have a dynamic leader who can talk straight and sensibly.
To talk of longer term demise is a purely defeatist attitude and one which insults unionism to its core. Where is the rallying cry? If Turgon is right it is “sell our souls now for a bit of silver as we will get nothing if we leave it later”. What they should be saying is “We have a vision, we have a commitment to leading the people of Northern Ireland to a shared future, we will maximise not just our North South relationships, but also ensure we get the most from our East West relationship.
To talk about DUP supporters being very annoyed at UUP for losing the last chance of getting a Shinner thrown out is worse than being defeatist. It is absolute nonsense. Just look at the deals the DUP have done to get Marty and Gerry and co. into bed with them. The DUP approach is total hypocracy and Turgon through is flawed logic is only trying to suck the unionists into the abyss.
Please have the courage of your own convictions and do not be led gently into the dark night. Fight a rail against such tactics which are nothing more than trojan horses.
Posted by on Sep 08, 2007 @ 07:15 PMTurgon-
“Firstly they suppose that the DUP is at or just past its prime and will fall in popularity. That may or may not be the case but there is no guarentee at all that any fall in DUP support (if it occurs) will necessarily decamp back to the UUP. It is supposing that these are UUP votes on loan to the DUP.”
On the contrary, I am assuming that the DUP’s ongoing effort to obliterate the UUP is continuing, and this plan is merely the next stage of the process.
“Unionists in South Belfast may be quite annoyed if the UUP ensure an SDLP re election. In F/ST I would suggest the unionist electorate would be very annoyed if the UUP help ensure that probably the last half decent chance to get a Shinner out is thrown away.”
These are both constituencies where the DUP traditionally stood aside and which returned UUP MPs. The UUP will see the DUP as the newcomers rather than seeing them as the natural challengers for the seat.
“It may well be that a pact is death delayed but no pact may even bring death sooner. Yes of course the DUP hold all the cards but considering the current relative state of the parties that is hardly surprising.”
Of course none of us knows what the future holds, but the UUP saying that it’s ok to vote DUP will effectively send the signal to voters that they may as well back the DUP in general- after all, why would a unionist back a struggling party with nothing special to offer compared with the stronger alternative? At least if they fight on their own ground, it maintains an independence which they may be able to exploit further down the line if the lustre begins to fade on the Paisley Project.
“Unless something very radical happens I suspect the UUP will slowly fizzel out, it may well take another 15-20 years but the end will slowly come”
Quite possible. A pact would make it both inevitable and much sooner though.
Posted by on Sep 08, 2007 @ 07:15 PMGrouch,
“The DUP approach is total hypocracy and Turgon through is flawed logic is only trying to suck the unionists into the abyss.”I agree there is great hipocracy by the DUP but I do suggest that in general the unionist voters of F/ST would rather not be nonrepresented by Gildernew and would prefer to have a unionist. Currently the only realistic candidate is Arlene Foster.
“UU supporters have wavered because they don’t see the clear water (as El Matador describes it) between the UU and the DUP.”
When there was clear water ie Trimble the unionist voters deserted in droves. He was also attempting leadership and look what that ended up with (I accept he was not a great leader and I voted for him myself all those years ago at the UUC meeting; something I have been able to regret for a long time now).
If you have vision Grouch that is great I just do not see much of it from the UUP.
El Matador,
I agree with much of what you say. Yes the DUP almost certainly want rid of the UUP but that does not mean that opposing a pact will help the UUP.The argument about the UUP being the traditional party in South Belfast and F/ST was pretty comprehensively destroyed at the last Westminister election by the electorate.
In terms of the lustre comming off the Paisley project you may well be right. Do you not think, however, that that is more likely to yield votes to a party more hardline than the DUP not a more liberal one.
I was once a member of the UUP, then I voted DUP till the last election, now I am waiting for someone to convience me that I should vote for them. The UUP are not a very enticing prospect at the moment and I see little chance of them becoming one.
Posted by on Sep 08, 2007 @ 07:46 PMTurgon-
“The argument about the UUP being the traditional party in South Belfast and F/ST was pretty comprehensively destroyed at the last Westminister election by the electorate.”
The UUP clearly don’t see it that way in South Belfast, as evidenced by McGimpsey’s ministerial appointment, and will have been reassured (despite losing a seat) by the fact that the DUP failed to gain an extra seat in the recent Assembly elections.
I also suspect that they may feel that F/ST is ‘their’ territory and that Foster, as a former UUP representative, has ‘borrowed’ UUP votes on a personal level and that they will return in due course- that’s just a personal thought though.
“In terms of the lustre comming off the Paisley project you may well be right. Do you not think, however, that that is more likely to yield votes to a party more hardline than the DUP not a more liberal one.”
Certainly problems for the DUP in the Assembly would result in votes being lost to groups such as that being proposed by Allister, but some would inevitably also go to the UUP if they have maintained an independent and competent strategy. Either way, a weakened DUP would help the UUP regardless of where the votes go.
“The UUP are not a very enticing prospect at the moment and I see little chance of them becoming one.”
That is a view shared by many unionists I’m sure. Indeed, it shows why it is important for the party to carve its own niche rather than being a lapdog of the DUP- this is its only way back to credibility and success.
Posted by on Sep 08, 2007 @ 08:04 PMTurgon
You need to look no further than a DUP MP and MLA as the person who totally undermined the UUP: mamely Jeffrey Donaldson. Without Jeffrey continually undermining the leadership, people saw a party in disarray. Trimble tried his best. So did many others. But the fifth columnist Donaldson destroyed everything. He is now with the DUP as are many others. Where has it got us. Interesting to note that Trimble shared power with the DUP but not SF. That would probably have been a step too far (or should I say a stoop too far). Now we have Paisley, Donaldson et al sharing power and having a really cosy relationship with the Shinners. How the public have been “DUPED”. If Trimble even half attempted to do what Paisley has done, Donaldson would have been out the door sooner.
I would suggest to Turgon that he has been D U P’ed like a lot of others. Where have the DUP got us? Closer to a United Ireland than we have ever been. And closer to the people who have murdered and killed so many of our countrymen.
They have taken us all on a wild goose chase. They wanted power, but couldn’t get it for themselves, so agreed to share it with the shinners. Surely that is anathema to their own principles - and now we have the full circle of the debate - an absence of principles. The DUP have none. The UU have some but are debating whether to ditch them for the DUP’s patronage (which is in fact a poison chalice).
Ask yourself, what do unionists want? Do they want to have an all inclusive Northern Ireland? Or do they want a segregated, divided and hostile backwater that nobody wants and no-one will invest in?
I know what I want and it is not Turgon’s shortsighted short-termism way forward. I can imagine standing side by side with Turgon on the battle lines ..... but not for long. I see him turning and running. After all, using his logic, he would live a little longer before the DUP steamroller ran over him and he become one of their collective - not thinking for himself.
If the Shinners and the DUP get their way, our society will become even more divided and we create a legacy for our children of a time bomb which will blow up some time in the either our or their future. We will have solved nothing.
Sorry, but I will not be DUP’ed
Posted by on Sep 08, 2007 @ 08:07 PMEl Mat
Is your advice motivated by a new found concern for the UUP or concern for your own party the SDLP?
If there is a pact McDonnell would probably lose in south belfast plus for SF to hold on to FST they would have to squeeze the SDLP vote until it squeaks (roughly about 70% of it needs to shift to Gildernew).
Posted by on Sep 08, 2007 @ 08:10 PMAdd IIRC for 70%
Posted by on Sep 08, 2007 @ 08:11 PM
