Sunday, June 04, 2006
Empey: unionism has a lot to answer for too…
On Friday, Fionnuala O’Connor picked up a subtly important theme only now emerging from the botched co-option of David Ervine into the UUP’s group at Stormont. For it’s clearest expression she bring us back to last month’s Let’s Talk (Video link, about 29 minutes in). She notes:
A telling line on the Let’s Talk programme was his “this isn’t simply an opportunistic thing” admission of the element that blighted his chance of taking the high moral ground in Stormont. On the same panel Mark Durkan swatted Gregory Campbell’s brazen profession of the DUP’s purity from paramilitary association, past and present, with a ringing: “For years unionist politicians justified the nonsense that loyalist violence was only a reaction to republicans.”
Empey acknowledged the SDLP leader, remarkable in itself: “All of us - a lot of us - have not had an absolutely pristine record in terms of dealing with paramilitarism. There’s a lot of truth in what Mark said.” He thought unionist politicians had a responsibility now to “clear up the mess”, because in the 1970s and ‘80s they had used paramilitary organisations for political purposes: “That’s a fact.” He recalled that the DUP and his own party had been in the same voting group in Belfast City Council for years with David Ervine’s party and the UDA’s representatives, “and that’s when there was no ceasefire”.
And finally:
It was a point that Ulster Unionists, like the DUP, were in the habit of dismissing angrily at the time, with much abuse of the journalists who put it to them.
Yes, he had been in Vanguard, Empey said, the umbrella group including politicians and paramilitaries which backed the 1974 loyalist strike, “and I think my attitude in 1974 was wrong”. Sir Reg broke ranks, and tore up the pretences. The oddity is that he should have flouted such a tribal rule and had the courage to question his own past so soon after meriting universal scorn. But he did it.
Mick Fealty @ 12:59 PM
‘What is all this about Empey bringing the “UVF into the peace process” or try to “engage loyalist paramilitaries”? Empey’s move was nothing of the sort. If it had been I’m sure those of use who are republicans would have supported him and tried to give him some political cover.
This was nothing of the sort. This was a raw attempt to have one less fenian in government.
This move typifies unionist behavior over the last 30 years. The will mouth off about “law and order” and “supporting the PSNI/UVF” but when the fenians look like they are going to achieve unionists with turn to the old friends in the UVF/UDA/LVF/RUC.
Nothing has changes in the unionist psyche. ‘
Heck I don’t disagree with you totally. You make a good point about Republicans giving him cover. However, I think Empey’s Vanguard comments and the mere mention that Unionism may have some blame in all of this is a step in the right direction. But then Heck, I will admit to be an absolute idealist!
I think it is very important to bring in Loyalists- we have all seen their desperation, which I feel has been brought on by their political isolation. This has manifested itself in riots, resentment etc. Their communities have ben left to the mercy of sectarian drug-dealing anti-social thugs, etc. No matter what way we move forward, this issue can not go unaddressed. The DUP have capitalised on the political isolation of Loyalists, and our society is becoming more politically stratified as a result. Can the UUP take in Loyalism and moderate that that section of society?
I take your point about the Unionist mind-set, we see it on display here on Slugger every day. Until Unionism is willing to face up to their role in the mess that has been ( and is) Northern Ireland, then moving forward is difficult. This has been one of the most frustrating part of the process for me. I have challenged many Unionists to speak to this issue, few have offered to do so.Posted by on Jun 05, 2006 @ 11:54 AMMaura,
The DUP are mere opportunists who have finally risen to the top because the UUP’s stance had become totally detached from reality. Very few loyalists I’ve ever been on speaking terms with had any illusions about the Big Man’s inclination to march them up and down without ever having any intention of using them or risking his own freedom.
If Empey is acknowleging the reliance of unionism on it’s own physical force tradition then that is one important step on the road towards recovery. Who knows - they may even opt to take the democratic route and respect the result of the GFA referendum.
Posted by on Jun 05, 2006 @ 12:14 PMUnionism is going through an awkward interregnum which may resolve itself post Paisley. That is when you will see if Unionists can manage to act coherently and with purpose. There is a lot of negative dead weight in that sector and too much reverence for very questionable icons. 10 years on and many of today’s leading lights will be on their way out.
Posted by on Jun 05, 2006 @ 12:58 PM“What’s that Reg? You know how to spell crack? Tell me!”
“quack, quack, quack, quack, quack!”
To be fair, Reg is more of a “quack, Hop!” sort of guy
Posted by on Jun 05, 2006 @ 02:37 PMCrataegus
Yes, it will be interesting to see what a post-Paisley unionism will look like.
A group of middle-class Unionist voters have shown an ability to swing around, to the Conservatives, the UKUP, Trimble, and (post-2000) the DUP, over the last 20 years. So there is a swing vote to go for.
It will be interesting to see what happens. The possibility of a realignment, with the hard core DUP breaking off, is often mentioned. Alternatively the UUP could wait for the DUP to get “tired out”. The NI Tories could creep in and pick up a few MLAs (check out their vote % in 1992). There are lots of possibilities.
Posted by on Jun 05, 2006 @ 02:49 PMelfinto; in the IFS, the 1922 electon was a de-facto referendum on the Treaty which institutionalised partition. Those against the treaty accounted for less than 30% of the electorate. In 1998 the people of the Republic voted overwhelmingly to drop the claim to Northern Ireland against supporting the idea of partition.
In Northern Ireland the 1973 referendum also showed that the majority of the people of Northern Ireland wanted to remain within the U.K., obviously supporting partition.
Posted by on Jun 05, 2006 @ 03:02 PMUnionists have never trusted those who tried to destabilise the Northern Ireland State and acted in a way that they should not have against all those they perceived to support that cause. That was sectarianism and racism against the Catholic/Irish people.
Republicans have tried by whatever means they could find to destabilise the state and are still doing it. That was and is sectarianism and racism against the Protestant/British Scots Irish.
Does it all matter in 2006, who did what and to what degree and when? If all the sectarianism and racism was removed from Northern Ireland what would happen here? Would we all live happily ever after? The answer I believe is no as nationalism (small n)would take over.
So what is the answer? Live in the past for ever?
Posted by on Jun 05, 2006 @ 05:29 PMFrustrated
I agree the best course for all in NI is bury the past and get on with future reality.
Slug.
Much will depend on where the DUP glides off to post the Big Man. If it moves to the centre under the pragmatists it may become the Unionist Party and the UUP will dwindle. If however it decides that it is a right wing Bible thumping party bedecked in orange sashes its days in the pole position will be limited.
With regards the UUP I can’t see much in the near future that will prevent the further decline. They need a new leader and a radical shake up.
The Unionists are all over the place and seem to lack any coherent strategy that would strengthen their position and broaden their support base. They seem hell bend on repelling support by concentrating on core Unionist voters. I am self employed and am not from a Nationalist background, but there is no way that I would vote for them. If they can’t get my vote what chance with floating SDLP types, not a chance.
To the UUP I would ask why would I vote for a party so closely associated with the Orange Order? Why would I, a non Christian, vote for a party that seems seeped in the Christian faith? Why would I vote for people who placate criminals? I could ask similar questions of the SDLP & SF in particular. Why would I vote for psychopathic bombers? (not SDLP!) What do I care about past oppression or Irish? OK I realise that these things are important to some and fine, but why on earth would I want to vote for any of you? Your main focus completely misses those things I am interested in and I am far from unique. What you all represent I find repugnant.
I am reasonably convinced that Unionists view their politicians with more odium than Nationalists and Republicans view theirs. There is a floating vote in Unionism, certainly if the Conservatives got their act in order they could gain, but so also could the Alliance.
But again Alliance has that cosy, smug image and the Conservatives here really don’t present themselves as part of a party that may be the next government. As for Labour organising here if (and only if) local Labour groupings can solve the N-S E-W problem they could be a real force. There are enough estranged left wing types in NI. The problem is there really isn’t a dynamic, credible, attractive option for the floaters.
A bit off topic, decades of frustration surfacing.
Posted by on Jun 07, 2006 @ 12:33 AMCrataegus - I couldn’t agree more!
But - I have to tell you that my track record in voting for candidates that get elected is extremely poor. My vote seems to be a curse on the prospects of non-sectarian budding politicians wanting to engage with the issues that actually effect our lives.
I’m sure it’s all my fault and nothing at all to do with the wider electorate not wishing to compromise.
Posted by on Jun 07, 2006 @ 01:27 AMRubicon
Fellow sufferer, I was beginning to think I was cursed.
No one I have ever voted for has been elected, and I vote bright and early in every election, for any stray dog or cat in the hope that it may just be different this time. Unless something unexpected happens I cannot see this pattern changing, and they wonder why people stay at home!
Posted by on Jun 07, 2006 @ 01:58 AMCrat and Rubicon,
I share your frustration. You want to try canvassing for someone who has no chance. More depressing than just voting for them. The more sensible people stay at home, the less chance there is of things ever being better. A vicious circle.
Posted by on Jun 07, 2006 @ 09:21 AMGaribaldy
Done the canvassing bit many years ago, yes really depressing.
The problem is perceived credibility, even if voters think the candidate is great, most think he has no chance therefore won’t vote for him, therefore he has no chance. So to get elected you generally need to be a recognised brand with a track record. Therefore built in inertia, sad really. In a NI context just how dreadful does a party have to be before support disappears?
I would rejoice if some credible alternative grouping started to form. Women’s coalition gone, Labour groupings all over the place, Who else is there a few independents, rates payers, some Workers Party types, Greens here and there. None of them have any real chance, but if 3 or 4 groups pulled together they would have better finance and perhaps enough activists in constituencies to grind their way round the streets over and over until their candidates are household names.
As for Alliance it is in slow decline and really does not exist over most of NI. Alliance types like IJP will extol us all to join but perhaps should consider why we don’t. That they don’t sums up the problem.
Posted by on Jun 08, 2006 @ 12:01 AMCrat
‘the Conservatives here really don’t present themselves as part of a party that may be the next government’
I hope this will change Very soon but it might happen sooner if you joined:
http://www.conservativesni.comPosted by on Jun 08, 2006 @ 11:07 PMCrat,
I think you’re right on the credibility issue, adn the inbuilt inertia.
I think the last European Election worked quite well with the joint candidate (whose name I disgracefully forget), but I’m not sure about the efficacy of this on a permanent basis. Perhaps the new council boundaries will encourage this type of arrangement, given that it will be nigh on impossible for independents to win or hold seats. I think agreed candidates rather than a formal alliance is the way forward.
I agree Alliance is a shambles, and has been in decline for several years, and this may prove nigh on terminal. Somebody posted figures somewhere here earlier for the Westminster elections stating they got 2.4%, and other independenets 1.7%. If correct, this is a disaster for Alliance, and not much better for everyone else. 4% not for the big four. Those who stand outside the 96% (granted it’s much bigger in local elections) need to involve themselves more than they do.
Posted by on Jun 08, 2006 @ 11:22 PMelfinto; in the IFS, the 1922 electon was a de-facto referendum on the Treaty which institutionalised partition. Those against the treaty accounted for less than 30% of the electorate. In 1998 the people of the Republic voted overwhelmingly to drop the claim to Northern Ireland against supporting the idea of partition.
In Northern Ireland the 1973 referendum also showed that the majority of the people of Northern Ireland wanted to remain within the U.K., obviously supporting partition.
1922:
The Treaty election took place in the context that Britain had threatened Ireland with total war if the Treaty was not accepted.
1973:
NI referendum - meanlingless census of a gerrymnadered state
1998:
GFA referendum. Article 2 of the constitution still defines the national territoy as the island of Ireland, its islands and seas. The aspiration to unity is still there but unity with consent of the majority in NI.
In other words, there may be a temporary acceptance of the reality of partition, but the aspiration to national unity remains.
To say that the people of Ireland support partition is misleading.
Posted by on Jun 09, 2006 @ 12:43 AMCrat, Rubicon et al.
Bite the bullet, be radical and support reunification. It will liberate us all from the colonialist, sectarian shambles which we have been enduring for far too long. Protestant, Catholic, dissenter - what does it matter? We are all Irishmen at the end of the day.
Posted by on Jun 09, 2006 @ 12:49 AMBob
As one ages views become less radical. I could well live with a paternal, inclusive Conservatism, but Thatcherism isn’t for me and extreme views on Privatisation I think don’t stand close examination. I believe we should look after the elderly and those who are ill and good to see Cameron appears to be moving in that direction. If a Conservative stood where I vote they could get a vote, but so could Labour. SF, DUP, etc no chance. Hell will freeze over first.
Garibaldi
I voted for Farmer John (Gilliland) 6.5% (I think) I thought he did well though needed to be over15% to have any chance.
4% is a low starting point and agreed candidates would be great if it could be made to work. The problem is that the Parties tend to act like warring tribes and equate a loss by a party close to them as victory as they are their greatest competition.
Most of the people likely to be involved will be strongest in similar constituencies.. Alliance will probably want everyone to stand aside for them as they are the largest party, and have sitting MLA’s or councillors. Others will want to stand in every election for if they don’t their candidates and Party will be even more unknown.
I think there are seats that could be gained and the support could be well over 4%. I hope something happens.
Posted by on Jun 09, 2006 @ 12:56 AMCrat,
You’re right about the problems. I too think Alliance would look to dominate, but that would be unacceptable to others. The group that stands the most candidates after them is The WP, which I doubt would want to stand down from any of the Westminster consituencies where it stands. As you say, it’s important for smaller groups to stand as a message that they are still alive and kicking. Such considerations are why I don’t think any permanent political realignment of the non-sectarian bloc is feasible. A small scale, seat-by-seat basis seems to be the way forward at least initially. Alliance’s prblems in terms of manpower and finance may well acclerate the emeergence of such deals.
Posted by on Jun 09, 2006 @ 01:08 AMCrat,
for the DUP (or UUP) to broaden their appeal they would have to start making positive noises about Irishness and would have to start to ‘cross over the line’ in order to pinch current Nationalists.
In order to do this they’d have to be not only very competant but very confident in their own politics and move their parties away from sectarian politics.
Do they want to do this ?
Are they capable of doing this ?
Would the bulk of their electorate move with them ?
If they won’t then there has to be a lack of confidence in politics in general.
If they will, then there’s a lack of competance in the present politicians in particular.
Of course you could ask the question in the other direction as well.
One of the problems is that any main party that starts to try to be inclusive is in danger of being criticised that they are either wishy washy (from their own side) or that their ideology has been wrong all along and they are now backtracking (from the other).
Confidence, competance and humilty is needed.
Any suggestions ?Posted by on Jun 09, 2006 @ 08:01 AMAbucs
I think it is easy to be very positive and inclusive for within the agreement the future of NI will be decided by the electorate in a pole. It is therefore a matter of personal preference. In the mean time let us get on with making this place work. It requires both sides in this equation to have self confidence.
There is no reason why any Unionist should fear better relation and cooperation with the south. If it works and is to everyone’s benefit why not? In the same way Nationalists need to seize whatever opportunities there are within Britain. Because the SDLP attend Westminster doesn’t make them any less Nationalist.
I am not pretending it would be easy, but if there were a few big beasts in there pounding away on issues like Education, Health, Childcare etc they could start to draw blood. Make the other parties contest on your ground. There is an open goal as some of the policies of the main parties don’t stand scrutiny. It has all got to do with credibility, have a credible line up and you will get publicity and votes. Done well and some of the existing parties will look decidedly Neanderthal.
Why does politics have to split on views of the border? Why can’t politics be based on your attitude to real issues because the border issues has already been decided. Why can’t a party include Nationalists and Unionists who have similar views on most issues?
Garibaldy
I think the problems with negotiations are so profound that it probably won’t happen. The European election is somewhat special and easier for Alliance and the Workers Party knew that they had no chance of winning but even in that context the SEA and Greens did not support the common candidate.
In an Assembly election if there was a deal you will have disgruntled members of Parties standing as independents against the mutually agreed candidate. Local activists won’t help the candidate from another party and a clear overall image will be difficult to achieve. That said it could be done if there was a will.
I actually think that a lot of the small groupings need to take a deep breath and look in a hard nosed way at their position and real opportunities.
Given the lack of recognition, the credibility gap and the inertia problem to take a council seat would require a group of about 6- 10 in a constituency backing up the candidate between now and the next election. So how many seats can the Workers Party, Greens, Conservatives and various Labour types and even Alliance effectively contest? Requires serious resources and hard work to make a real breakthrough. There are a lot of disillusion types who have tried before and if you could fire them up and give them hope you may turn this around. It’s all about credibility.
Posted by on Jun 10, 2006 @ 01:42 AMCrat et al:
Interesting discussion and I belong to your disillusioned group of people.
I think the UUP-Ervine deal was a very bad idea in terms of unionism reaching out to a broader group of voters. If UUP members and their MP is uncomfortable with it then that shows how it turns people off. And the UUP can ill afford that.
As for the Labour party standing, it was a big breakthrough that you can become a member in NI now. Does anyone know how Andy McGivern’s talks are going with the Labour party? He was taking them to court over their failure to set up constituency associations when, last October, the Labour party offered to enter negotations on the question. I’ve heard nothing since.
When you have Labour and Conservative standing then you begin to see an alternative debate emerging, and the national coverage of these parties means there is good brand recognition. That should help them to attract votes, as people often vote on party lines.
Posted by on Jun 10, 2006 @ 11:35 AMSlug
Sorry don’t know try Boyd Black
Interestingly on another thread someone mentioned about Labour both in Dublin an UK supporting the Labour Party here. Now that really would liven things up.
Interestingly the original motion to be able to join Labour here was opposed by the SDLP
Occasion: Debate on the motion ‘That the Labour Party should organise in Northern Ireland. Proposer: Andrew Mackinlay MP. Seconded: Boyd Black. Opposer: Brid Rogers SDLP. Seconder: Cllr. Gerard Driver SDLP.
So much for the SDLP’s commitment to democratic rights.
elfinto
Bite the bullet, be radical and support reunification.
Why not say just accept we live in Britain? Both are non starters.
I think we first have to sort the mess out here and improve relations before we go anywhere. The border will be decided in a pole. It really isn’t an important issue with me, but I won’t support a party that dogmatically tries to impose its will on this matter on others who disagree.
Posted by on Jun 10, 2006 @ 03:13 PMElfinto - thanks for the invitation - but I’m not at all sure Crat and my support will do you any good at all. We both seem doomed to support lost causes!
But - for what it’s worth, if matters continue in the way they’re going here then when the border poll is called I’ll be opting out of the union. I’d simply rather have politicians that gave a damn and don’t much care if they’re Irish or British - both are in the EU.
There’d be one blessing - SF, the SDLP, the UUP/PUP and DUP would become completely irrelevant. What would we get instead? FF, FG, the PD’s, Labour ^ the Greens talking about hospitals, schools, taxation, employment ...
Not sure if the electorate here is quite ready for that!
Posted by on Jun 11, 2006 @ 01:27 AMThe political landscape of the south of ireland would also be transformed by unification. The potential energy of this country would finally be released. We could create something excellent in Ireland.
Posted by on Jun 11, 2006 @ 01:40 AMI am reasonably convinced that Unionists view their politicians with more odium than Nationalists and Republicans view theirs. There is a floating vote in Unionism, certainly if the Conservatives got their act in order they could gain, but so also could the Alliance.
I’m pretty sure you aren’t right on that one. Northern nationalists are stuck with a choice between SDLP and SF, and neither are exactly brilliant. If all the southern parties moved north and started arguing on socio-economic grounds with proper manifestoes, the SDLP would vanish overnight and SF would be down to about 20% of the northern nationalist vote again.
I think the differnce may be somewhat cultural in nature. Northern nationalists, as an historically embattled community, are reluctant to break ranks, show weakness, and admit that most of their politicians are rubbish - and not at all what they actually want. What nearly all nationalist voters want is normal politics concentrating on socio-economic and foreign policy issues within an all-Ireland state. Until that state comes about we’re just marking time and putting up with SF and the SDLP, in the absence of anything better.
It’s a temporary and abnormal situation to the average nationalist.
Posted by on Jun 11, 2006 @ 01:56 AM
