Sunday, January 07, 2007
It’ll happen
In an RTE radio interview DUP MP, Jeffrey Donaldson has said he believes a power-sharing Executive will be achieved.
Fair Deal @ 12:44 PM
The long term Trimble plan which he did not have the foresight to see is progressing to its conclusion.
How ridiculous Donaldson must feel about the trouble he caused his own Party and sacrificed the UUP/SDLP moderate ground just so that he could deliver a DUP/SF power sharing arrangement based around the sames terms. At the same time he has enabled the ugly cult of Paisleyism its dream of seeing off every other ‘heretical’ unionist leader to enable him to become leader of NI before he heads off to retirement.
Job accomplished - well done Donaldson - I hope you are proud.
However Paisley’s joy will ultimately be short livedIf I was being generous, and setting aside the treacherousy of the likes of Donaldson, SF absorption into the NI state was always inevitable - but it probably came a bit quicker with the DUP at this stage of the process.
The average unionist voter recognised this and loaned the DUP their vote to ‘finish off’ Republicans.
However the majority unionist vote is not extremist and it will return to moderate unionism.There is no long term future in NI for the types of politics that SF and DUP currently espouse.
I have no sympathy with SF - they did not honour their commitments with UUP as part of their plan to destroy moderate unionism. They wanted Paisleyism to represent the unionist voice so that they could scare nationalists to them and turn moderate unionists to the idea of a United Ireland.
However it has backfired because they are now getting their noses rubbed in it by the DUP and moderate unionism will re-emerge again totally intact anyway.
They have under estimated the unionist mindset throughout not only this process but the entire last 40 years.
Perhaps they interpreted the desire to do a deal by the pragmatists amongst as typical and totally missed the downright stubborness of the huge wing of unionism that Pro Agreement Unionism slugged it out with for about 10 years. You would have thought they would have learned something from that dispute about the type of negotiations they were going to eventually find themselves in.
If they had truly wanted to move to the arena of persuading a sufficient number of unionists that their future lay in a separatist independent Ireland they should have completed the process to a purely constitutional nationalist party about 5 years ago.
We would have been looking at a very different NI now and Militant Republicanism would have been ‘fading’ into obsurity with some (but undeserved) dignity in their own eyes.
Posted by on Jan 07, 2007 @ 01:35 PMWell indeed John, the actions of Jeffrey and co didn’t help matters but it was the republican movement who killed the UUP.
Unlike unionists, Sinn Fein have their eyes fixed firmly on the longterm goal and strategise accordingly.
Problem is, unionists are too fond of bashing eachother rather than republicans. I quote Jim Well, DUP MLA for South Down.
“The enemy is not Sinn Fein, it is weak unionism”
Foolish comments and plays right into republican hands. The UUP is for the most part dead and gone so for the love of the god, do not let the same thing happen to the DUP.
The signs are there, its time for unionism to stand strongly together. Divided, we will certainly fall.
Posted by on Jan 07, 2007 @ 01:56 PMeyesontheprize
Pro Agreement Unionism always had its eye on the prize!
That goal was a politically stable and prosperous NI within the Union where the greater number of NI citisens were happy with both their Irishness and Britishness wherever their allegiances lay. That was also to be combined with the eventual disbandment of militant Irish Republicanism.
We are well on target with our goal I dont know what goal you think SF are achieving.
Yes they thought they should destroy mderate unionism but as I said earlier taht is akin to squeezing hard and long a piece of foam - it will bounce back.
SF Strategy is back firing.You also should lay too much credence on unionists bashing each other as the desire to disagree and fall out is a long time Northern Irish trait.
When we need each other our paths will always converge again - for as long as necessary.
The UUP is not for the most part dead - it will re-emerge not least because moderate unionists and anti Paisleyites who care politically about NI have nobody else to vote for
Posted by on Jan 07, 2007 @ 02:27 PMVery good Jeffrey, personally I didn’t expect anything less surely. I mean, your party did endorse the St Andrews Agreement where this is all contained therein, if somewhat vague.
To not recognise such commitments would be to allude that the DUP are flawed negotiators and are incompetent politicos.
Posted by on Jan 07, 2007 @ 02:28 PMJohn and Eyesontheprize
It seems to me that ‘unionism’ is much more united now than 5 years ago. Basically I don’t think that UUP voters are in great disagreement with what 2/3rds of the DUP are saying - i.e. the Paisley, Donaldson, Robinson group. So that means that probably 3/4 of unionism is in favour of this strategy, which is a more comfortable margin than Trimble enjoyed.
Posted by on Jan 07, 2007 @ 02:32 PMUnionism now comprises only 50% of the NI population and any split is too much. If they had modernised forty years ago as O’Neill warned them they could have attracted middleclass Catholic support to replace the unionist diehards.
It would seem that any attempt to modernise unionism will destroy it just as surely as a refusal to modernise. Difficult choice!
Posted by on Jan 07, 2007 @ 02:44 PMI suspect that when Jeffrey anticipates a deal in 07 he is thinking about a November election.
What incentive does the DUP have to complete things now?
Their base doesn’t like the rush or the men imposing the deadline, Blair and Hain.
The want a period of testing Sinn Fein after the committment to policing is made. They have been clear about that since ‘04 at least.
They know that Sinn Fein’s big prize is an electoral one in the south, on the back of having secured a deal in the North and presented themselves as responsible people in government there.
Why would the DUP give Sinn Fein any help in going for a stronger presence in the Dail? They took the leadership of Unionism on the back of a promise to reverse the flow of goodies to Sinn Fein. Their own advantage lies in taking the chance to give Adams a good slap, and then to deal with a more chastened Sinn Fein afterwards.
And if it is true that Sinn Fein is splitting, then the DUP will naturally want to prolong the pain for them.
The election would normally fall due in November. The DUP has a strong case to make for sticking to that schedule instead of the March deadline.
Of course, Blair wants March, so that he can hang a Mission Accomplished banner in front of Stormont. The DUP would only give him that if they had to. They would feel they had to if they feared that Brown would not want to play the peace process game. But if Brown was to come in, knowing that the DUP was up for a November deal and election, and that he only had to give it the one shot, and not get dragged into a long game, then why would he turn his back on the chance?
He would see that as a glorious two fingers to Blair, who had failed.
Put your money on November.Posted by on Jan 07, 2007 @ 02:48 PMMalachi
Yep, 2007 has 12 months in it just like any other.
Jeffrey’s statement will look good to everyone else but Sinn Fein. It’s less hardline than some others, mentions 2007 and interestingly was said on RTE…
For the SF leadership however it slightly narrows the ground to refuse to call the special conference.
It’s statements like this that make me wonder even more that, although there differences, that the DUP at the top table have agreed on one thing, that they are going make Sinn Fein twist and turn until it hurts.
And it is hurting.
Posted by on Jan 07, 2007 @ 03:23 PMJEB
“I have no sympathy with SF - they did not honour their commitments with UUP as part of their plan to destroy moderate unionism.”
That the main problem you have with them?
“However the majority unionist vote is not extremist and it will return to moderate unionism.”
.... and vote for UUP/UVF???
Posted by on Jan 07, 2007 @ 03:32 PMlib2016:
Unionism now comprises only 50% of the NI population
Got a source for this nonsense ?
Posted by on Jan 07, 2007 @ 04:20 PM.... and vote for UUP/UVF???
Bertie,
I don’t see why not. They were happy enough to vote for DUP/LVF.
Posted by on Jan 07, 2007 @ 04:21 PMAnyone else spot which party backdrop is behind wee Jeffrey in that photo? Someone in the BBC has a sense of humour!
Posted by on Jan 07, 2007 @ 04:29 PMMcCrea told the Sunday Tribune that Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness should be put on trial like Saddam Hussein, not put into government.
“Saddam’s trial is a reminder that those guilty of crimes against humanity should be toppled rather than elevated to high office, “ he said.
Enough said?
Posted by on Jan 07, 2007 @ 04:48 PM“I don’t see why not. They were happy enough to vote for DUP/LVF. “
eh no Comrade. The LVF is not a component part of the DUP. It has not formed an electoral group pact with the LVF. The fact that it is not DUP/LVF is one of the reasons that many people voted for the DUP and I hope that the UUP get electorally slaughtered for its pact.
Posted by on Jan 07, 2007 @ 05:01 PMThe LVF is not a component part of the DUP.
The UVF is not a component of the UUP. However, Ulster Resistance, the Third Force and many others are components of the DUP through common membership. Former UDA and UVF terrorists seek election under the DUP banner.
The fact that it is not DUP/LVF is one of the reasons that many people voted for the DUP and I hope that the UUP get electorally slaughtered for its pact.
My question is, why wasn’t the McCrea/Wright thing worthy of an electoral slaughtering ? This is the difference between you and me. I don’t think it’s OK to get up on a stage with an active terrorist in order to show solidarity. You think it’s inconsequential. I will never believe that consorting with unreconstructed terrorists is inconsequential. You dismiss it with a wave of the hand.
Posted by on Jan 07, 2007 @ 05:05 PMbertie
“That the main problem you have with them?”
No it isnt and I didnt say it was
“and vote for UUP/UVF???”
very casual and cheap shot posting by you overall if my say.
lib2016
“It would seem that any attempt to modernise unionism will destroy it just as surely as a refusal to modernise. Difficult choice!”
wishful as well as nonsensical thinking on your part.
unionism is slow about a lot of things but when it comes to doing what it has to for survival it is pretty quick off the markSlug
“Basically I don’t think that UUP voters are in great disagreement with what 2/3rds of the DUP are saying - i.e. the Paisley, Donaldson, Robinson group”
I think you should say that now that the UUP have done all the heavy lifting on prisoner releases etc the DUP are now in agreement with about 90% of all that we say.
However I am not comfortable about the new Designations for FM & DFM being decided by largest Parties rather than cross community support and I am not happy with vetos on Ministers.
Overall though a power sharing administration for the good of Northern Ireland is the right track.
Malachi
“The election would normally fall due in November. The DUP has a strong case to make for sticking to that schedule instead of the March deadline.”
I suppose they are in danger of over playing their hand like SF have done.
I dont think SF really need or value NI electoral success in the north to bolster the same in the south. I think you are way overplaying the significance of that.
Their campaign in the south is totally different there and is about very different issues - although I agree that an inability to support the forces of law and order in the northern jurisdiction could and should be exploited by their oppenents to show how these people are not fit for government - however they could always blame their problems on the monstrous unionists and DUP in particular and would probably get away with it.Ultimately there is no long term purpose for SF south anyway and their only existance in the north is the UI one.
Any succefful populist views they expouse south of the border would be subsumed by the established parties in due course.SF’s sole purpose was a Free and Separate UI and if they lose too much sight of that they will become increasingly ridiculous and irrelevant. The death of miltant Irish Republicanism for this generation is the goal
Unionists need a deal north of the border far more than republicans and that has always been the case.
That NI needed a deal was the Pro Agreement unionist view and we still cannot trust the DUP not to screw it all up.Donaldson believes a deal is needed himself and indeed he touches on it in this broadcast when he talks about the socioecomic issues.
Basically the business community and our economy cannot tolerate this ongoing messing about - stability is needed for real prosperity and progress for Northern Ireland.Any reticence by the DUP for a March election is because they want more time to secure their own vote.
They will not get any more UUP votes and they are more than likley to lose many of their own who choose to stay at home.Posted by on Jan 07, 2007 @ 05:15 PMMalachi O’Doherty
I’m sure Sinn Fein can fight the southern election on the “Paisley refuses to share power ticket” as easily as the “successful outcome” platform
In any case their experience in the south has shown that it is hard work on the ground rather than news of the process that gets them votes.
But your point that it is better to give the prize to Brown than Blair at this stage is a good one.
Posted by on Jan 07, 2007 @ 05:17 PMStalin,
The unionist share of the vote has been falling steadily for the last twenty years. This is a subject which has been gone over time and again and the use of loaded language won’t change that reality.
What is changing is the success of the Irish economy which mean that the financial facts of life now favour Irish unity and that will tip the balance.
Unionism is isolated and without a serious argument hence their emotive language and demonisation of their opponents.
Posted by on Jan 07, 2007 @ 05:22 PMThe unionist share of the vote has been falling steadily for the last twenty years.
You didn’t say “vote”. You said “population”. Given electoral turnouts barely hitting 60%, it’s extremely disingenuous of you to transpose the views of those motivated to vote onto those who for one reason or another are not motivated to vote. I find this kind of dishonesty revealing. It’s right up there with that “one million unionists” bullshit. I don’t think there have ever even been one million people on the electoral roll.
Unionism is isolated and without a serious argument hence their emotive language and demonisation of their opponents.
Name a political faction in Northern Ireland which doesn’t demonize the people perceived to be their opponents.
Posted by on Jan 07, 2007 @ 05:46 PMStalin,
Sorry - not my scene to get into these ‘theological’ schoolboy debates. Have a chat with ‘Ingram’ and you’ll find that he’s into this sort of misdirection. Maybe you’ll have fun together discussing the silent majority or somesuch.
In the real world people who rely on pointing out their opponent’s misuse of grammar etc. merely show the poverty of their argument. The votes are steadily getting closer and that can only have one end.
The DUP don’t have the luxury of time since they are the people with an aging falling support base. Denying the obvious is a sign of weakness - is that what you really want to convey?
Posted by on Jan 07, 2007 @ 06:19 PM““and vote for UUP/UVF???”
very casual and cheap shot posting by you overall if my say. “
Not at all casual. Said with all the disgust I can muster.
Posted by on Jan 07, 2007 @ 07:03 PM“The UVF is not a component of the UUP. However, Ulster Resistance, the Third Force and many others are components of the DUP through common membership. Former UDA and UVF terrorists seek election under the DUP banner.”
If the UVF had been as responsible for as few murders ad the UR and the TF, they wouldn’t feature on my radar.
“My question is, why wasn’t the McCrea/Wright thing worthy of an electoral slaughtering ?”
I don’t know perhaps because as I understand ot Wright had not been convicted of anything at that point and was under a death threat.
“This is the difference between you and me. I don’t think it’s OK to get up on a stage with an active terrorist in order to show solidarity.”
No the difference beteen us is that I wouldn’t accuse you of that unless you said something which would justify the accusation.
I don’t think it OK and it would probably have lost him my vote. However the DUP was not on stage with BW, he was.
“You think it’s inconsequential”
I don’t. But as I say it is not the DUP. The UUP made its alliance with Ervine.
“I will never believe that consorting with unreconstructed terrorists is inconsequential.”
It depends on the nature of the consorting. Police officers, priests and clegymen have a duty to consort with them.
“ You dismiss it with a wave of the hand. “
I dismiss it as evidence of your DUP/LVF comment.
I do not think that having unreconstructed terrorists in government is unconsequential.Posted by on Jan 07, 2007 @ 07:18 PMLib2016
The unionist share of the vote has been falling steadily for the last twenty years. This is a subject which has been gone over time and again and the use of loaded language won’t change that reality
You haven’t provided any evidence for this:
You should check the statistics on this site:
http://www.ark.ac.uk/elections/For example:
In the Westminster Election of 2001 the unionist (ie DUP and UUP combined, not including Alliance and the PUP)totalled 49.3 %, the combined nationalist vote (SDLP and SF)was 42.7%.
In the Westminster election of of 2005 those figures had changed to 51.4% and 42.7% respectively. There is a similar pattern evident in both European and Council elections since 2000, i.e. the difference between the two camps has stabilised and even in some cases increased slightly in the Unionist favour.
The DUP don’t have the luxury of time since they are the people with an aging falling support base.
Really? What’s the proof for that? Now, I’m sure you wouldn’t just be assuming that on a sectarian headcount basis dug out from the last census-still I’d be interested to see where you got your evidence from.
Posted by on Jan 07, 2007 @ 08:25 PMIn the Westminster election of of 2005 those figures had changed to 51.4% and 42.7% respectively
Sorry typo, the combined nationalist vote actually dropped to 41.8% in 2005.
Posted by on Jan 07, 2007 @ 08:29 PMComrade Stalin
Unionism is a political position. If people don’t vote for it then they can’t be counted as unionists. So if you insist on including the non-voters the unionist population is well under 50%. As is of course the nationalist population.
We can’t read the minds of non-voters.
Posted by on Jan 07, 2007 @ 10:03 PM
