Monday, April 16, 2007
Spin this one!?!
David Trimble, former leader of the UUP, is to join the Conservatives. A formal annoucement is expected tomorrow. There are rumours that another UU peer will follow suit in the near future.
Fair Deal @ 04:21 PM
>>I really have to disagree that there is any possibility of a Labour pact with the SNP. The bitter hatred, and I do not think that is too strong a word, between Salmond and Brown, Alexander, et al will make sure it never happens.<<
Not forgetting that it was a Nationalist MP who complained to the polis about the cash for honours carry-on. The negativity of labour during this Holyrood campaign is alarming, the old tricks aren’t working so they are pulling out all the stops.Pigs will fly before these two parties co-operate.
Trimble has got to be the single most undeserving recipient of any nobel prize.
Posted by on Apr 16, 2007 @ 06:56 PMRubicon,
Only old establishment farts join the Tory Lords.
Radicalism gone, revolutionary spirit—negative.Another gin and tonic; and could you get me a crate of expensive red wine on your way back from Brussels.. jobs for the boys etc.
Fills me with the urge to defecate.
End of Story!Posted by on Apr 16, 2007 @ 07:03 PMCato - I remember those times. I remember “Black Monday” watching the news wondering how many more points would cause me to loose my house. I think you may be a little too confident of a labour victory at the next election. Just a few reasons:
1. Labour is blamed for Iraq. It’s unfair since the Tories supported Blair and everyone knows they’ve have done the same. But - Labour was/is in the seat and they’ll take the blame.
2. Brown has been a stealth tax Chancellor and people have come to know it. Blair’s delayed departure has damaged Brown.
3. Brown is a Scot and it doesn’t make winning votes in the SE easy. Smith could have done it - but Brown is middle England’s taxman. He’ll not get many votes for it.
4. Scotland is likely to piss-off the English by voting for the SNP at Lanour’s expense. This will appear to be Labour’s failure.These are just some of the reasons that a Brown PM may not come to be. What Brown conceded to Blair over lunch prior to Labour’s ‘97 victory has not gone away. Is Brown any better thought of now than he might have been then? I don’t think he is - but instead he’s the personification of the taxman.
The next election looks like it’ll be very close. Cameron will probably win it if Brown takes over. Cameron has made some positive moves and shows no sign of bringing in the right wing loonies that could make the threat you propose seem credible. That includes the risk of bringing in the likes of Trimble. Let him become a Tory – it’ll be a home from home for him. He can sit with the old farts in the Lords bar talking about the good old days when croppies knew their place. It’ll be as near to a cabinet he’ll get – unless he bends over one!
Posted by on Apr 16, 2007 @ 07:09 PMGreenflag
“Anyway it’ll be good for the Tories to have a former Unionist leader in their line up next time out . Should help them to lose even more of the Irish vote in England :)”If only you could appreciate the amusing irony here…..
Posted by on Apr 16, 2007 @ 07:13 PMI concur rubicon the craving for respect, status and respectability lures these old boys on; Its just a diversion from their inadequacies as humans. Disgusting.
Posted by on Apr 16, 2007 @ 07:13 PM“If only you could appreciate the amusing irony here…..”
Oooh, how tantalising…er….um….nope…I’m just not clever and cryptic enough. Put me out of my misery. WTF are you talking about?
Make sure it’s amusing now.
Posted by on Apr 16, 2007 @ 07:24 PMI’m glad I’m not the only one here with an irony deficiency. Put me out my misery too.
Posted by on Apr 16, 2007 @ 07:26 PMSimply British - you seem to be hearing much the same as myself. My info comes from an MLA and it might update your own. I can assure you the source is reliable.
McFarland was offered the Health ministry. Before accepting it McFarland wanted to know who the other minister was going to be. Reg told him he’s be taking the DEL portfolio himself. McFarland decided to give Reg a lecture on party management pointing out Reg’s failures.
Reg withdrew the offer. This is the reason McFarland didn’t even get a Deputy Chair of a Committee. He showed no political judgement and has been punished.
Either he should have accepted Reg’s authority or have challenged it in the proper way. He lost at his last attempt - but still wanted to decide who got what ministry.
Reg - despite himself - has impressed me with this decision. Another Jeffery the UUP don’t need.
Posted by on Apr 16, 2007 @ 07:30 PMCato,
Thank you for the compliment. Regarding the likelihood of a Labour-SNP pact, I won’t claim to have in-depth knowledge here, but I’d believe any two parties can do some sort of deal given what’s happened here in the past few weeks. Will Brown really shun the SNP if they are a key factor in his presidence over a stable government ? Will the SNP really say no to a few dangled carrots, such as a referendum on independence or a deal to grant Scotland concessions over North Sea oil revenues ? I’m just shooting the breeze here but surely this stuff can’t be flat ruled out.
Milliband would be the top contender for the stalking horse candidate, but I don’t think he’ll do it. I’m certain he is likely to be a future leader of the Labour Party, and if he’s thinking about this he won’t stab Brown in the back at what appears to be a low point in the party’s period in government. I doubt he wants to resign himself to being another Heseltine.
For what it is worth, I think Brown will sneak past Cameron for the simple reason that, barring an economic disaster between now and then, people have felt relatively well off under the Labour government.
I agree completely. Love or hate Brown, the Conservatives during their long period in power were incapable of running the economy quite so smoothly. People won’t rock that boat.
Posted by on Apr 16, 2007 @ 07:31 PMNever mind, looks like we could get Robin Sterling on a free transfer from the Dupes…
“I hope the Ulster Unionist Party will arise from the ashes – there is no reason why that cannot take place”
http://voice4democracyni.blogspot.com/index.htmlCome back Davy Brewster.. you know you want to….
Posted by on Apr 16, 2007 @ 07:35 PMRubicon:
>>I’d be interested in hearing what some residents in England (and particularly the SE) have to say about this. <<Even in the SE (where I live) Labour is not as popular as it once was. Yes, Brown is sneaky with stealth taxes and that is one of the main reasons why I would not trust him as PM. His raid on the pensions funds was totally short-term and unthinking of the possible consequences on pensioners. That will cost him votes at the next election.
One of the silliest things Blair did (and he has done a few silly things) was to announce a time limit on his leadership. This caused so much truly tedious fuss about “when are you going” - a baying chorus from Brownites and the press.
As to whether Labour will win the next election, I am not sure. To me all the current leaders, Tory and Labour, are hollow men. It could be that the electorate (those who even bother to vote) will decide to have a change just for the sake of change. If that is the case the PMs may be as follows: [Brown - not elected]; Cameron; Milliband.
I have been looking into the future quite a bit lately instead of researching the past as an historian should.
Posted by on Apr 16, 2007 @ 07:41 PMMcFarland was offered the Health ministry. Before accepting it McFarland wanted to know who the other minister was going to be. Reg told him he’s be taking the DEL portfolio himself. McFarland decided to give Reg a lecture on party management pointing out Reg’s failures.
Reg withdrew the offer. This is the reason McFarland didn’t even get a Deputy Chair of a Committee. He showed no political judgement and has been punished.
——
If that’s a fair account of what happened I’m stunned. Its not unreasonable of McFarland to point out that the party would be far better served by Reg taking his leadership responsibilities seriously, instead of tucking his knees beneath a comfy ministerial desk.
And Reg is hardly blameless when it comes to the current rudderless state of the party he’s meant to “lead”.
And to think that instead of choosing the party’s ministers on the basis of who is best for Northern Ireland, he shows he cant take some tough words from a senior colleague and instead throws a hissy fit and throws the party into turmoil.
Terrible leadership!!
Can we take it from the above that McFarland is going to challenge then at the AGM??
Posted by on Apr 16, 2007 @ 07:46 PMmerrie
Surely Brown’s raid on the pension funds was in the early days of the administration. I remember Mrs Thatcher saying in the late Nineties that it was fraud.
Posted by on Apr 16, 2007 @ 08:02 PMif you dont include the post of first minister, then Reg is the only party leader to take a ministry.
Says more about his ego than his faith in those under himPosted by on Apr 16, 2007 @ 08:07 PMIsnt the real story here that Trimble is leaving the UUP. The days when you could have ‘riden two horses’ are obviously gone.
Conservatives must have insisted he leave UUP - so they obviously think UUP is toastPosted by on Apr 16, 2007 @ 08:11 PMMerrie – thanks for your observations. Your view is interesting and one I think resonates in England. There’s a lot of time left before the next election. If Brown is the next PM he’ll have his first opportunity to show how public money can be used effectively. I have my doubts about whether middle-England will give him that opportunity – I even wonder whether he’ll convince Labour apparatchiks to put him in No. 10.
Personally, I hope not – I don’t trust a pick-pocket. I’ve no objection to tax to generate a better society. Brown – for ego reasons occupying No. 11 for 10 years – has shown no ability to spend better than Blair. He has however shown a contempt for the intelligence of the taxpayer. Perhaps I’m being unfair – but – perhaps his time has come and gone. We’ll see …
UUP-Balmoral – you seem to forget that Reg was elected leader and McFarland lost. There are honourable ways for McFarland to challenge Reg – but the way he choose was self defeating and an arrogant dismissal of Reg. The 2 are old adversaries but when one decides he’ll ignore the vote of his party he’s embarked on a dangerous route.
Why should McFarland appoint himself the nominating officer for the UUP? He lost the leadership election. The victor offered him a ministerial position and McFarland didn’t refuse it. He instead decided he’d do Reg’s job.
In McFarland’s favour – he’d a point. The UUP do need leadership and reform. McFarland, in shooting himself in the foot has demonstrated he’s not up to the job.
Few will be surprised. Unionism is now led by the DUP and the UUP have a couple of seats to watch their demise. Molyneaux started this rot, he has worthy sons.
Posted by on Apr 16, 2007 @ 08:28 PMTrimbles move is also interesting in the context of the other defections in that direction recently no matter how much he tries to paint it as something different.
What I think was ludicrous about Empey’s move was that he cannot disguise it as anything other than self interest. A leader would have either said that health is a tremendous challenge which I will tackle personally (he himself fufills the criteria on which he says he appointed McGimpsey - that he had been a Minister before)or I intend to leave Government to others while I sort out the party. Instead Reg tries to argue that DEL will not take as much effort and will allow him to still focus on the leadership - all as a cover for the fact that his personal preference was for DEL as a department similar to what he did before at DETI. If d’hondt had been run in the same way as the last time - actually on 8 May - do we think that Reg would have went for the humiliation of appointing himself last in the off chance of getting DEL.
This also raises further questions for his colleagues. If the offer to McFarland was withdrawn then why did it not go to Kennedy - surely this is a vote of no confidence in his Deputy. Was McGimpsey then chosen as someone who because of his ministerial background would cover over the McFarland debacle or - just to think aloud once more - was the post given to McGimpsey as a buy off for something to come?
Posted by on Apr 16, 2007 @ 08:34 PMEven by Slugger’s standards, I don’t think I’ve ever read so much piss. It’s perfectly possible to a.) be a paid-up member of the UUP & b.) at exactly the same time, take the Tory whip in the House of Lords. I give you Alan Brookeborough as a fairly pertinent example.
Posted by on Apr 16, 2007 @ 08:34 PMBrown is already in No 10 Downing Street. It would save on moving costs at least.
Posted by on Apr 16, 2007 @ 08:45 PMSnapshot - Brookeborough was an example of a lot.
Simply British - I interpret Reg’s offer as a means to heal wounds. It was rejected. Reg, as the leader, is right to deal with self-appointed leaders harshly. McFarland demonstrated incompetence in the political arena - he let his ego carry him away. There’s a time to fight.
Even if McFarland decides to challenge Reg - wouldn’t he be better placed after demonstrating leadership and contributing to the health of NI? Sadly, he’s a buffoon. Without generating confidence he demands it. A typical pedestrian lower ranked army officer. The British army isn’t stupid – nor is NI’s electorate.
Let McFarland challenge Reg now. McFarland has blown his chance – erstwhile supporters now know what side their bread is buttered on.
Nobody in NI will be concerned – not even within the UUP. Nobody knows what McFarland shot himself in the foot over. Had it anything to do with improving the life of the people? It didn’t.
Reg gave NI a gift when he sidelined McFarland. Now – if he can only go one step further and apply the same principle to himself … Nah! He signed up to loyalists (encouraged by McFarland) to keep power that had already slipped him by.
This all may make for interesting intrigue – but it’s about as important as an episode of EastEnders. At a push it could be described at entertainment.
Posted by on Apr 16, 2007 @ 09:00 PMCato
>> Surely Brown’s raid on the pension funds was in the early days of the administration. I remember Mrs Thatcher saying in the late Nineties that it was fraud. <<
Yes it was in the early days of the administration, but the effects took a few years to show.
Most financial pundits say that Brown’s raid didn’t really cause the drastic changes in the pension setup. I suspect that is the case. The companies changing their pensions schemes are no doubt interested in reducing payouts and grabbing as much dosh as possible, not really caring about their pensioners.
The problems for Brown are that:
1. the amount of the change is = the amount he raided from the pensions funds2. Everyone knows he does stealth taxes and therefore cannot be trusted.
3. The electorate would prefer to believe their own instincts (and the ravings of some newspapers) not the financial pundits, especially when their own pensions are involved.
I am amazed that there are no stricter controls on the management of pension funds in the UK. If Brown’s raid was permissible, surely he could at the same time have legislated to protect the pension schemes from such changes as have occurred.
We have Blair the Bliar - or Blur as Gerry Adams says (maybe that’s just his Belfast accent). I am trying to think of something similar for Brown. Any suggestions?
Posted by on Apr 16, 2007 @ 09:00 PMGS
Brookeborough is listed as a crossbencher in the Lords and member of the UUP parliamentary party on parliament’s official website.
Posted by on Apr 16, 2007 @ 09:01 PMBrookeborough is listed as a crossbencher because by tradition anyone occupying a position in the royal household (as Brookeborough does) puts aside party for the duration. He took the Conseravtive whip before he got his appointment from HM, and when AB takes his leave of Her, he’ll take the Tory whip again.
Posted by on Apr 16, 2007 @ 09:14 PMGS
He took up that position in 1997. IIRC there was no UU grouping in the Lords then, it was a later development.
Also the expectation is Trimble will get a spokesperson’s role for the Tories if not tomorrow soon after (with dreams of more in the future) so it will be more than taking the whip.
Posted by on Apr 16, 2007 @ 09:32 PMSo DT’s got a spot in the lifeboat whilst the deckchair squabbles continue.
A number of us on Slugger have foreseen this scenario.
There is longterm room in NI for British Nationalists , Irish Nationalists and Republicans (libertarians) plus fringes.
The Tories will enlarge to assume the first role by gobbling up the UUP rump and later, the DUP rump.
The second role will be filled by the SDLP rump, the Shinners who don’t really understand republicanism (a lot) and FF.
And the real republicans, Alliance heads, and the DUP will inherit the legacy of McCraken.It just takes time.
Posted by on Apr 16, 2007 @ 09:36 PM
