Sunday, October 28, 2007
UUP Conference
Comment 15 here wonders why I haven’t blogged the party conference. The answer is that I wasn’t there, unfortunately I could only make the UUC on Friday night. Gareth Gordon has a pretty good report on the BBC, which they have online here. The most interesting element of course being the invitation of a Nationalist to address conference, who finished by using the traditional Unionist battle cry - no surrender.
Michael Shilliday @ 11:22 AM
It was a good move to invite Margaret Ritchie to the UUP conference. And she seems to have been given a positive reception - a standing ovation.
Posted by on Oct 28, 2007 @ 12:47 PMEvents of last weeks seem to have re-invigorated UUP - from impression of BBC report seem to have some cohesion. Often wondered why Burnside is still there however - is that a religious thing with him ?
Posted by on Oct 28, 2007 @ 01:00 PMBurnside seems to have been quiet of late, no doubt waiting for his opportunity to challenge the leadership.
I don’t see any particular evidence that the UUP are recovering. Their about-turn on the Ritchie matter was too obviously in response to public opinion, and seemed a bit daft given their own relationship with the PUP, which was itself handled in a damaging manner. It’s still not particularly clear exactly where they stand with respect to the institutions or their own role in government.
Posted by on Oct 28, 2007 @ 01:08 PMgood stuff slugger o’toole! keep it up - you managed, i see, to ignore all the reports today which undermined the provo/dup lies about the quinn murder! this site is a sick joke!
Posted by on Oct 28, 2007 @ 01:38 PMComrade Stalin
Now, Now Comrade - no sour grapes.Surely you are pleased that the UUP invited the SDLP Minister to their conference. Isn’t that what a shared future is all about and as I understand it the invitation was made and accepted several months ago (well before the current unpleasantness).
All parties undergo a period of metamorphosis in order to keep themselves relevant to the electorate. During such a period there can be occasional inconsistencies as different factions and personalities attempt to seize the agenda. Eventually however, a coherent strategy emerges which the electorate will in due course consider.
The UUP are not alone in this. The DUP and SF have certainly moved on to different ground and who would have thought that the Alliance party would attempt to shed their “nice people” image and adopt the hair shirt of opposition getting stuck into everybody and generally putting themselves about?
Posted by on Oct 28, 2007 @ 01:41 PMjake,
mate, you’re a bit off topic but rather than coming on here shouting the odds why not do something useful like posting a few links?
Posted by on Oct 28, 2007 @ 02:21 PMWhat happened to the BNP / Anna Lo thread? (sorry - off topic I know).
Posted by on Oct 28, 2007 @ 03:05 PMThe Gareth Gordon report, for which tip I am grateful, is highly illuminating. Ritchie, Burnside and Empey (in their different ways) were singing from the same song-sheet. It isn’t if the UUP and SDLP (though perhaps only a faction of the latter) go into formal opposition, but when. They will then, singly or collectively, have to compound a programme for government.
That moment when is causing a few wry remarks among the usual suspects. Today’s Daily Telegraph has Jenny McCartney barely diluting the vitriol (but certainly going further than (say) Lindy McDowell in yesterday’s Belfast Telegraph or McKittrick in today’s IoS): [added quotes “” around url link - edited moderator]
This month we have had a glimpse of the new Northern Ireland: a place of gleaming tourist centres and political cronyism, rocketing house prices and squalid murders, where victims emigrate and killers get promotion.My apologies if that hyperlink went wrong.
Posted by on Oct 28, 2007 @ 03:24 PMand jone why don’t you go forth and multiply yourself - the reason i made that comment is that on a day when the sunday papers are full of the quinn story this pathetic site has only one posting, on the uup conference, evidence, i would submit that mick fealty and his bunch on this joke of a site have been co-opted into the sinn fein/dup lying machine!
Posted by on Oct 28, 2007 @ 03:38 PMjake - Slugger always appears quiet on a Sunday until at least evening. I think they’re either all off marching, at church or chaining up swings ;)
Posted by on Oct 28, 2007 @ 03:51 PMjake @ 04:38 PM:
when the sunday papers are full of the quinn story
Yes, indeed. Sad it is too. If only the Quinn murder were the totality of the thing, you might have more agreement round here. And the Quinn murder has been done over, very comprehensively, for example by Suzanne Breen in the Tribune (http://www.nuzhound.com/articles/Sunday_Tribune/arts2007/oct28_attack_on_Quinn_ordered_by_IRA__SBreen.php) What’s to add to that?
This thread, though, is addressing a rather different topic: how to redress the democratic deficit that exists in NI politics? For that is why we have politicos defending the indefensible.
Posted by on Oct 28, 2007 @ 03:53 PMWas at both the conference and the meeting the previous evening, meeting went well, a mood of realism has obviously descended and Empey has achieved what Molyneaux and Trimble failed to achieve, a modernisation of the rules, as for the conference the reception for Ritchie was warm and genuine unlike that for Burnside, people have memories!
Posted by on Oct 28, 2007 @ 04:11 PMOh I nearly forgot, all you DUPes out there, when are you having your conference? I suspect that when you do get round to holding one it will tkae more than wee Sammey’s comedy act to distract the ‘troops’
Posted by on Oct 28, 2007 @ 04:13 PMAlex Swan
Perhaps, the First Minister will invite the Deputy First Minister to the next DUP conference? That would be an interesting speech.Posted by on Oct 28, 2007 @ 04:50 PMAlex Swan
Perhaps, the First Minister will invite the Deputy First Minister to the next DUP conference? That would be an interesting speech.Posted by Smithsonian on Oct 28, 2007 @ 05:50 PM
Morecome & Wise, the 2 Ronnies, Cannon & Ball, the Chuckle Bros???????
Posted by on Oct 28, 2007 @ 06:20 PMSmithsonian, first off I’m not speaking for the Alliance Party, so my opinions should definitely not be construed as representative of their policies. They wouldn’t let an old Bolshevik in. I’m just an enthusiastic supporter.
I have no reason to be either pleased or displeased at the UUP inviting Ritchie to speak at their conference, the internal politics of the party is really not any of my business. I do have some observations though, namely that firstly I still see the invitation as part of cynical bandwagon jumping by that party; and secondly, the UUP have had many opportunities to act in the forthright and courageous way that Ritchie did. Time and time again they have chosen, rather than stand up to loyalists in the same way that they stand up to the IRA, to instead welcome them in from the cold as fellow-travellers without setting any standards whatsoever on reducing violence, decommissioning or standing down. Initially McGimpsey reacted to Ritchie’s statement in the House in the same way that Robinson and McGuinness did, before he did an about-face. The only thing the UUP did was smell the coffee more quickly than the DUP & SF did.
All parties undergo a period of metamorphosis in order to keep themselves relevant to the electorate. During such a period there can be occasional inconsistencies as different factions and personalities attempt to seize the agenda. Eventually however, a coherent strategy emerges which the electorate will in due course consider.
Seems to me, then, that the UUP (and their immediate predecessors) have been in a state of metamorphoses since 1972.
who would have thought that the Alliance party would attempt to shed their “nice people” image and adopt the hair shirt of opposition getting stuck into everybody and generally putting themselves about?
The Alliance Party is acting right now pretty much as it has always done. I’m thinking of the days when the party leadership stood up and demanded that the British government send in troops to operate powerstations and break the UWC strike; when it went to court to get unionists back to work during the Anglo Irish Agreement business; and the party blazing the trail in having the UDP and Sinn Fein excluded from talks in the latter 1990s when their contemporaries were actively murdering people; or showing leadership when the very first opportunity came to elect the first Catholic Lord Mayor of Belfast and, some years later, the first Sinn Fein Lord Mayor.
If being “nice people” means “promoting dialogue and agreement at all times, while consistently standing up to intransigence and paramilitarism”, hell yeah, I’m nice people. Aren’t you ?
Posted by on Oct 28, 2007 @ 07:17 PMComrade Stalin
I didn’t suggest that you were speaking on behalf of the Alliance party, strange that you should jump to that conclusion.However, it is hard to see how any party can move forward if “the sins of the father are forever to visited upon the son”. Times change, people change, the wider context changes… time to move on.
I thought regardless of your political persuasion that an openness to a different point of view would be considered a good thing. The alternative seems rather unattractive.
Posted by on Oct 28, 2007 @ 07:36 PMComrade Stalin @ 08:17 PM:
Not just a good post, but a thoroughly uplifting overview.
I am increasingly of the view that the old sectarian politics are dead as mutton, and that the new Northern Ireland is coming at us fast. St Andrews and its concomitants may well prove to be the nicest rat-trap in history: for which much thanks.
The place for radicals (of all political and religious complexions) to be is outside the tent urinating in. From now on, the process of governing NI gets tougher, with no obvious kudos for managing the process.
Two examples:
The water-charge issue was bought off for another year: together with the three-year rates-freeze that may be a mistake, for it would surely be better to have the crunch now than a further year or two down the electoral cycle.
The more I looked at Robinson’s financial planning, the less attractive the prospects looked. It is predicated to four dubious assumptions: raising £1.1B from selling off the assets; PPIs; Treasury borrowing; streamlining the bureaucracy. Turn that on its head and it means: dumping government property onto a likely-deflating market; increasing debt, running the (now obvious) risks involved in PPIs; and sacking civil servants: none of which is a sure-fire recipe for popularity.
No, surely the Executive will not flounder on issues of violence or gangsterism: that’s now merely an opportunity for hand-wringing and tut-tutting. Its nemesis could and ought to be the bread-and-butter issues: health, welfare, transport, education. Yes, Robinson is pointing to increased investment in all those areas, but look a little closer and the ambitions are distinctly modest.
Posted by on Oct 28, 2007 @ 08:05 PMI was struck by the apparently small number of people present at the conference at least judging by the television coverage. I remember UUP conferences in the early and mid 1990s which had vastly greater attendances.
I would agree that the UUP are doing a bit better of late but as far as I can see that is mainly because the DUP have been doing very badly in the last few weeks. I am unconvinced that the UUP have the new policies, leaders, vision etc. they need. We will wait and see but it all rather reminded me of David Steele’s comment “Go home and prepare for government.”
In terms of Comrade Stalin and this “leadership....the first Sinn Fein Lord Mayor.”
At the last local elections I was canvassed by a very middle class, late middle aged Alliance couple at the polling station. I was out of work, still wearing a suit and the way they approached me I got the impression they expected a pretty positive response. I took the leaflet and asked “Tell me which party voted for Alex Maskey for Lord Mayor”. The man did not even reply but took the leaflet back off me as the beaming DUP canvasser stepped forward. Maybe in some parts of East Belfast some Alliance types realised it was not seen as leadership by some of the unionist community. Of course woe betide the DUP canvasser who tries to canvass me next time.
Posted by on Oct 28, 2007 @ 08:11 PMSmithsonian:
I didn’t suggest that you were speaking on behalf of the Alliance party, strange that you should jump to that conclusion.
Not strange considering that you mentioned the Alliance Party in response to me for no obvious reason.
However, it is hard to see how any party can move forward if “the sins of the father are forever to visited upon the son”. Times change, people change, the wider context changes… time to move on.
I thought regardless of your political persuasion that an openness to a different point of view would be considered a good thing. The alternative seems rather unattractive.
Can’t argue with any of that.
Malcolm, thank you for the kind comments. The sectarian arrangement at present can’t be sustained, and I think given time that it will metamorphose into something else. What that will be is very hard to predict at the moment, but it depends to a great extent on how well, or how badly, the politicians make a stab at running the place.
Turgon, I’ll bet you didn’t ask the DUP councillor what disciplinary action was to be taken against William McCrea for standing on a podium with Billy Wright ? Every time I raise that subject with DUP members they change the subject. The Alliance decision to elect Maskey is defensible, not least on the basis that Sinn Fein have an electorate and represent a section of the people. The McCrea-Wright thing was not.
Posted by on Oct 28, 2007 @ 09:06 PMQuite surreal really when you realise that the strongest unionist speaking at the UUP Conference was actually Margaret Ritchie!
Posted by on Oct 28, 2007 @ 09:13 PM“unfortunately I could only make the UUC on Friday night”
That does sound unfortunate.
Posted by on Oct 28, 2007 @ 09:32 PMCS,
I’m fairly sure some ex-Bolsheviks are in Alliance.
Posted by on Oct 28, 2007 @ 09:37 PMComrade Stalin,
Do not worry I was utterly disgusted by McCrea appearing on the same platform as Wright. Indeed at first I did not believe it, until I saw the television pictures.Incidentally as I am sure you are aware I am neither a member; nor supporter of the DUP.
Posted by on Oct 28, 2007 @ 09:51 PMComrade Stalin
I have heard this about SF having an entitlement to positions because of their electoral mandate so many times - and it bewilders me. Permit me to ask a few questions?
Does the fact that people vote for SF make their actions moral?
Did Hitler deserve his position in Germany given he was elected?
Were those that sought to oppose Hitler wrong?
Just because people vote for someone does not mean that they are ‘fit for’ or deserve government. Before anyone suggests I am not accepting the democratic outcome of elections, that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that other parties like the Alliance should not support their election to positions such as Lord Mayor nor should the DUP accept a deal which brings them into government.
Posted by on Oct 28, 2007 @ 09:57 PM
