Friday, May 19, 2006
UUP need to learn some tough lessons, fast…
If some of the UUP’s insiders were relishing the media attention the Ervine deal got them at the beginning of the week, they’re unlikely to still be doing so now. It seems Reg Empey has suffered the first crisis of his leadership: and he has some important lessons that will have to be learned and learned quickly if they are to have a viable long term future.
Mick Fealty @ 04:06 PM
Mick
Dont think the article is completely accurate. The standing orders have been changed that would allow for a resetting of the ‘day one’ under which d’hondt is run, however there is absolutley no guarantee that this would happen. With a Unionist ministerial seat at risk, I certainly woudlnt have gambled it on having a new ‘day one’ the move by the DUP or UUP to form a group would still have to have been made on Monday to be sure.
The Secretary of state changed the standing orders on friday, he could easily have changed them again. I could have forseen him changing them to stop SF loosing the seat from their point of view a happier SF and a 50/50 executive split would suit better. For the sake of Unionism I wouldnt have let monday pass by.
Posted by on May 19, 2006 @ 04:26 PMmore sectarian head counting ,like any Prod ‘ll do even one who represents a para-military group thats up to its neck in murder,extortion and drug running and also adamantly refuses to ever decomission !
Posted by on May 19, 2006 @ 04:39 PMOC
You are right in that this could seem like a sectarian head count and may well be. However it is something that happens in most parliaments throughout the world (the forming of coalitions to maximise influence) so even if the asssembly wasnt divided along sectarian lines, something like this was bound to happen sooner or later.
Posted by on May 19, 2006 @ 05:26 PMTony,
Alliances are one thing, sectarian alliances are also ok - at the end of the day that’s politics. But to include terrorists in your alliance and abandon a basic principle of democracy is simply lower than low.Posted by on May 19, 2006 @ 05:30 PMAgree with Tony - this wasn’t a chance they could have missed. I was well impressed by Alan McFarland’s BBC debate with Gregory C last nite - the DUP have been totally hypocritical on this!! When Alan took out those old Ulster Resistance photos it just really showed them up
If the UUs are reaching out to bring in the bits of loyalism that have been on the outside of the process then, as far as i’m concerned, great - means they aren’t content to just sit there in the leafy lanes!!
Of course the UUP have taken brickbats all week, but I haven’t seen them change course - And good for Reg and Alan for taking this tricky route - I really hope his gamble works out, and loyalist communities get the help they desperately need.
I mean, it’s not exactly every day you see the political parties here putting the interests of the Province ahead of their own electoral concerns now is it?!?
Posted by on May 19, 2006 @ 05:38 PMSpeaking as a Unionist, I fail to see why it is preferrable to have gained a seat from Sinn Fein for the price of conceding the principle of no guns no government.
What is so bad about Sinn Fein that makes taking a seat away from them so important?
Seriously, I’d like to see someone address that question, keeping in mind that the UUP are able to swallow hard and work with unreconstructed loyalist terrorists, but not seemingly republicans who are clearly and demonstrably moving away from violence and criminality.Posted by on May 19, 2006 @ 05:41 PMThe simple fact is that the UUP is composed of lying, sectarian hypocrites.
Posted by on May 19, 2006 @ 06:05 PM“The simple fact is that the UUP is composed of lying, sectarian hypocrites.”
Sylvia Hermon and Dermot Nesbitt excluded surely, to name but two.
Posted by on May 19, 2006 @ 06:37 PMWeeUlsterman
“When Alan took out those old Ulster Resistance photos it just really showed them up”When the Tank Commander took out the photos you realised that the UUP had come to ‘last line of defence’ time. When in doubt rant about red berets etc.
The trouble with that strategy from the UUP is that it delivers dimishing returns. They’ve tried it so often now (several times at least during all recent election campaigns) that it has little or no effect.
People are just much more interested in the here and now - and its here and now that the UUP are in league with terrorists. The same does not apply to the DUP.
“Of course the UUP have taken brickbats all week, but I haven’t seen them change course”
You obviously havent been watching too closely. On Monday it was all about taking a seat from Sinn Fein. That was the only reason for the decision - and going by what Burnside said on the radio that is clearly what he was told.
However come about Wednesday the move was all about persuading the UVF to abandon violence. THey were taking the high moral ground and reaching out the hand to the filth. That’s obviously what they were telling Hermon.
The trouble is that the UUP isnt just split over this move, its split three ways. There are those who rightly think that its a grubby pathetic little move which embraces terrorism.
There then are those who support it, but only as a tactical move to allegedly remove a seat from Sinn Fein in the Executive which is not formed and shows no immediate prospect of being formed. That is the one and only reason they support it - i.e. the Burnside wing.
There then are those who support it but only as a gesture of hopefully housetraining the PUPs and making them nice ‘decent’ people like the Reggies and Tank Commanders of this world. They see this as the only reason why they could support this move as embracing terrorism for any kind of cynical Assembly tactic just isnt for them - i.e. the Hermon wing.
Its quite a feat from Reg the wonderboy that he’s managed to make the UUP even more divided than under the purple turtle.
Posted by on May 19, 2006 @ 06:55 PM“What’s so bad about Sinn Féin?” asks TAFKABO - So presumably you as a DUP supporter want to go into govt with Sinn Fein/IRA whilst leaving our loyalist communities out in the cold???
I think the quality of leadership from the DUP this week has been lamentable. When in doubt resort to vicious hypocritical soundbytes. Not really what unionism needs right now!
But hey those oh-so-clever wee boys in the pinstripe suits whom Robbo has gathered around him dont’ exactly give a sheyt about loyalist communities now do they, beyond ensuring they keep obediently voting DUP…
up the hill and down the hill mr Paisley
but some were left dead on the hill
never again
Posted by on May 19, 2006 @ 06:57 PMWeeUlsterman
“So presumably you as a DUP supporter want to go into govt with Sinn Fein/IRA whilst leaving our loyalist communities out in the cold???”And there you fall into the trap which many UUP supporters have done so by having such a superficial grasp of the issues and a short-sighted view of tactics.
The point is that if the UUP were so concerned about the presence of Sinn Fein terrorists in Government then they would not fundamentally undermine their own arguements against the presence of terrorists in Government by using different terrorists in order to gain an extra place in Government - who it may or may not be at the expense of in this case is not the most fundamental issue.
It is not the most fundamental issue for 3 reasons:
1) The DUP could also return that unionist majority by adding an extra name (were the Ervine factor not present).2) There is no particular prospect of the Executive being formed at the minute. However, the pressure becomes immediately greater once unionism in the stupid form of the UUP undermine the arguement as explained earlier.
3) Accountable Ministers (which will be delivered by the DUP, yet were seemingly unimportant in UUP negotiations) will make exactly who the personality in office is less vital. That Minister wont be able to take the McGuinness or deBrun type decisions and would require a cross-community majority.
We are left wondering however, if the UUP were so keen on creating permanent or long lasting unionist majorities on the Executive they would have negotiated 7 Government Departments which is much more likely to deliver that goal, under most electoral outcomes.
Typically the UUP are trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted - but typically of them they manage to scare most of the other horses out of the stable in the process of doing so.
Posted by on May 19, 2006 @ 07:09 PMAttacking the DUP by highlighting their hypocrisy isn’t really a defence is it? It is a diversion, almost an acceptance that there is legitimacy in the concerns. Hi look, we know we did wrong, but everyone else is at it, and by the way we did that equally nasty lot out of a seat by so doing, so its OK. As for bringing the UVF in from the cold, well perhaps at best delusional. Strange defence.
It would have been refreshing to hear the truth, look we want and extra minister and hang the principles that’s the priority.
Posted by on May 19, 2006 @ 07:13 PMCarson Cat
I can see why DUP people are upset about this, they have something to loose - the seat they had planned to take. But I really dont think Ervine and the PUP are terrorists or have any say regarding UVF activity (the IMC now agree), if they did there wouldnt be any. I think Ervine is a genuine person who comes from a background that none of us like, but I do really believe he has made a true movement and genuinely believes in peace and an end to paramiltarism. I think that as far as Ervine is concerned the UUP are on safe ground, it is only peoples inaccurate and simplistic view that PUP=UVF and the DUP playing on this that is causing an issue.
Also the red beret card has been played before, the problem is that it is accurate and warranted, the problem for the DUP is that is only the tip of the iceberg as far as DUP and Loyalism goes, if this were to turn into a mud slinging excercisebetween UUP and DUP, DUP members are in for a rough time scandal wise. There will be a few UUP caught up but I have a feeling this will calm down the DUP really dont want to open this can of worms.
Posted by on May 19, 2006 @ 07:23 PMI’m not so much concerned about the inclusion of SF as I am about the exclusion of loyalism - how can NI move forward under some DUP/SF pact if it leaves the loyalist communities behind?
Now that the IRA have decommissioned, most thinking people accept that SF will have to be in a future govt - but why do the DUP want to accept republicans whilst excluding loyalists??
If we have to have SF why do the DUPs want the loyalists left out???
It’s all about power that’s why - the DUP know the loyalists hate them for leading them up the hill, and the DUP just want to dominate Unionism with the relentless iron grip that Sinn Fein/IRA have over nationalism.
I’m glad the UUP oppose this and are working with the loyalists and finally breaking out of their leafy lane ghettos - good for Reg, the guy has balls.
Posted by on May 19, 2006 @ 07:30 PMWU: “Now that the IRA have decommissioned, most thinking people accept that SF will have to be in a future govt - but why do the DUP want to accept republicans whilst excluding loyalists??”
Oh, mayhaps its a matter of principle, wanting to keep the gun and criminality out of government. But, apparently, in the name of political expediency, the UUP decided that some terrorists are better than others. Sad, to see principle jettisoned in favor of a political “advantage” that may have to purpose.
Posted by on May 19, 2006 @ 07:34 PMTony Clifton
“But I really dont think Ervine and the PUP are terrorists or have any say regarding UVF activity (the IMC now agree)”Well its a shame that on Monday on the Steve Nolan show that Ervine was admitting that he still remains a spokesman for the UVF. I think the IMC have had plenty to say on the activities of the UVF.
Even if the links between the PUP and UVF were as tenuous as you suggest the problem remains is that the perception of the general public is something massively different.
As for Ervine as a person - that is utterly irrelevant. Its the group who he speaks for are the problem - he happens to be a terrorist spokesman, I couldnt care less if he happens to be a particularly affable terrorist spokesman.
“the DUP really dont want to open this can of worms.”
You really mean to tell me that the UUP are only now grasping around for supposed DUP hypocrisy on the terrorism issue? You dont think that when the UUP’s trained chimpanzees at CunningPlan House were digging out the decades old red beret pictures and indoctrinating Sam Foster to mention Clontibret at least once every hour that they weren’t looking for anything else they could lay their hands on.
Why on earth when the UUP were being rightly criticised for cozying up to republican terrorists would the UUP have withheld the kind of explosive revelations that you suggest are out there lurking around every street corner. Is it really a sensible suggestion to wait until electoral oblivion is staring you in the face before you fire your secret weapon?
The fact is that the UUP would have loved to have found something damaging against the DUP when they were sitting around the Stormont Executive table with an armed and active Sinn Fein/IRA. It would have taken a little of the sting out of DUP attacks at that time. The problem is that they weren’t able to get anything which was even close to being meaningful then and I doubt that they will manage to get anything now - particularly as most of the cash they used to get for running CunningPlan House has dried up in the last while.
Posted by on May 19, 2006 @ 07:35 PM“wanting to keep the gun and crimanility out of government” ??? - have you actually seen the SF/DUP comprehensive agreement??
anyone who thinks Robbo and the Pinstripe Boys are tryin’ to keep SF out of govt is just living in cloud cuckoo land…
the question is do include loyalism too, or just leave those communities out there abandoned?
sure would suit the dup’s appeal-to-the-middle-classes strategy to do the latter…
Posted by on May 19, 2006 @ 07:39 PMWeeUlsterman
“- but why do the DUP want to accept republicans whilst excluding loyalists??”I must apologise at this point - I grossly over-estimated you from your previous post.
The fact is that the DUP want republican terrorists and loyalist terrorists treated equally. Republicans have moved some way towards democracy by substantial decommissioned but they must also end their crime if they wish to be part of a Government. The problem for loyalists is that they are currently behind republicans in terms what they have to do before they are eligible for Government.
You may be happy to distinguish between their terrorists and our terrorists but that simply makes embracing them all the more morally repulsive.
Oh, and BTW, its not just the DUP who want the loyalists left out of Government - its the vast, vast majority of the unionist community who have chosen not to vote for the political representatives of drug dealers, murderers and gangsters.
Posted by on May 19, 2006 @ 07:40 PMWeeUlsterman
“sure would suit the dup’s appeal-to-the-middle-classes strategy”And how does including the UVF suit the UUP’s appeal-to-catholics strategy? I dont suggest that that strategy is a bad thing - appealing to more non-traditional unionists is perfectly fine, its just that working with loyalist terrorists is unlikely to be the way to achieve it.
Also, alleging that the DUP are just champing at the bit to get into Government with SF is hardly a line of defence for the UUP or PUP - after all, they have already done it three times and are clearly keen to do so again. Its the DUP who are standing on the princples upon which they were elected.
Principles are something like “no guns - no government”. Its just a matter of keeping them.
Posted by on May 19, 2006 @ 07:44 PMCat, you talk about the “decades-old” red beret photos - they may be old but neither Robinson nor Paisley have ever renounced their own actions at that time.
Do you really think it was the correct thing to do to get jigged up in camouflage and red berets and form battalions across the province and talk, as Paisley did, of using “Any Means Necessary” to get his way????
Lots of young Protestants were led astray by all this chicanery and later lost their lives - and yet none of the DUP leadership have renounced their actions at that time - so to my mind it’s perfectly legitimate for the UUP to raise this.
Posted by on May 19, 2006 @ 07:47 PMI’m not so much concerned about the inclusion of SF as I am about the exclusion of loyalism - how can NI move forward under some DUP/SF pact if it leaves the loyalist communities behind?
I’m sorry, but this nonsense cannot go unchallenged.
Since when did the PUP, the UVF or David Ervine represent the loyalist communities?.
When they get a mandate from the loyalist communities, you can make this claim, so far they have failed to do so.
The loyalist communities have cast their votes for other Unionist parties.The UVF don’t speak for the so called loyalist community.
Posted by on May 19, 2006 @ 07:48 PMWU: “"wanting to keep the gun and crimanility out of government” ??? - have you actually seen the SF/DUP comprehensive agreement??”
PIRA has given up their guns and are, as a presence on in the crime-statistics, fading away like old soldiers. The Loyalist murder-gangs, sadly, are not.
WU: “anyone who thinks Robbo and the Pinstripe Boys are tryin’ to keep SF out of govt is just living in cloud cuckoo land… “
I didn’t say “SF,” I said “the gun.” While we’re at it, let’s keep the bat and the knife out of government, as well.
WU: “the question is do include loyalism too, or just leave those communities out there abandoned?
sure would suit the dup’s appeal-to-the-middle-classes strategy to do the latter… “
No one really want’s an un-house-broken PUP in their parlour…
Posted by on May 19, 2006 @ 07:50 PM“No one really want’s an un-house-broken PUP in their parlour…”
Except it would seem, the Ulster Unionist Party. I know that desperate times call for desperate measures but sometimes you can just go too far.
Posted by on May 19, 2006 @ 07:55 PMJust to follow TAFKABO’s point about who exactly the PUP represent.
At the 2005 Local Government election they managed to get less votes than the Green Party FFS!
The PUP and UVF officially represent about 4,000 people across Northern Ireland. I for one would like to think that the ‘loyalist community’ is somewhat larger than that.
Posted by on May 19, 2006 @ 08:00 PMDread, facts, litter, TAFK (are u all one person?!) - funny how none of you answer the point about the red berets!
Perhaps you could point us towards where Robinson and Paisley renounce their paramilitary activities?
Until I see proof I just think these Dup Pinstripe Boys are just plain hypocrites…
these DUPers just led up the hill then down the hill with nary a thought for those left caught in their poisonous rhetorical wizardry
what a bunch of cowards
Posted by on May 19, 2006 @ 08:10 PM
