Thursday, January 19, 2006
UUP: Northern Ireland must work for Catholics
Johnny Andrews, recently appointed as head of the UUP’s election strategy has argued that, “it is the responsibility and, indeed, raison d’etre of this party to provide a political home for all pro-union citizens of Northern Ireland. We have always been a broad church; however, we must become broader”. Specifically it needs to make itself more open to Catholics.
Both the potential advantage and the problem is demonstrated in these figures from the Life and Times Survey. Only 1 per cent of Catholics define themselves as Unionist. But a good forty per cent count themselves as neither. This attitude is reflected in the educational survey released yesterday.
Its advantage may not lie in a large numbers Catholics suddenly voting for them, so much as diffusing the distaste for sectarian politics amongst the fabled Garden Centre prods: those middle class Protestant voters, who in Mark Langhammer’s famously apt phrase left politics and went off to play golf in 1969 and didn’t come back.
If adopted as part of a wider re-make of the party’s brand, it might give them some clear differentiators against its still better organised and larger rivals in the DUP.
Mick Fealty @ 09:05 AM
Well done Johnny Millar. It would be in everyone’s interests if the case for the union and the case for a united Ireland were made on their merits.
Posted by on Jan 19, 2006 @ 09:50 AMBullshit! We should make the case for the Union on its merits, and make the case for a United Ireland a vicious, satanically inspired plot to rid the ligberated people of Ulster the slaves of the church of Rome.
No, wait. That’s been tried.
Posted by on Jan 19, 2006 @ 10:05 AMIt really just sounds like a sectarian headcount operation by the UUP i.e. an attempt to keep the numbers who might vote for a UI under the magic 51%. It’s a false assumption that all catholics (40% approx) would voyr for a UI, of course. But I wonder how many protestents would vote for a UI?
Anyway, headcount aside, the mainstream unionism is with Paisely and not with moderates, so this ‘softness’ isn’t going to wash with UUP party that will be forced to compete for a hardened unionist vote at the next election.
Posted by on Jan 19, 2006 @ 10:06 AMI’m afraid Johnny Miller (shurely Andrews Ed) is on a loser. Not only because of the UUP’s ‘baggage’ but also because he misses the huge plank in the UUP eye - why do pro Union people in NI (or all and no religions) need parochial six county parties? They should participate in the politics of the UK - the Conservative, Lib Dem and Labour parties - as they do in Scotland and Wales. No party whose history is sectarianism and whose focus in purely 6 county will ever successfully ‘reach out’ electorally.
Johnny should be courageous and join one of these partiesPosted by on Jan 19, 2006 @ 10:19 AMHmmm, isn’t this a slight return to the late, great “Why is Republicanism not interested in Protestants"/"Why is Unionism not interested in Republicans” threads? They were cracking, even if some people did head off to planet Zog at times..
Posted by on Jan 19, 2006 @ 10:21 AMIf this is an insight into UUP thinking it can only be welcomed as a sign of political normality. It is a fairly shrewd strategy and may initially only have a marginal impact on their vote, but if they really mean business and fundamentally change their persona it could work in the longer term. The side that convinces the most floaters of the validity of their position is the side that will eventually win.
Posted by on Jan 19, 2006 @ 10:28 AMPrecisely! Everybody should join the Conservative Party. Join me and David Cameron.
Or hold out until the UUP finally becomes a part of the C&UP;again.
Posted by on Jan 19, 2006 @ 10:28 AMTD:
You’re looking for these figures:
The figures go in this order: Catholic; Protestant; No religion
Do you think the long-term policy for Northern Ireland should be for it …
...to remain part of the United Kingdom? 24; 85; 51
Or, to reunify with the rest of Ireland? 47; 5; 18
(Independent state) 15; 6; 15Other (specify) 3; 1; 7
(Don’t know) 12
Posted by on Jan 19, 2006 @ 10:35 AMAndrews is wasting his time.
Some sections of the UUP have been banging on about this for more than a decade; we had Re:Union rising and falling and individual voices calling upon the party to make an economic/political case for the Union rather than just a purely emotional one.
Also, the UUP’s priority now lies in reclaiming that section of its traditional vote which has either vanished or defected to the DUP.
BooBoo
Posted by on Jan 19, 2006 @ 10:40 AMBB:
Are those two objectives necessarily mutually exclusive?
Posted by on Jan 19, 2006 @ 10:42 AMMick,
Quite apart from the fact that ‘reunify’ is politically and historically misleading (and that the question biases the answer), the fact that the figures don’t show a catholic preference for a United Ireland is mildly surprising.
Anyhoo, I’ve been saying it for years, and it’s the reason I joined the Conservative Party; Unionism needs to get itself confident, needs to stop its distrust of the catholic population, and needs to begin asserting itself on its merits. The reality is that Northern Ireland can never be a great place to live if a big chunk of its population have misgivings about its existence.
Could be Merlyn Rees was just thirty years too early.
Posted by on Jan 19, 2006 @ 10:43 AMSame old same old
Some chinless toff gets elected to the UUP top table because his granddaddy was Prime Minister, anmd then comes out with the tired old mythical beast the RC Unionist, because “some of my best friends at the golf club are Ketholicks , and they’re actusally terribly civilised when one gets to know them”. Been done before and produced..er archetypal NI RC Sir John Gorman.
There is no point in revisiting this , other than to demonstrate how desperate the UUP has become. This must be the third or fourth solemn pronouncement post Trimble of this intention-none of which has achieved anything, except a peerage for Eddie Haughey, and to swell the funds of the Ulster Reform Club as potential hopefuls are wined and dined. O’Neill condescended to them too, and only helped create the Alliance Party
Tip for Jawn and chums-parties earn votes from people of all religions and none by working for their constituents, and achieving results-does anyone think RCs vote for Paisley because they like the man?
Posted by on Jan 19, 2006 @ 10:46 AMBob Wilson
I agree
I would love to be able to vote against New Labour. Why don’t Labour, Lib Dems. Etc organise here? Why do we have all these strange local political kangaroos?
Why should I be denied the right to vote for a party that is likely to form the next government?
Given the choice would I prefer UUP or Conservatives, Alliance or Lib Dems. those strange Labour groups or Labour, SDLP or FG, SF or (FF )?. DUP or who is left? Don’t see much point in the local parties.
Posted by on Jan 19, 2006 @ 11:04 AMBen A:
It’s not a radically new trend. That it is still surprising is as much to do with the political bun fight and the dominance of received “common knowledge” over applied research. Despite the undoubted power of the media in how the news gets reported, it is politicians who make and do politics. Millar is one of the few to mention this territory in detail.
It may or may not do his party any good to notice and act upon the reality connoted by this research, but you can be sure the DUP have noticed it already and will have built it into their strategy and rhetoric. The SDLP’s reinvigoration of the last year will almost certainly have been based on the understanding that not every Catholic is a pure born 32 county nationalist.
Posted by on Jan 19, 2006 @ 11:24 AMAs a moderate catholic who wants to see the ultimate reunification of Ireland, I have to that I frequently find I have more in common with moderate Unionism than I do with SF and the Bhoys.It sounds like honest and sensible politics for once.
Middle o’ the road moderates unite and don’t let SF/DUP keep yu down!
Posted by on Jan 19, 2006 @ 11:25 AMMick,
I had realised that the UI support amongst RC’s was less than 50%, but that much less? I’m mildly sceptical.
As for the SDLP having a reinvigoration, that remains to be seen.
Posted by on Jan 19, 2006 @ 11:27 AMWill we be seeing positive discrimination on the part of the UUP to implement this suggestion?
Panels of Catholic-only candidates to see who runs for the UUP in certain constituencies, for example?
The ony way you can make a party more woman/Catholic/poor person etc. friendly is by getting them to become party members, promoting them up the ranks and running them as candidates.
Broadening the electoral support can only come about by broadening the party membership.
So if we see UUP branches canvassing for Catholic members and stating that Catholics will run in certain constituencies to redress the current imbalance they might be on to something.
That something might be extinction if all the current members leave and all the remaining voters migrate to the DUP but there is only one way to find out.
If they don’t do this, then no amount of “policy” changes will convince your average Catholic that unionism includes him/her.
Posted by on Jan 19, 2006 @ 11:52 AMThink you got the name wrong Mick, its Johnny Andrews, a party officer from Comber.
Posted by on Jan 19, 2006 @ 11:54 AMUUP: Doh! Must have had my golfing head on this morning!!
Posted by on Jan 19, 2006 @ 12:02 PMhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Miller_Andrews
Mick be respectful of a Prime Minister’s grandson;-)
Posted by on Jan 19, 2006 @ 12:21 PMA bit of a non-runner I would imagine for the UUP. Catholic Unionists already have a party to vote for - The SDLP - or Unionist Lite as they are known by
Posted by on Jan 19, 2006 @ 12:53 PMYesterday’s thread and associated research on Integrated education showed some interesting results which is both encouraging and discouraging for Andrews statement.
For instance the survey showed that of the Catholic sample 9.5% described themselves as British and 24.5% as Northern Irish against 2/3 that considered themselves as purely Irish.
However when it came to political identity only 1% saw themselves as unionist. A high proportion could not bring themselves to support any NI political force.
Overall this is more encouraging for unionism as opposed to nationalism but nevertheless there is no doubt Unionism is a political turn off for Catholics.
The DUP has no mission of bridging this gap so that leaves it to UUP.
However the UUP has already paid a high price for chasing after the vote of the garden centre prod and the catholic unionist and the appetite for more of the same is waning.
If there is a resurgent UK Conservative upturn underway then perhaps Bob Wilson is right and NI Con Party might be the best option.
Posted by on Jan 19, 2006 @ 01:28 PMButterknife,
Mick be respectful of a Prime Minister’s grandson;-)
Johnny Andrews is actually the great-grandon of the Prime Minister Andrews.
His grandfather was only vice-Prime Minister.
His father was nothing politically.
And we’ll see about Johnny in good time!
Posted by on Jan 19, 2006 @ 02:15 PMMick,
your post on Jan 19, 2006 @ 10:35 AM doesn’t seem to reconcile with the post by John East Belfast on Jan 19, 2006 @ 01:28 PM.What’s your source ?
as an aside....who was it that said..."trust but verify”
Thanks
Posted by on Jan 19, 2006 @ 03:57 PMThis is still the “Simply British” UUP, right...?
Posted by on Jan 19, 2006 @ 05:40 PM
