Wednesday, May 31, 2006
UUP’s cause for concern…
Although it was written for last Saturday, Alex Kane’s Newsletter column is probably even less welcome today in Cunningham House that it was back then. It speaks for itself.
By Alex Kane
The decision to bring David Ervine into the Ulster Unionist’s Assembly Group has given me more cause for concern, and more pause for thought, than almost anything that the party has done since 1995. Ervine remains leader of the PUP. The PUP is the political voice of the UVF. The UVF remains armed, active and up to their necks in prostitution, drug pushing, racketeering and intimidation. Ervine is a member of the UUP’s Assembly team. In other words, there now exists a clear, direct and formal link between the Ulster Unionist Party and a loyalist paramilitary organisation.
This is about more, much more, than a one-off tactical manoeuvre, of concern only to the UUP’s MLAs. It has created confusion and given offence to a very broad swathe of pro-Union opinion. The party has moved from arguing the case for terrorists to be brought into government, and has, instead, given the whip to a UVF mouthpiece. As David Burnside admitted, the whole thing was “badly handled, badly presented and open to misinterpretation.”
And nor should the party try to justify its actions by reference to what the DUP has done in the past. I am not a member of the DUP. I have never voted for the DUP. I am well aware about the allegations of connections with loyalist paramilitaries and of flirtations with Third Force and Ulster Resistance. So what? What has that got to do with a convicted terrorist in the Ulster Unionist Party Assembly Group? Yes, the move may give the Ulster Unionists an extra seat in a hypothetical Executive, but it is a seat which is now dependent upon the nod of Loyalism’s answer to Gerry Adams. It is a politically uncomfortable and morally dubious position for the UUP to find itself in; and, to be honest, it unsettles me.
But whatever my personal feelings may be about the membership and nature of Loyalist paramilitaries, the fact remains that they have a huge and usually negative impact upon working class unionist communities. So it’s not simply about stating what we should do to dismantle their organisations and erase the false glamour that surrounds their key figures, it’s also about actually removing the deadweight of their malign influence on housing estates and working class areas. In whatever form it manifests itself, it remains the case that the mainstream unionist parties have a responsibility to the thousands of ordinary, law-abiding people who do live in fear in those areas.
Political parties have responsibilities above and beyond that of topping the polls. They have moral and societal responsibilities as well. If the risks the UUP took were worth taking with those who were perceived to be their traditional enemies and opponents, are the same risks not worth taking with people who are from a broadly similar cultural and political background? If you believe that the answer to that question is yes, then you will agree with what Sir Reg has done.
But those who do agree must now pray that the UVF keep their cocaine-stained noses clean and that the IMC is soon able to report positive progress in terms of decommissioning and moving away from criminality. Put crudely, this Jekyll and Hyde partnership depends entirely on the decent Jekyll keeping the monstrous Hyde under control. If he doesn’t, then it seems likely that the Ulster Unionists will disappear into an electoral black hole.
The line between inspired leadership and the madness of the bunker is a fine one and only time will tell if Sir Reg will walk that line with most of his party in tow. The fact that he hasn’t been deafened by public support from his colleagues, bowled over by an avalanche of popular approval, or presented with a UVF Statement Of Intent, would suggest that there are difficult days ahead.
The UUP’s electoral fortunes are now in the hands of some very unpleasant and equally brutal terrorists, whose ceasefire isn’t even recognised anymore. David Ervine needs to prove, and prove soon, than his transfer is worth the fallout it has caused. Personally, I still have huge reservations. I hope, though, to be proved wrong.
First published in the Newsletter on Saturday 27th May 2006
Mick Fealty @ 01:07 PM
Watchman
UYUC site is back up after a few problems with both threads in question still on it.
Posted by on May 31, 2006 @ 08:49 PMloyalist (re your post of 1.41--finally):
Yes, a number of officers and MLAs informed me that my H&M;piece and the column were very unhelpful. No names, no pack drill, though.
All of my instincts are against the UUP/PUP deal and for the reasons I set out in the column. That said, I argued over the last few years in favour of taking huge risks with SF/IRA and I encouraged people to take a “leap of faith.”
I now find myself in the opposing camp, yet being urged by people I respect to join them in the “leap of faith” they are taking with the PUP. I fully understand the motives behind the decision, but I have severe problems with the methods employed at this time.
The decision wasn’t mine to make. It was taken collectively by the UUP MLAs, each and everyone of whom must have known the possible consequences and knock-on problems which would accompany their decision.
I didn’t actually know that Sir Reg was due to be on TalkBack; I had been invited (wearing my commentator hat)to give an assessment of where the UUP stood at the moment. He did his interview on one line and, when he had finished, I came through on another line. I wasn’t there to duff up the leader and simply offered an opinion. The party has problems, yes, but they don’t, at present, appear to be on a major scale. MLAs are not reporting rebellion; associations are not being flooded with resignations and there is no obvious challenger hanging around the wings.
And nor is there, in spite of some mischievious comment from BooBoo (and yes, BB, I worked out the code word to your identity--too many lunches together over the years, mate!), any sign that an emergency meeting of the UUC will be summoned.
It is possible, however, that the grassroots reaction is one of pure indifference, the same sort of indifference which lost us votes on a massive scale last year. If that is the case, then the silence may actually be an indication of continuing meltdown. I sensed the UUP was going to be slaughtered at the elections in 2005 and got serially abused by HQ for voicing that view. I just don’t get that same sense this time.
So there, albeit in a airy nutshell, is my dilemma. On a personal level I don’t like what the party has done and had I been an MLA I would not have signed up to it as it stood on Friday, May 12.
But having put ourselves in this position I can only hope that we get a quid pro quo pretty damn quick. At the very least I hope there is a credible exit strategy.
Best wishes,
Alex.
Posted by on May 31, 2006 @ 09:02 PMThats twice I’ve been accused of what amounts to censorship. No thread has been removed or closed on the YU blog.
Posted by on May 31, 2006 @ 09:07 PMTwo things I find wrong,
a. That anyone should be derided for having achieved majority. Pointless and irrelevant.
b. That the UUP should have done what it has done regarding Ervine. A disgraceful piece of small-world chicanery.
Posted by on May 31, 2006 @ 09:28 PMForgot - 3. Alex is still in the UUP. Surely not a “fight from within” line please.
Posted by on May 31, 2006 @ 09:33 PMAlex---just come over from reading the link provided by Paulus on post 25. Great piece from someone called Matty about the puppet masters of the DUP.
Can see where you are coming from on this one and understand your “problem” but some of us still think you are being unusually restrained. Hope your’e not being tempted to the middle ground.Cheers,
BooBoo
Posted by on May 31, 2006 @ 09:44 PMAlex
“I now find myself in the opposing camp, yet being urged by people I respect to join them in the “leap of faith” they are taking with the PUP. I fully understand the motives behind the decision, but I have severe problems with the methods employed at this time.”
Sorry Alex but the only motive behind this was to get an extra seat from Sinn Fein and make us relevant by hoping that any publicity is good publicity.
The notion that good and honest folk sat around in C’Ham House thinking about how best to make the UVF law abiding citisens and took a risk such as this isnt believeable.
It was pure misguided self interest.
Anyhow the fact that he was third or fourth on the list simply discounts this.Not to mention the fact that the PUP dont represent working class loyalist areas anyhow and indeed are the problem not the solution.
The Agreement with SF/PIRA isnt comparable either.
You cant choose your enemies but you sure can choose your friends - it scares me how this isnt understood.
Business is no different than politics - I would be very careful who I choose as a partner in the former and I see it no differently with the latter.
There is this notion that politics is a dirty game and therefore anything goes.
It might in the Balkans or Africa or even France or Italy but all this does is discredit politics.I think some of the people who have started to believe this in our Party have been involved in NI politics too long and have been tainted by it. The fact that so many of our Young Unionists cant see it (with the admirable exception of Peter Bowles - a leader in this country for the future I hope)is deeply concerning.
The bottom line of UUP principles should be the type of people with whom it forms an alliance - in my opinion we crossed the line.
As for an emergency UUC I have discovered that the majority of Party members I have spoken to support this move or are indifferent to it.
Anyhow many good Alliance type people and even moderate nationalists think Ervine is a terribly sincere chap and should be encouraged.
Who knows after some internal housekeeping involving the odd murder or two and one last push to raise a few pounds the UVF may hang up its weapons and the UUP can claim the credit.
It all stinks to me.
Posted by on May 31, 2006 @ 09:46 PMNotwithstanding the old argument about standing for one party and switching to another (J Donaldson) the only possible deal with Ervine could have been that he left the PUP and joined the UUP. As it stands a representative of a party linked to a terrorist organisation is a member of the UUP assembly group i.e. and I mean i.e. a representative of a party linked to a terrorist organisation and a member of a body of the UUP. Disgusting.
Posted by on May 31, 2006 @ 10:02 PMHi JEB,
Have just had a fairly long telephone conversation with an old friend, whose judgement I value very highly. He had heard me on TalkBack and his response was, “Alex, you didn’t sound comfortable and you didn’t sound convincing. Playing down the centre is not in your nature.”
Having read your post and those of BooBoo and ct I think I have been uncharacteristically cautious in this matter. Indeed, the logic of my opening arguments in the column and the H&M;piece would suggest a harsher tone. God help me, I even found myself agreeing with Karl Rove’s criticism of me on another thread!
You are right, “we crossed the line” on this one and it “stinks”. And yes, Peter Bowles has shown a courage that I haven’t.
Best wishes,
Alex.
Posted by on May 31, 2006 @ 10:11 PMAlex
Well done.
Everyone knows, or should know, that they can’t possibly be right all of the time (my wife keeps reminding me when I try to pontificate).
It takes a lot of courage to admit that one is wrong. Wish that other politicos had such courage.Posted by on May 31, 2006 @ 10:26 PM“For the record: My personal view is that the party made a mistake with this”
A mistake as I remember from a line in a training video featuring John Cleese is wearing a black bra under a white blouse, it is not a suitable word to describe an act of gross immorality.
Posted by on May 31, 2006 @ 10:54 PMLooking at the “Thinking Aloud” section of the UUP website I note the headline piece is a speech to a relaunch of the Edenderry Branch of the party by Kenny Donaldson.
http://www.uup.org/media/media_31_05_06_donaldson.htm
Kenny asks an important question, that is, the UUP needs new candidates, “where do we get them?” The answer, community workers!! Are those the same community workers that are also members of the PUP or UPRG such as mmmmm Billy Hutchinson or Frank McCoubrey. Is this the best the UUP can do?
In the same piece he defends the Ervine decision, I wonder does the decision still sit so easy with him tonight?
Billy Armstrong has a piece immediately below entitled, “Armstrong exposes Republicanism’s Failed Strategy”, its a pity everyone else has been exposing the UUPs’failed strategy over the last number of days.
Posted by on May 31, 2006 @ 11:46 PMAlex
Whatever may be happening in the letters columns of local newspapers I am not detecting a widespread internal revolt within the party--and certainly nothing like the reaction to “Simply British” and “Decent People.”
That should trouble you more than anything.
Your fellow party members have a bigger problem with a slogan than they have with inviting representatives of active paramilitaries into their bosom. What does that tell you about them?
Posted by on May 31, 2006 @ 11:55 PMIJP
I was thinking the same thing
Posted by on Jun 01, 2006 @ 12:29 AMNoone can fault Alex for finding this a dilemma, given his regard for Empey and co, but I still don’t think he understands how the average UUP member/voter is looking at this to explain the apparant antipathy.
Firstly, the longstanding pact in Belfast City Hall was not known about by the vast majority of members outside Belfast, and it will not have been popular with (yes, them again) the “decent people” who vote UUP in the city either.
Secondly, as any fule kno, many branches of that gerontocracy called the UUP meet once or twice a year to lap up the pep talk from the local MLA and an imported guest. Most branch AGMs are held in the autumn, and with the silage to be cut etc etc, and then the Twelfth coming up the essentially passive politicos in the UUP won’t be holding too many meetings for months. Even Constituency associations traditionally only meet quarterly, when the increasingly parlous finances are always the main topic. So there won’t be mass resignations ( if there are masses left to resign- my former division had 160 delegates at its AGM in 1996; 11 in 2005) but a few more members will find the lure of bowls ( not Peter) or Eastenders more attractive after the events of this week.
Thirdly, the rule changes now make it virtually impossible to call a special UUC, compared to the good old days when I used to help collect the signatures. Of course the leadership wanted this, but I’m not sure its a good thing. Those meetings were firstly great crack, but secondly probably the first real political meetings many UUP members had ever been to , with debate, skullduggery, abuse, tnesion- all the real stuff of politics- a million miles away from an October evening in front of the Superser on a hard wooden bench in the local Orange hall trying to decipher a Billy Armstrong speech or getting out of being branch secretary again.
The UUC as presently constituted will never experience real political debate again, and the only outlet for members displeasure will be at the annual beauty pageant that is the election of officers. How times are changed from the times when the media hung on the word of every UUC delegate whose vote could make or break the peace process. It must be like Thierry Henry starting next season for Carrick Rangers after the Champions League Final. And that in itself is perhaps the biggest problem the UUP will have-shorn of influence, irrelevant to the media and government, cash strapped and demoralised- the last thing it needed was a short term stunt to gratify one of the good ol’ Assembly boys with nary a thought for the feelings of the poor bloody infantry
Posted by on Jun 01, 2006 @ 09:32 AMAlex
‘It was taken collectively by the UUP MLAs, each and everyone of whom must have known the possible consequences and knock-on problems which would accompany their decision.’
Can you clarify Alex are there any MLAs who are against this move (even privately)Posted by on Jun 01, 2006 @ 09:43 AMdarth;
Wouldn’t disagree with most of that last post--apart from the fact that I don’t have much “regard for Empey and co.” I was opposed to Reg in the leadership campaign, don’t forget.
Bob;
I know a number of them had private reservations about it and the fact that the Group now resembles a Trappist Order would suggest that those reservations still exist. Esmond Birnie has gone public with the view that the link should be dissolved if a UVF connection is confirmed with the Haddock shooting.
IJP;
Your point (re election slogans vs PUP/UUP pact) is well made.
Best wishes,
Alex
Posted by on Jun 01, 2006 @ 11:25 AMAlex,
We can’t be having your kind around here - too damned honest and reasonable.Bring back the Young Unionists, they were much more fun!!
Posted by on Jun 01, 2006 @ 11:48 AMAll,
There’s some interesting and some not so interesting commentary on this blog thread. As someone, who is not amember of any political Party per say I would say the following:
Where I was born and reared, neither the then Official Unionist party or the latter DUP gave a stuff about how my area progressed, both parties turned a blind eye to the mayhem within my community where bully-boys controlled law-abiding working class loyalist people.You on here appear to be overwhelmingly; Ivory Tower Unionists or the “chattering classes.” You need to take a major reality check. Since the formation of our State, working class loyalist people have been used as cannon fodder by both the Establishment and you morally upright; so-called mainstream unionists.
I for one have no difficulty in acknowledging that Reg Empey has at least faced up to his failings of the past. To recognize fault within yourself is real strength and I only hope that he has the resources and support to carry the job through which he has started.
Didn’t Empey say months ago that the core issues needing resolution within unionism/loyalism were; parading and criminality/paramilitarism?
None of you toffs should be surprised then at the direction he has taken his Party in recent times. He and the UUP have a great deal of repair work to do for what has happened in the past.
A few comments ago, I see someone called ed has called into question comments made by a guy called Kenny Donaldson who I since see is a UUP Party Officer. Whilst I can’t possibly transcribe exactly what Mr Donaldson was saying, I would suspect that ed has seriously mis-represented the fella.
If you read through his speech from start to finish it is plain to see that he abhors violence and criminality and those who rule with iron fists over their communities in loyalist areas.
I understand exactly the point he is making in respect of community workers. I think that what he’s saying is that people whom have a past but who are genuinely committed to a new democratic future are best placed to initiate change on the ground. They can explain to young people the futility of their actions and show young men and women that there is a better way for them.
To those of you who say; once a terrorist, always a terrorist or once a criminal, always a criminal, take your head from out of your cosy arses. Northern Ireland’s history stinks, period; shit went on which was caused and sponsored by; the British Government, Dublin Government, Republican Movement, militant loyalism and so-called mainstream unionism.
If people continue to fail to learn from the failures of the past, we are all destined to repeat those same sins in the future.
I hope to read more material like that which ed has provided us with and I would impress upon all within unionism and loyalism to redouble efforts in transforming criminal-ridden loyalist communities into democratic communities.
Sermon concluded.
Posted by on Jun 01, 2006 @ 11:51 AMAs the person who broke the Ervine story on Friday 12th could I just say that Alex Kane has steered a difficult course with a fair amount of honesty. Its easy for some of us who post anonymously to live in a world of black and white/right and wrong convictions--but whether he calls it right or wrong on issues he is always willing to rethink. A rare quality.
By the way, the post from Tomorrow not Yesterday reads very like Kenny Donaldson’s own style.
BVG
Posted by on Jun 01, 2006 @ 12:09 PMWell said ‘Tomorrow not Yesterday’ - Reg is leading the party in exactly the right direction, difficult though it may be, how can unionism as a whole move forward without bringing our deprived communities with us? We would end up like a bird with just one wing - why should the loyalists be the only ones left outside the peace process??
Nobody else seems to give a stuff about this significant chunk of our community - the record of both the UUP and the DUP hasn’t been great on this in the past, but Reg has the guts to acknowledge his party’s mistakes and steer his party towards dealing with them.
Moral absolutism and righteous indignation may make for punchy soundbytes here on slugger, but do absolutely nothing to get real about solving the problem.
Reg has the courage to take the brickbats without blinking. Real Leadership. About time.
Posted by on Jun 01, 2006 @ 12:15 PMBVG says: “By the way, the post from Tomorrow not Yesterday reads very like Kenny Donaldson’s own style.”
What rubbish! There’s not a misplaced semicolon in sight! ;-)
Posted by on Jun 01, 2006 @ 12:16 PMIn simple electoral terms it would make more sense for the UUP to shore up its existing base rather than reaching out to the “deprived” unionist community.
It almost destroyed itself embracing republican terrorism--is Empey going to finish the job by embracing loyalist terrorism?
wee ulsterman--Reg “taking the brickbats without blinking”? Ever seen a rabbit caught in headlights as the car approaches?
The last thing the UUP needed to do at this stage was lumber itself with another policy which was going to divide it internally and have it duffed up externally. It has far more pressing problems to deal with. It seems to me that Reg has abandoned the idea of winning back the DUP defectors or the gardencentre prods and has opted for the only group left---the so-called deprived loyalists. But to get them on board he needs to change the present shape of the UUP. He is destroying the party for a voting bloc which won’t materialise.
Anyway its only a matter of days before the Assembly group wobble themselves into a freefall.
BVG
Posted by on Jun 01, 2006 @ 12:37 PMBVG
I was thinking the very same thing re Tomorrow not Yesterday!
I see the YUs are back at their computers, with their blinkers on, in force!
Posted by on Jun 01, 2006 @ 12:42 PMOn the community worker stuff as someone who works in that sector I am very wary of it. Fractionalism is already too strong in many communities and trying to get community workers to align with one sole party will feed that.
Most areas have political representatives from a number of parties, a community worker should respect the political choice of their community and work with that range of representatives.
Also the PUP tried this and it did not succeed politically and ended up hampering the good work some community workers had been doing.
I think the proposal is driven more by an absence of talent in the UUP ie We don’t have anyone, can we borrow some from a different sector and low participation in political parties (applicable to all Unionist parties).
The task they should focus on is recruiting their own personnel and internal opportunities to develop talent not a stop gap approach of grab a community worker. Broadly nationalism has gotten the relationship about right, two sectors with strong working relationships but limited cross-over of personnel.
Posted by on Jun 01, 2006 @ 01:02 PM
