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
It was been brought to my attention that a speech I made at Edenderry Central’s relaunch has been published on this blog website and subsequent comments have been made relating to it.
I would like to confirm to you all that:
1. Although a past contributor of blog threads on the YU website, by and large I don’t comment on active threads because I find it a worthless exercise. I know what I’m about and what I believe and I refuse to give any faceless individual the opportunity to attack me for it.
2. Ed, BVG - I don’t have time to play around on a computer.
3. Ed, I would ask that you and others contact me directly to ask me why I say something, rather than assume the mantle of being my puppeteer and getting it wrong big time. That may be a novel idea but that’s the way I do things.
Finally, thanks ‘Tomorrow not Yesterday’ and ‘Wee Ulsterman,’ whoever you are. Please log onto the UUP website get my contact details and give me a bell and I will see if I can help you find something to channel your positive thoughts into which will deliver a benefit/product at the end.
Kenny Donaldson
Posted by on Jun 01, 2006 @ 01:17 PMTNY & Wee UM
Can you tell me why you believe the UUP alligning itself with the PUP to increase its share of ministerial seats in a non existance Executive is anything to do with helping loyalist working class areas ?
What those areas require are investment - business people are not going to put factories, warehouses, offices and shops there because loyalist paramilitarism will come looking for their cut. If anything giving the paramiltaries political respect is a slap in the face of the many good law abiding citisens in those areas who want a greater degree of Law and Order and only providing cover for those paramilitaries
The people themselves also need to attain better standards of education so I cannot see how the UUP’s passion to retain selection at 11 is going to give a leg up to more than a handful - who can be counted on the fingers of one hand ?
It is way over 10 years since the first cease fire - they have had ample time to disband and get a job like the rest of us and earn an honest living.
They tried going into politics and were rejected because the people do not want them - ie the people you say we are helpingYou arent making any sense
Posted by on Jun 01, 2006 @ 01:37 PMKD - rarely seen such high minded crap used as an excuse not to get in discussion with the electorate. It sounded like, “pontificate and run”. What fox-hole do you expect protection in? Or is it the hermit life you’re opting for?
Good choice - take advantage of all the time given you and attend humming courses too. You’re going to need them!
Politicians (or political officers) who won’t involve themselves in debate - but invite private telephone discussions instead - are most eloquent in what they represent.
Have your private discussions with the loyalists you are about to march up the hill of false expectation again. Would it be too much to ask that you first tell them that your “deal” has nothing to do with representing deprived areas or persuading loyalists to call a ceasefire?
Can you be honestr and tell them that you entered the deal for other reasons?
Perhaps you’re right - THAT conversation will need to be done in private!
Posted by on Jun 01, 2006 @ 02:45 PMRubicon
Says you under the protection of an alias!! The man is offering to give me his full attention and an opportunity and talk openly, how is that cowardly?
Posted by on Jun 01, 2006 @ 02:54 PMDid I say “cowardly”? Don’t think so. It’s another danger I’m pointing to and it won’t be the first time well intentioned loyalists have been used in this manner.
Do you think Reg has just had a conversion and is now interested in the plight of Protestant working class areas? What was Reg responsible for in the Belfast City Council - economic development? For how many years?
Take a look at the East of the city and then compare it with the rest and ask whether Reg has ever had any sympathy for the plight of his constituents.
I hope he does talk honestly with you (he has already ruled out “openly"). Let him explain what the UUP hope to get - (3 ministers and 2nd nomination) and then listen to what you are promised in return. Let him also explain why the PUP pact was one of many options explored - it might identify the true motivation behind this deal.
At the end of that wee-conversation - why not also ask - where were you in the last 20 years?!
Spouting about guns, government and decent people as I remember.
Posted by on Jun 01, 2006 @ 03:08 PMRubicon,
Getting into a discussion on a blog website is not “discussion with the electorate.” My views on the Ervine/loyalist issue aren’t masked behind a code-name. I express these views at branch meetings of the UUP and within the public press.
Anyone who wishes to discuss these issues with me ‘man to man’ or ‘woman to man’ is very welcome but I will not engage in dialogue with people who are “so forthright in their viewpoint” that they feel it necessary to conceal their identity.
BTW, I’m 25 - I can’t be held accountable for the actions of the past which occurred prior to me entering the world. What I can do is analyse the past, see where mistakes were made and play my part in ensuring that these same mistakes aren’t repeated in the future.
I will not be posting on this thread again.
Posted by on Jun 01, 2006 @ 03:31 PMI think what this decision -and the subsequent fallout shows- is that the UUP is now simply the Assembly grouping and their families/ acolytes/employees-even more so than under Trimble, when at least there were a few MPs who had to have their egos stroked. The retrospective consultation with constituency association officers was a farce, and probably only called because of complaints from such as Alex. What must really disappoint the ordinary 5/8ths is the supine behaviour of the officers.In my day the idea that they would have permitted such a step without prior discussion would have been unthinkable
Posted by on Jun 01, 2006 @ 03:38 PM... and I was typing Kenny’s post proved my point. I wonder did he get as sniffy when he found out that a major policy decision had been taken behind his back, or did he just suck his thumb like the rest of them? What’s the point of being an officer if you aren’t consulted ? And bleating at private branch meetings is no substitute for leadership.
Perhaps Ken and co are still a bit shaken by the attempted heave against them by the other Ken and the good ol’ boys in March, and just want to keep their jobs at all costs!Posted by on Jun 01, 2006 @ 03:47 PMdarth you are spot on about the supine officers and the even more supine executive. On all the “big” issues of the day Trimble at least went through the process of consultation. Empey doesn’t bother. Hardly surprising. With the exception of Peter Bowles the officer team is a bunch of patsies. Why didn’t they call an emergency meeting to discuss this? Why hasn’t the exec been called? They really are a lamentable shower.
Kenny Donaldson is a typical example. Promises to talk behind closed doors etc but not the slightest effort to justify what his party leader has done. No doubt Kenny will be well rewarded by Lord Maginnis for his willingness to toe the line on everything. You may escape responsibility for what happened 30 years ago Kenny, but you won’t escape responsibility for linking the UUP with a terrorist organisation.
And while I’m on the subject, what about the boul Basil McCrea? Why the silence from him on the issue? Or, as usual, is he just sticking his finger in the wind before deciding which way to jump? Johnny Andrews has already supported the pact in a letter to the Bel tel and the new president--John Whyte--was wheeled out to the Assembly on May 15 to give his approval. There you go, excluding young Bowles, 5 out of the 6 new officers have supported this UUP-UVF alliance. It really is all over for a once great party.
BooBoo
Posted by on Jun 01, 2006 @ 04:27 PMAlex
There are many areas of disagreement between us (although not as fundamental as between most!), but I will say that I wish more members of every party, not just yours, were prepared to speak and act with such genuine integrity and thoughtfulness.
The past few weeks have genuinely led me to question who else there is to negotiate with to turn this place into a proper functioning liberal democracy - midst the mire of sectarian blind spots, hypocritical rantings and dazed defences of overly ludicrous party lines.
The above exchanges show that there is at least some vague hope!
Posted by on Jun 01, 2006 @ 05:14 PMIJP
you’ve beaten me to it again.
Alex
I am agrier than I can articulate about this dalliane with the devil and hearing about Talkback added to that feeling of helplessness when people pussyfoot arround when the morality should be crystal clear. However, for what its worth, and I’m not expecting that you should care a jot about the opinion of an anonomous poster on a blog, but I think you have shown an enormous amount of courage on this thread in terms of facing the critisism and taking them on board. I doubt if I would have had it in me. I undertand to a degree the notion of loyalty to a party but,as I’m sure you realise there are higher loyalties.
I hope that you will eventually be lead by your obvious decency (sorry but the word fits) ;)
Posted by on Jun 01, 2006 @ 09:41 PMIJP: Flattery will get you nowhere with me!! But thank you, anyway.
bertie: The reason I post, post under my own name, and allow my columns to be posted, is because I do value and am influenced by the thoughts and insights of others. As I have said on many occasions I don’t take any of the criticisms personally and I don’t bear grudges. So again, thank you for your comments.
My own rethinking of the PUP/UUP pact (and the input from bloggers here, along with conversations I have had all week) will be reflected in Saturday’s column.
Best wishes,
Alex.
Posted by on Jun 01, 2006 @ 10:33 PMJEB,
I do very much agree about extent of the plight the loyalist paramilitaries have brought about in the areas where they are active.
But I know Reg is sincere in his efforts to bring about change and end the plague of paramilitarism in those areas - he is talking directly with the paramilitary leadership in order to get decommissioning and a permanent end to violence.
He has made this a consistent theme of his leadership - pretty much every major speech since he’s became leader has discussed this.
Like almost all unionists I totally condemn loyalist violence. But we can’t just sit there and condemn - these people come from our community and their activities are a plague on our community.
As mainstream unionists we are in a unique position to get involved and try to exercise our influence for the good - it would be completely irresponsible not to at least try (though the head-in-the-sand approach sure has sadly characterised ‘mainstream’ unionism’s approach to loyalism for much of the last 30 years)
Reg said on Talkback he’s going to give this a serious effirt, and if he concludes he’s getting nowhere he will break the link. He sounded to me like a man quite certain of what he is doing and why he is doing it.
I agree with you 110% about academic selection by the way; it’s imminent end is but another jigssaw part in solving the problems of loyalist poverty and alienation.
I’m really glad to see the UUP taking all this so seriously - after a while I foresee the other parties getting stuck in too - these problems really affect us all, a stable Northern Ireland is impossible whilst loyalist communities remain wedded to violent paramilitarism.
Posted by on Jun 02, 2006 @ 02:47 AMwee ulsterman--Sir Empty was dreadful on Hearts and Minds last night, one of the very worst performances I have seen. No passion and no conviction. Reaching out to loyalist paramilitaries is one thing, putting them in your Assembly group is another. And don’t forget that Ervine was probably 4th choice.
The Loyalist Commission didn’t deleiver.
Empty’s own “direct link” with the UVF didn’t deliver.
Why do you think a UUP/UVF deal is going to do anything?
Most disturbing for Empty is the refusal of his MLAs to go public in support of all of this.
Most disgusting of all is fact that Empty is now playing the “how do you know it was UVF” game. Crap response to adopt.
BVG
Posted by on Jun 02, 2006 @ 09:06 AMHave to agree that the Mekon was atrocious last night, to the extent that he was forced to distance himself from his Vanguard past in Arsene Wenger type myopia- “I wasn’t at Ormeau Park!”. Thompson probably couldn’t believe his luck as Mr teflon fell to punch after punch.
The flurry of media activity suggests Reg realises the magnitude of the miscalculation, but what a lonely figure he cuts. Where is loyal deppity Kennedy, or the twenty sheep at Stormont who- a little bird tells me- were given a statement of support for the move, but mysteriously they all seem to have forgotten to send it to their local rags?
It is becoming clearer that plotters are letting the media soften Reg up for a challenge or series of challenges. Danny boy is keeping his head down as the criticism grows, while Tank Commander is supporting Reg’s efforts in a “he’s terribly well meaning you know, but..” manner. Throw in the pending financial crisis, with at least three constituency associations all but skint, and you can understand just why the MLAs monies are so critical to the UUP’s very existence, but are at the same time stifling any chance of change or the advancement of new talent.
As I posted yesterday, this ought to be the time for officers to use their weight to bring the MLAs and their ambitions into line, but the team is -Bowles apart- lacking in the moral fibre to try. Sadly he’s a perceived lightweight, but we are now entitled to view the real ambitions of Basil Mccrea and co as more for self than party. Naming their HQ after Joe Cunningham may have been inteded as a tribute, but it’s beginning to look more like a very public act of self-indictment, when comparing him with the pigmies currently in charge.
Posted by on Jun 02, 2006 @ 09:56 AMdarth
Re. Josias Cunningham. You are absolutely spot on. I have often wondered if Sir Jo had still been around would Trimble have been able to carry on wrecking the party for as long as he did? Probably not.
Say what you like about Cunningham, Molyneaux, Smyth etc. but they knew, in a Protestant-Fianna Fail-style way, how to steer the party, position it and ensure its electoral success. When one looks back at past UUC Officer teams and compares them with the present batch, one sees just how downright crappy the Ulster Unionist Party has become.
Posted by on Jun 02, 2006 @ 10:03 AMWee Ulsterman - if you genuinely believe this pact has anything to do with, “loyalist poverty and alienation” I wonder if Reg will nominate Ervine to be one of the 3 UUPAG representatives on the Preparation for Government Committee. If he doesn’t will you re-think?
Posted by on Jun 02, 2006 @ 11:19 AMLoyalist
Sir Jo was a firm believer in the “glass of whiskey and a revolver” school of party management. He would never have allowed a situation where Lady H is the sole MP never mind a pact with the UVF.
Reg & co. have managed something remarkable - a Trimble era nostalgia movement. Just like the hankering after the long gone DDR, Trimble nostalgia is enjoyed by those who thought things could only get better but have been let down by events. Come back Grocer, come back Fat Jack and, dare I say it, come back Turtle your party needs you.
LOL!
Posted by on Jun 02, 2006 @ 01:04 PMPakman
I was having a chat with a UUP Councillor the other day who made the very same point.
Posted by on Jun 02, 2006 @ 01:25 PM....and whisper it not in the Assembly group ( or is it now a “Brigade”? :0))but I’ve even heard some UUPers say “come back Jeffrey”
Posted by on Jun 02, 2006 @ 03:15 PMDarth
“but I’ve even heard some UUPers say “come back Jeffrey” “
Ah, the love that dare not speak its’ name!
Posted by on Jun 02, 2006 @ 03:27 PMOn the subject of party jumping re Jeffrey. Can anyone confirm a sniff I got last night that one of the UUP’s “big hitters” has been receiving what were described to me as “informal approaches” from the DUP?
BVG
Posted by on Jun 02, 2006 @ 03:42 PMBVG what constitutes a UUP “big hitter” these days? Does the moniker “MLA” do it?
Posted by on Jun 02, 2006 @ 04:04 PMJeffrey never went away you know - he will be in our Agreement sceptical hearts forever, our Prince of Peace Process doubters, the wee man with a big dream, uh, where was I? Oh yeah, I’ve woken up in an alternate dimension where the UUP, the Mother-of-God, actual-factual Ulster fricking Unionist Party has given the whip to the UVF.
Kane, meanwhile, snore. Sorry, what I meant to say, heavens above, the lengthy consultaive process for his next column has completed in pre-report stage, the silo teams are feeding in their working papers, and, All Ulster Waits For Saturday. Or maybe, just maybe, not. It can’t be said often enough, the reason the UUP is in the mess it is is because of people like Kane. Problem, not solution.
Posted by on Jun 02, 2006 @ 04:06 PMKarl Rove
maybe, but at least Alex has a charm and competence that is so obviously lacking in the rest of them.
Don’t get me wrong, if the UUP membership was exclusively made up of Alex clones I wouldn’t dislike it any less, I would just feel more sorry for it!
Posted by on Jun 02, 2006 @ 04:14 PM
