Arguably this is the piece that has sparked off the speculation over a possible split within the UUP, Alex Kane’s column from the Newsletter. In it he outlines a number of options that are open to the beleaguered head man of the party, David Trimble.
Judgement Day by Alex Kane
Albert Camus had good advice for all politicians facing difficult decisions; �Do not wait for Judgment Day. It happens every day.� In David Trimble�s case, Judgment Day comes in the form of the next meeting of the Ulster Unionist Council. Or, the axe may fall at this week�s meeting of the UUP�s Executive Committee.
David Trimble has new problems. A few weeks ago, he got embroiled in an argument with Nigel Dodds on the matter of the RIR, and accused him of being �quite, quite wrong,� when he claimed that the RIR was to be phased out in Northern Ireland. Now, or so it seems, that fate is about to befall the regiment. Poor old David is left looking either betrayed or misinformed.
The reasons for his discomfort will be neither here nor there to his internal dissidents. They know that their opinions won�t make a button of difference to the survival or otherwise of the RIR (in just the same way that unionist opinion didn�t save the B Specials or the UDR), but they do know that the story, properly spun, can be deployed as the latest tool to undermine his leadership and destroy existing policies.
So, what options are left for Trimble? As I see it, he has four:
He could resign the leadership with immediate effect, claiming that he had been betrayed and hoodwinked by Tony Blair once too often. Who could blame him for deciding that he wasn�t prepared to take any further pressure or humiliation from the Government? Or, to put it more bluntly, is there any point in trying to sell a package based on another raft of pledges from Blair, when it seems likely that Blair will shaft him again another few months down the line?
Alternatively, Mr. Trimble could try and reach a compromise with Jeffrey Donaldson and unite the party around a hardened stance which would outflank the DUP. But the price for such a compromise would be huge for him personally; reduced to the status of nominal figurehead, while actually no more than a hostage. More importantly, such a move would not deliver party unity. Most members and supporters would recognize it for the hypocrisy it was, and there are supporters of both men who would be unable to understand or forgive such a strategy.
He could decide to tough it out, take a stand diametrically opposed to his dissidents, and appeal to the UUC grassroots for support. This would be most unwise. He probably wouldn�t win, and if he does, it will be by a very slim majority. And even if he does win, it is quite clear that his enemies will stay in place, laying new ambushes and continuing to brief against him. If, on the other hand, he loses (and on this occasion I think that he would), his stock plummets, his supporters scatter and the Agreement bites the dust.
Or, he could press the political nuclear button, beginning a reasonably short process leading to a formal and final splitting of the party. The UUC contains two parties already, and the quite clear chasm between them is losing votes on both sides of the divide. Why continue with the pretence that both sides can be reconciled? In electoral terms David Trimble has more options available, and certainly a wider voter appeal, by unhitching himself from the UUC and leading a party which he controls and which offers unambiguous policies to the electorate. Plus, and it is a fact not lost on either the Government or Sinn Fein, it is extremely difficult for him to continue to negotiate if he cannot deliver a united party.
He has four questions to consider: Can the Belfast Agreement be saved? Is it worth saving? Can he save it? Can he save it as leader of the UUP? Whatever conclusions he reaches, he would be well advised to heed the words of the late Brian Faulkner: �I would have been prepared to establish a separate party immediately, to give our supporters something to identify with and organize for. I allowed myself, against my instincts, to be pressed into adopting a gradualistic approach. Later, I realized, during this period of indecision, that much of the initial enthusiasm drained away and we lost our momentum.�
As I wrote last week, Unionism has some huge decisions to make in the coming months. Realignment is not a dirty word; indeed both Jeffrey Donaldson and David Burnside are on record as saying it was an option for the future. But realignment means something more than blurring the edges, papering over the cracks and creating a pretend unity based on a handful of common denominators. It means facing up to the truth that unionism, as presently structured, is doing very little to solve our long term political problems.
The ultimate test of leadership consists of seeing what everybody has seen and then thinking what nobody has thought. David, it�s over to you.
Mick is founding editor of Slugger. He has written papers on the impacts of the Internet on politics and the wider media and is a regular guest and speaking events across Ireland, the UK and Europe. Twitter: @MickFealty
Discover more from Slugger O'Toole
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
