McClarty to take on Campbell…

DAVID McClarty has been selected to take back the East Londonderry seat from Gregory Campbell at the next Westminster election.

PA reported Mr McClarty on the UTV site: “I am looking forward to the challenge and while I realise that there remains considerable work to be done to encourage Ulster Unionists to come out and vote, I firmly believe that together we can achieve success.”

In the 2001 General Election the DUP`s Gregory Campbell captured the East Londonderry seat with a 1,901 majority from the sitting MP, William Ross, of the Ulster Unionists.

In last November`s Assembly election, the DUP stretched its lead over the Ulster Unionists, with a smaller turnout throughout the constituency.

The DUP secured a total of 11,091 votes, taking two seats at Stormont.

The Ulster Unionists received a total of 7,769 votes and also took two seats.

Sinn Fein`s Francie Brolly and the nationalist SDLP`s John Dallat also captured seats.

  • David Vance

    Well, that secures one seat for the DUP!

  • Butterknife

    How do you know David without an election?

  • Fairybadmother

    David McClarty has the public profile of Greta Garbo compared to the boul Gregory. But probably more people in Limavady know who Greta Garbo was.

    As much as I loathe his politics, Gregory is an extremely effective political operator. Vance is right: chalk one up in the DUPs victory column already.

  • davidbrew

    thankyou santa

  • Will

    East Londonderry is an easy seat for Gregory Campbell to retain.

    He won it in 2001 against Willie Ross, who would have attracted anti-Agreement votes. Those will go nowhere else but to the DUP this time. Over 3,000 of a majority at the Assembly election plus nearly 3,000 votes going to Body Douglas/Pauline Armatage that time the DUP majority should be a minimum of 5,000.

  • willowfield

    Pro-Agreement unionist voters now have two candidates to choose from – McClarty having joined Campbell among the candidates.

  • willowfield

    Who will the anti-Agreement unionists vote for, though? Will the UKUP or NIUP stand?

  • Will

    Very amusing Willowfield,
    The unionist community dont agree with your analysis though – there is where your not insignificant problem lies.

  • willowfield

    It’s not my problem. It’s the UUP’s and the DUP’s.

  • ulsterman

    Well I doubt E. Londonderry will go back to the UUP. Ross was totally anti-agreement and could not hold the seat.

    The problem with the UUP is that a vote for them is seen as a vote for the Papist loving Trimble. Also Protestants I know won’t vote for Trimble’s candidates as the enemies of Ulster are also voting for them in the mistaken belief that the DUP can be defeated.

    The DUP will win the election hands down. The UUP will be annihilated.

    God Save The Queen.

  • alex s

    Six years is a long time in politics, come May unionist voters could well see the distruction of their beloved Grammar Schools on the horizon, along with water rates, council taxes and whatever else our Labour rulers feel like imposing on the Province, they may well conclude that 1. the Belfast Agreement wasn’t so bad, at least you had a measure of local accountability and 2. the DUP blew it, with their Fair Deal election slogan really meaning no deal!

  • yer_man

    alex
    When anyone thinks about the retention of Grammar schools then surely they would cast their mind back to how Martin McGuinness was able to set the path in motion for the destruction of these schools all thanks to the Belfast Agreement and its lack of local accountability.

    They might also take into account the fact that Trimble, Durkan and the other pro-Agreement parties were quite happy to do away with a seperate section for water bills on the overall rates bill, thereby allowing the first step towards the introduction of water charges without even any compensatory reduction in the regional rate.

    While nostalgia can often be a very powerful thing, I dont think too many unionists are going to have that short a memory. Nice piece of wishful thinking though.

  • willowfield

    yer man

    When anyone thinks about the retention of Grammar schools then surely they would cast their mind back to how Martin McGuinness was able to set the path in motion for the destruction of these schools all thanks to the Belfast Agreement and its lack of local accountability.

    There are no proposals to get rid of grammar schools. Indeed, the Burns Report, supported by McGuinness, proposed to retain grammar schools. The Labour government has not changed this policy. The plan is merely to end academic selection. A ridiculous fudge, of course, but grammar schools will remain.

    They might also take into account the fact that Trimble, Durkan and the other pro-Agreement parties were quite happy to do away with a seperate section for water bills on the overall rates bill, thereby allowing the first step towards the introduction of water charges without even any compensatory reduction in the regional rate.

    As far as I know, this is untrue. The doing away of the “separate section” surely preceded the Executive.

  • Davros

    14

  • alex s

    yer man, you are assuming that McGuinness would have got his way in the Assembley, we will never know

  • yer_man

    Willowfield
    It was McGuinnesses clear intention to remove all academic selection and get rid of Grammar schools. He was able to put the first in motion before he left office, without any alternative in place. It also leaves the door nicely open for a Labour Government to follow through and destroy Grammar schools, but use the excuse that they are simply delivering on the Devolved Minister’s intentions.

    As far as I know the decision to remove the seperate billing section for water was taken in 1999.

    What is the UUP position on the whole thing?
    Here we get a taster:
    “It is widely recognised that Northern Ireland has the lowest household rates in the UK. Central Government is no longer prepared to sustain subvention at current ‘Barnett’ levels unless the Executive takes steps to address the rates imbalance with the rest of the United Kingdom. Water charging is the largely accepted way of doing so”.

    So not only did the UUP, along with the SDLP and SF, agree to doing away with seperate billing, leaving the door open for water charges, but they give tacit support to the idea of water charges.

    The SDLP, the UUP’s main partner in Government also accepted water charging:

    SDLP position

    And we only have to look at the Shinners crazy taxing policies that they would introduce in the Republic to see that they dont seem to mind tax increases all over the shop.

    alex,
    And tell me how could the Assembly do anything about it? I’d be very interested to know, as would the Jubilee campaign group, because you obviously know something they, and the High Court, dont.

  • Moderate Unionist

    yer_man
    The issue of the transfer test is an extremely emotive one and we readily accept that there is an expectation among many parents that the 11+ should be replaced.

  • willowfield

    yer man

    It was McGuinnesses clear intention to remove all academic selection and get rid of Grammar schools.

    That was certainly his stated intention when he took office, but he ended up accepting the Burns proposals.

    It also leaves the door nicely open for a Labour Government to follow through and destroy Grammar schools, but use the excuse that they are simply delivering on the Devolved Minister’s intentions.

    … except they’re not doing so. But if the DUP is worried about it, then it’s up to them and the Provos to get devolution restored and retain the 11+.

    As far as I know the decision to remove the seperate [sic] billing section for water was taken in 1999.

    If it was in the first 11 months of 1999, then it preceded devolution.

    What is the UUP position on the whole thing? … So not only did the UUP, along with the SDLP and SF, agree to doing away with seperate billing, leaving the door open for water charges, but they give tacit support to the idea of water charges.

    What’s wrong with water charges? The objection to the current proposals is that rates bills are not being reduced as a consequence.

    In any case, the DUP was part of the same executive, so they share the blame as much as the other 3 parties.

    Again, if the DUP is so concerned, they need to reach an agreement with the Provos. We’re still waiting for the “fair deal”.

  • davidbrew

    “In any case, the DUP was part of the same executive, so they share the blame as much as the other 3 parties”

    Now you’re being a silly Willy. They never attended a meeting of the executive so how are they part of the decision? Blame the UUP who squawked a lot but did nothing to prevent it happening, who gave us the unaccountable minicters, the equal split in executuve seats, and of course McGuinness in government. The UUP acheieved nothing as ministers . SF delivered for their electorate; the DUP gave us all those overdue bypasses.

    Now get back to thread, and make excuses for McClarty’s inexplicable failure to seek a nomination in 2001, after a challenge for the nomination in 1997. Couldn’t be fear of defeat four years ago and pressure from his leader now by any chance?

    Of course not-he’s obviously been impressed by the numbers of middle class voters in Lodge Road begging him to free them of the oppression of Gregory’s mandate from those awful housing estates, and (shudder) farming types.