Will UUP go into Opposition..?

CAST your mind back to March, and you might remember me (and others) having a go at the UUP for forsaking the chance to regroup in Opposition for the lure of the ministerial limo (even if it’s ‘only’ a Skoda; probably still better than the old Vauxhall Omega though!) Well, tomorrow the UUP will be considering whether they did the right thing. If they decide to make the leap to the opposition benches it would be a breach of manifesto policy, as the DUP has reminded us – although arguably they are masters at this. Maybe it’s one policy worth ditching for the UUP’s long term good – unlike the abortive decision to try and incorporate the PUP to gain ministerial position. The UUP appear weak in government next to the DUP powerhouse, but will it have the balls to bite the bullet and leave? I doubt it, even though it might be seen – in unionist terms – as for the greater good of a British parliament to have a more effective Westminster-style opposition. I don’t think the UUP has much to lose, and there could be much to be gained from a stance on issues like water charges that wasn’t beholden to an agreed Executive line. However, the party doesn’t appear to have much in the way of vision or leadership to go out on a limb with something that would genuinely shake things up at Stormont.

  • I am not disputing that there could be a difference between asking PUP to join a group and forming a bond of mutual benefit within the assembly for procedural reasons (business committee etc)

    That’s stretching the term ‘bond of mutual benefit’ to the limit, and a very odd choice of words for someone who clearly knows as much about Assembly procedure as you do. And in any case, it was Deeny who asked Purvis what way she was being represented on it, not us.

    Nice try.

    200 posts on this. It must be August.

  • thetruth

    Sammy Morse

    I said previously that Deeney may have brought up the subject, I know that in the previous assembly he advocated a closer relationship between the independent types including berry and ervine.

    But no this approach was made by Ford, the terms of it are up for debate as its only his word against purvis’- who hasnt spoken (debate and confusion probably being added to mostly by all of us) but it was ford.

  • thetruth


    I really dont want to get involved with your scuffle with cruimh all I was addressing was your language and abuse.

    You shouldnt use it because:-
    It is unnecessary
    It is against the rules of this forum
    It is against the ideologies of slugger:- play the ball not the man/woman 😉

    To say you apologised is ridiculous it is only an apology if you apologise and leave it at that, if a caveat of a four letter variety and insult is added the apology is null and void I am sure most would agree regardless of their opinion in this issue.

  • IJP

    What are you on about?

    The “approach” by Ford with reference to a common grouping was to Deeny and Wilson.

    The “approach” by Empey was to Purvis.

    Spot the difference.

  • Cruimh

    “The Alliance team approached Dawn Purvis to ask if she’d like to be kept up-to-date with what was going on on the Assembly business committee, as she wouldn’t be represented on it. ”

    Posted previously by IJP

    So, the Alliance team DID approach Dawn Purvis.

  • thetruth


    Ford approached Dawn Purvis and discussed the united community group and the business committee business…….obviosly at some point someone approached deeney and wilson but I dont know who did that.

  • John H

    Well judging by the smiling picture of Ian Paisley on the front of their site, it looks like the youth wing (or some of them at least) might be gearing up to move over to the DUP – is that the 2nd time in two years that would have happened?

  • Cruimh

    Still nothiing in the Irish News 😉

  • pup

    Dawn Purvis released this to the media a few days ago.

    “Before negotiations began to decide Assembly committee places, I was contacted by David Ford, Leader of the Alliance Party who offered me the opportunity to join their group in the assembly. The reason given by David Ford was they could almost guarantee a place on the committee of my choice. I told David I would take advice and get back to him.

    Foremost in my mind was the outbursts from the Alliance Party when my late colleague David Ervine joined the UUP Assembly Group and the previous welching on a deal by the Alliance Party to rotate an Assembly Commission seat between Alliance, PUP and the Woman’s Coalition in the 1998 Assembly.

    However mindful of the need to form alliances in the Assembly I decided to explore the offer further. As far as I could tell the only benefit in the move would be the Alliance Grouping having one linked MLA across the 11 statutory committees. There being no benefit to me or my party in joining the grouping, I thanked David Ford for his offer but politely declined.”