TUV – a manifesto light on self promotion

Excluding the party group photograph in the TUV manifesto [pdf] the other photographs total seven TUV members (four images of Allister). This compares to nine images of SF members.

A word count for the document gives the following:

Jim Allister – 3
Paisley – 5
Martin McGuinness – 7
Robinson – 7
DUP – 23
Sinn Féin – 52
TUV – 56

, , , ,

  • Rory Carr

    What about Turgon? Doesn’t he get a mention?

    (Is this first question above an example of a new form of whataboutery?)

  • Re-engaged

    Have to say – personally thought Jim lacked some real political acumen on UTV also – agreeing with both Declan O’Loan and IP Jr on substantive issues. Highlighted 2 things to me – is not offering anything on real issues he could not real have fought for as a DUP candidate and second is embittered and showing nothing genuinely of depth in his stance as a ‘traditional unionist.’ I have yet to hear what this term means – Turgon please enlighten me?

    No one argues (at least no-one I have heard) that the current governmental arrangements are not perfect (public statements from 3 of the 4 main party leaders at least) and a voluntary format would be preferred but after the last 30-40 yrs it is about building trust.

    A vote for the TUV is a wasted vote – a single issue party fighting on an issue which is a when rather than an if!!! To use a phrase from GB – GET REAL

  • aquifer

    Unionists rehearsing their own political extinction again.


    Not a positive choice

  • JohnM

    My God, that was a hateful read.

    They’re complete lunatics.

  • RepublicanStones

    the politics show this morning

    Allister claimed the TUV did not stand in marginal seats because he didn’t want to see SF in parliament never-mind govt, Sammy hit back with the claim TUV didn’t stand candidates in marginals because they couldn’t find the candidates.

    Allister said he wants “to remove the threat of a SF First Minister”

    I predicted this stance from some unionists a couple of months back, but was scoffed at !

  • Greenflag

    ‘They’re complete lunatics.’

    Nah -They’re just barking dogs pissing into the wind . They mean well or at least say they do . But they offer and can deliver noting for the people of NI given the current political and constitutional accomodation temporary as it is and will be for some time .

  • RepublicanStones

    just to add, Allister has been smoking something if he thinks he’s going to see SF in Parliament 😉

  • Greenflag

    Republican Stones ,

    Well they(SF) might just have enough MP’s to save NI and the rest of the UK the untender mercies of a Tory Government that has still not come clean on it’s financial and political intentions neither for NI or the EU or the economy:(

  • The usual sophisticated debate on Slugger, I see. Murdering IRA scum get a pass whilst TUV are the devil incarnate. Oh my.

  • union mack


    Judging by your last comment, your standard of debate is as unsophisticated as anything I’ve read on here. Perhaps if your party’s manifesto had some real substance, the reaction to it would not have been so negative? As an undecided voter, I emailed your party leader’s press officer with a few clarifications I needed on some policy positions, as I did with the other unionist parties. Hazy as their responses may have been, at least they had the decency to reply. Thats no way to win votes.

  • Re-engaged

    Classy as walls – right on top of the game just like you were on Nolan.

    As stated previously does this apply to all terrorism ever and if it does I await with interest your rejection of the state of Israel as Irgun and David Ben Gurion were terrorists trying to kick the Brits out of Palestine in 1948 or does that not count like the TUV’s favourite murdering scumbag Torrrens!!!

    David – Unionism is looking for something positive whether we agree with it or not, like or dislike the personalities, believe they have made personal errors at least the other 2 unionist parties have some idea of what is needed what do we get from the TUV – a condescending leader (who lacks the political whit to know you do not on camera shake your head in agreement with your opponents manifesto points – UTV Declan O’Loan and Ian Paisley Jr both benefitted!), some coat hangers who were on the fringe of the DUP and yourself.

    Please advise what the TUV offers NI – if you say voluntary coalition gov’t – a vote for the TUV will only delay this – it will happen. To use the only worthwhile quote from Gordon Brown of the election – GET REAL

  • Re-engaged

    Once again we see the black and white simplicity of TUV politics. So a simple black and white question (i.e. give us a straight answer) – how does Jim and friends in the TUV intend to get the UK and Irish Gov’ts and the other NI parties to change to a system of mandatory coalition? Simple question Turgon / David et al – please reply below

  • union mack

    Where was Jim Allister’s opposition to double/triple jobbing when he was endorsing Sammy Wilson as a candidate in E. Antrim in 2005? Was he unaware of the other positions Sammy held? Or is Jim Allister’s disgust at double jobbing simply an exercise in bandwagon-jumping?

  • Union Mack

    TUV opposes terrorist inclusive goverment. We oppose multiple jobbers. Our policy is clear.

  • union mack


    When your party leader attacks Ian Paisley Jr for not living in North Antrim on the UTV North Antrim debate, is this not hypocritical given that your party website states that you live in Portadown, whilst are standing for election in East Belfast?

  • Re-engaged


    Guessing you are too busy tackling that key NI election issue ‘Islam in the UK’ to respond on what is the key plank of the TUV manifesto? Or did I miss read your manifesto and miss Jim raising the issues of the Muslimisation of UK / Europe – assume this is something Jim worked hard in Europe on?

  • union mack


    21st October 2005, Jim Allister launched a ferocious criticism of Peter Hain, then Secretary of State, for his granting release on license to Sean Kelly, despite the latter’s involvement in stirring up trouble in North Belfast – clearly in breach of his license. This was a perfectly legitimate position to take. So when your party members try to have another convicted killer avoid being returned to jail on breach of license, for an incident of assault, is this not hypocrisy?

  • Re-engaged

    Silence from the TUV on all the issues being raised – why? At least when the other parties get queried / questioned they respond – all we get is the EB candidate slagging all Slugger users – probably a relflection on the infalability of leader Jim’s stance on any questioning him?

  • union mack

    How can voters have any faith in the TUV’s claim that they exist above the sleaze, policy u-turns and hyporcisies of the other parties, when they fail to address the concerns of the electorate. It is more and more apparent that the TUV are a single-issue ticket

  • Peter Fyfe

    My favourite is ,” a morotorium on third world immigration.” At that point I decided IPJ may even be more capable than Allister. Shows you that these people have just no grasp of the real world. They are just happy to reach out to the bigots who couldn’t spell GCSE between them. What does this actually mean to them? I think O’Dowd was probably close enough to the truth when he compared it to a colour chart.

    Did anybody watch the daily politics? Is this the man who Turgon thinks is the second best hope for the TUV, I don’t think we have much to worry about now. Who would vote for such a despicable little man? I thought Ringland might have a chance if the TUV took enough of PR’s vote and assumed a number of them would also go Ringland’s way. After that and Allister’s recent performances which consist of, ‘We are was bad as North Korea, I don’t like people that vote SF, their voices don’t matter,’ I really don’t see them taking many votes. There is no doubt that there is a few people that this message appeals to but are these backwoodsmen really sufficient enough in their numbers to affect the election?

  • Re-engaged

    Coming on 24 hours since Mr Vance decided to make his intervention – no response from the arch blogger – realise he may be on the stomp but with out a response we can only assume the TUV (leader Mr Allister et al) have no comeback to the ordinary voter?

    May be proved wrong but not holding my breath…