O'Neill and Chekov have both critically assessed Nigel Dodds' comments and in particular the contrast with what Mick Fealty reported from his talks with Shadow Secretary of State Owen Paterson. I agree with the big picture scenario being presented by Owen Paterson (who couldn't?) and understand the appeal to the politcos within both the UUP and the Conservative Party. Where I am diverging from the analysis thus far provided is the practicality and the ability to implement their machinations in the way they seem to be implying. From Mick's report it appears to be "only women and Catholics need apply", certainly not a meritocracy where you stand and compete based on what you bring to the table. For myself the religious outlook and gender of a potential elected representative does not matter in the slightest; if they are capable and have appeal then they deserve support. Sometimes it appears the Conservatives imply that the UUP is a sectarian party by definition and perceive it as their job to correct this.
A new blog, Exoterica NI, has expressed valid concern about the UUP-Conservative pact:
In my view, the potential of unionsit votes, lies in 1) the young and 2) working class protestant communities. The Conservative link-up does little to satisfy these two criteria.
It is for this reason that I feel the UUP especially has missed an opportunity. They appear as one of the parties most disengaged from youth. So a focus on engaging with young potential unionist voters should be more of a priority - and developing some of the younger talent(?) within the party could help with this. A young woman (or 'God forbid', some young women, plural) would be even better.
Lasting engagement and delivery for these communities, coupled with a real effort to increase voter registration, could dring dividends. But the UUP have chosen a different path, one that may bring a small, insignificant bounce, but which leaves them firmly in their comfort zone.
Certainly from the view point of my own growing up and my families perspective was that the UUP were the 'fur coat brigade' and the DUP always came across as more working class based. Times have changed, and parties have moved into different areas of society. A good chunk of Esoterica's questions could be answered by the branding and candidate selection of the new agreement. A way of appealing to young people is for them to see some relatively young faces as elected representatives (not just those wheeled out at PEB time) and to have sustained contact from the parties themselves (mailing drop, emails & outreach through schools).
There is still a sense that the UUP are waiting for the DUP to fall apart, and then people will flock back to the official unionists. Part of this at the minute (and in particular the European election) is the sitting back and waiting from Jim Allister to get his teeth into the DUP. I personally don't think the European election will be an indicator of success for the new electoral force. The important one is Westminster; if the UUP/Tories decide to go for the grand vision and stay outside of the unionist debate within Northern Ireland there is the potential for a rejection at the polling stations. They need to be involved and need to get their hands dirty, and not be dependent on the TUV or indeed the DUP slipping up.
I've said enough for now, and have omitted some big issues (FST?!), but food for thought at any rate.
Posts
14 comments:
To clarify Ignited, if Conservative and UUs are putting across a message which is unequivocally pro-Union, how are they staying out of the unionist debate in Northern Ireland? What things does that debate consist of? In terms of work and argument I have no difficulty with the idea of getting hands dirty, but if it means sticking up for only one community, then I'm not so sure.
As far as I'm concerned it is the UUP and Conservatives (listening to Cameron at the conference) who are putting over the most authentic unionist message.
A lot of it comes down to candidate selection. What type of unionist will contest (and potentially win) seats particularly outside of the pale? What debate are they going to have to get involved in, over what issues and how do they communicate that.
What type (as opposed to who) of unionist would win Upper Bann or South and East Antrim.
For myself the religious outlook and gender of a potential elected representative does not matter in the slightest; if they are capable and have appeal then they deserve support
In my post I said that instinctively I'd follow the same line...however, is it the case at the minute that *non-traditional* Unionist-leaning folk of ability would feel completely 100% comfortable to stand for canditature? If "yes", then why are we seeing so few coming to the fore?
In the rest of the UK, the Conservatives have adopted a similar principle to solve a similar situation with canditates from an ethnic and indeed working-class background. It is working in that the party is moving away from the traditional image, with the results at the ballot box.
Putting religion or gender into the mix of candiate selection is not perfect, but as a short-term solution to solve a short-term wekaness within Unionism then I think it's justifiable.
"What debate are they going to have to get involved in, over what issues and how do they communicate that."
That's what I'm driving at! What debates do you feel they need to get involved in to be part of the 'unionist debate'? Because as far as I'm concerned that debate is simply about the Union. Other issues should be treated on their merits, but they're not intrinsically unionist.
Even on issues which matter to a lot of unionists (but aren't intrinsically unionist debates) I'm not to alarmed. The Tories seem to be on the same page re. grammar schools, they're opposed to the NIHRC's proposals. Those aren't testing grounds of unionism, but they show Conservatives won't be reluctant to back unionists on any issue which nationalists tend to take a different view of.
So what specific issues are you afraid Conservative / UUP candidates won't get involved in discussing?
"Putting religion or gender into the mix of candiate selection is not perfect, but as a short-term solution to solve a short-term wekaness within Unionism then I think it's justifiable."
I agree with that.
O'Neill,
Sounds like 50:50 recruitment to me. 'Short term fix to solve the legacy of sectarianism'.
Chekov,
From my standpoint I'm looking what the UUP have done in the past. 2007 the 'for all of us' campaign than ran on bread and butter issues, unconditional terms for going into government and an unrepresentative cohort of candidates.
What were the main issues for that election? SF & policing and the criteria for going into government. The UUP failed to engage on the issues that were dominating and instead opted out.
What is going to dominate 2010 Westminster? In the rest of the UK it will be the fight between Labour, Lib Dems and Conservatives on the economy. We are as equally effected by that. But what specifically is the Northern Ireland issue going to be?! The only party that is making ground on the DUP at the minute is the TUV. Why are the UUP not making ground?
I personally feel the UUP loses ground when it gets bunker syndrome and gets so taken in by its own narrative that it is not in touch with reality. Its great to take of pan-UK unionism, maximising the pro-union vote - but people want Northern Ireland to come first, and that is the angle I believe the DUP are getting ready to take.
Firstly I don’t accept that those were the main issues for the election. If the ‘bread and butter’ message wasn’t put across forcefully enough that is because the party started the campaign from a poor base. 2007 represented failure, but unless you wanted the UUP to lie, like the DUP did, then a relatively bad result was inevitable. What were the options available on the issues you raise? Mimic a DUP position which they would later drop? Repudiate the Belfast Agreement? The UUP said that the DUP would go into government despite its assurances otherwise. That was correct. The electorate either didn’t believe us or didn’t care. Either way the argument on going into government wasn’t winnable at the polls.
“I personally feel the UUP loses ground when it gets bunker syndrome and gets so taken in by its own narrative that it is not in touch with reality. Its great to take of pan-UK unionism, maximising the pro-union vote - but people want Northern Ireland to come first, and that is the angle I believe the DUP are getting ready to take.”
Sorry Ignited, but I still don’t exactly get what you’re saying. Is the UUP’s narrative a bad one? Given the primacy of economics is it not important for people here to get involved in its nitty gritty rather than in a side debate? What are the NI specific issues that the DUP can promise to deliver on which a party in UK government can’t? And why would selecting a different set of candidates give the party any more flexibility in this regard given that our policies must be compatible with the Conservative manifesto?
The UUP's narrative is not a bad one - it is just not filtering down and making people take note. It comes across nice and fuzzy, and has been attempted before by Bob McCartney in his campaign for equal citizenship.
At the minute there is not a UUP vote as such. It is individuals under the UUP banner. We don't have the luxury that the DUP have had in the last few years where a donkey could stand with a DUP rosette and get elected. That is where candidates become important. A blow in would have to be someone with instant recognition to stand a chance.
Since when has NI been logical or voted for the best policies on offer?! It's parochial and stubborn.
What are 2 or 3 or even 10 UUP MPs going to do in the HoC? We've been there before. What if (God forbid) Labour are returned?
'What are 2 or 3 or even 10 UUP MPs going to do in the HoC? We've been there before. What if (God forbid) Labour are returned?'
First of all there wont be any UUP MPs returned.
If Labour win, Labour win (though I dont suggest you spend too much time in the bookies betting on it - if you cab get odds)
If 2 or 3 Conservative and Unionist MPs get elected they can influence Govt policy and hopefully occupy influential positions including Minister's positions
This has never happened before
Ignited - you still haven't explained which issues you think Conservative / UUP candidates won't be able to engage with. I'm genuinely interested to know which you think they might be!
"has been attempted before by Bob McCartney in his campaign for equal citizenship."
I don't recall McCartney standing with the possibility of being part of the next government.
"That is where candidates become important. A blow in would have to be someone with instant recognition to stand a chance."
And you think what's there already is terribly compelling for voters? Where have blow-ins been suggested? Just because someone hasn't been active in the UUP doesn't mean they're a blow-in or will be a less able candidate.
I think people i.e. voters need to understand that the C&U's (or whatever is decided) need to be distinct from the UUP or why would there be a pact. They need a blend of old and new, 18 'geriatric' UUP members would be laughed at by all the other parties.
The new force will have to hopefully attract a blend that attempts to cross all strata - Men, Women, Catholic, Protestant, Atheist, Old, Middle Aged, Young, OO members, GAA members, Football Club Members and not members of anything, all they have to have in common is support for the union, ability and some experience in politics, business or relevant activity.
It may not be possible to get lots of high calibre people who tick all the boxes first time round but that is no excuse not for trying to bring in some new people who are probably not from a UUP or Conservative heritage.
If we accept the union is not on the table at the moment and will not be for some time, then they can start to look at everything else with out the constitution being the bedrock of all decisions. They can start to decide what is best for everyone, unionist and nationalist alike on a wide range of important issues, not Irish or Scots Irish languages or shrines or Stadiums but Health, Education and Industry where we should all want the best for our families.
If it is to succeed it must strive to offer the best candiates and solutions for everyone on national and local politics whilst being unashamedly unionist on the constitution.
I can see no difference on most issues for a family in London, Glasgow, Belfast, Newry or Strabane they all want the same basics.
If either party wants to enforce old ideas and people it will not work, change is the message for 2009 and it is change we must embrace wholeheartedly to succeed.
Sounds like 50:50 recruitment to me. 'Short term fix to solve the legacy of sectarianism'.
Ignited,
I wish someone wouold come and give you back=up here, it looks like we're all ganging up on you!
I don't think it's the same as the RUC/PSNI situation. In the end the UUP grassroots can decide if they want to run with this, if they don't there's diddly-squat the leadership or the Conservatives can achieve with this project. The RUC/PSNI didn't have that luxury.
Secondly, as has been shown with the Tories experience in the rest of the UK "preferential" canditates hasn't blocked the path of other more "conventional" and talented folk. They would be extremely stupid to put forward canditates solely on their religion or gender, but again that is not what happened in England.
But tbh, I can see where you're coming from and I guess people like Chekov and myself have to explain a bit more convincingly why we think it's a good idea.
Lol O'Neill, i'm out on a limb already!
Maybe Chekov, for myself at an rate, is the issue of peace processing. There is still a lot of outstanding issues (whether devolved or otherwise) such as legacies of the past, policing & justice, discrimination in the PSNI that I do not think the Conservatives will want to touch with a barge pole. The DUP will run a Westminster campaign including devolved issues and will look to smear the UUP-Tory 'big boy' policies as somehow anti-Northern Ireland anti-unionist (in their definition).
I think part of the UUP is lurching back to an integrationist model and it comes across as abandoning devolution. I haven't got a sense of balance yet coming through. That's what I mean by McCartney's message. For being part of a government fantastic, use it to strengthen the union - but the flip side is what happens when your not in government - is Northern Ireland therefore excluded for 5-10 years from influencing the government?
Candidates - where do I start? I'm not even saying that someone in the UUP is necessary, but someone credible who will be able to contest with the DUP, SDLP or SF. Is our new force going to see Sir Reg take on Peter Robinson in east Belfast? Is it going to see random NI Tory A take on Jeffrey Donaldson in LV? There are plenty of able candidates out there, but can they win?
My problem is I spend a good deal of time with the grassroots of unionism and 1)the UUP is a hard sell 2)the Tories are even harder. We can debate the finer points all we want but unless it is made clear to potential voters they have no incentive.
Ignited
This is not a short term process.
There are only three seats with any prospect of winning next time round ND, SA, SB with one or two others where substantial gains can be made.
The task is to increase the CU vote in all constituencies and to give the voters a sense of what the new process is about.
I have faith that the Conservative machine is professional enough to work with the local people here to send out a message that will resonate with all unionists who really believe in the union.
This message will not ignore the issues that local people are interested in - policing and justice (including the PSNI), enforced coalition is one, OTT human rights has already been discussed elsewhere, the economy. These things will not be ignored as all unionists should want the same things in NI that the rest of the UK enjoys.
Post a Comment