Below is my article from the political review section of today's News Letter.
If a person had offered the DUP membership 25% of the Northern Ireland vote and 8 MPs last summer or earlier this year then the poor soul would have been trampled in the rush. It is an impressive achievement considering the 2009 European result and the recent media controversies. However, there were enough flaws to ensure level-heads are maintained.
On the positive for the DUP it maintained 8 of its 9 seats despite apocalyptic predictions. The overall Unionist Nationalist split remained stable. There were no nationalist gains. Sinn Fein's vote remained relatively static and Ruane received some well-deserved electoral punishment for her failure at education.
On the negative, the principal architect of the party's strategy and its leader, Peter Robinson, lost his seat in East Belfast. In that constituency the party's core vote of 11,500 stayed loyal but a rainbow coalition of Alliance, UUP, PUP, SDLP and SF votes proved enough to unseat him.
This result has not precipitated a leadership crisis because that is not the DUP’s nature. Its many years as Unionism’s second party taught it to react carefully to public opinion. Some shifts are temporary others permanent, identifying which is which is the key. The UUP’s decades of dominance means that skill is lacking and failure tends to lead to a sense of crisis.
Beyond East Belfast, Fermanagh and South Tyrone remained in Sinn Fein's hands by the cruellest of margins and in South Belfast faced with another split ticket, about 3,000 Unionist voters chose to stay at home. The projections for the Assembly election based on last Friday's result show it will be a fight but the DUP is in pole position.
Last week will undoubtedly lead to a re-examination of the idea of greater Unionist Unity and whatever its outcome, it is a discussion well worth having. Such a debate could contribute to defining 21st century Unionism, thinking about the organisational structures needed and how to build the traditional voter base and a realistic vision for expanding beyond it.
Whatever the details of the result, there is still a strong temptation for the most successful party to celebrate. To boast of how well-crafted the message was. To crow about how strong the campaign was. To heap derision on your opponents for the mistakes they had made. However, for the DUP to achieve the result it did there needed to be something deeper than a good billboard or slogan.
The European election result did contribute but was not crucial. The Unionist electorate gave the DUP a clear shot across its bows. Sensibly, the DUP examination of it identified the correct lessons and its campaign dealt with many of their voters concerns. The result also gave the Unionist electorate a glance into what a three way split in Unionism meant. Amidst all the public anger and perceived unimportance of Europe, this had not been foremost in many minds. Afterwards, it did not look a wise option for the future.
However, the deeper reasoning was how do we shape the Union? Unionists here tend to talk about the Union as if it has a singular meaning but the Union adapts in small and major ways. This is how the internal relationships of the UK change to deal with political, social and economic shifts. This has been its inherent strength. In this election the Unionist electorate were faced with a three way choice of approach to managing those relationships – supplicant, dictator and battler.
The underlying tone of the Ulster Unionist message was that the Union exists on the forbearance of others. For the Union to be maintained we must supplicate ourselves to a ‘national interest’ (aka whatever the government wants). The Conservative link-up reinforced this tone. This is not a new phenomenon in Ulster Unionism with it being the ethos of Trimbleism throughout his leadership.
The TUV had the simple message that Unionism should be the sole determinant of what happens here. The regional interest is supreme. However, 40 years of bitter experience has taught Ulster’s Unionists that is no longer achievable. It is also built on the perception of an Ulster that owes more to 1960 than 2010.
The DUP’s message was the middle path. While we cannot dictate, our interests are not served by rolling over either. In the ongoing process that is the Union, to maintain the cohesion of the whole by battling for a balance between the regional and national.
In their good sense the Unionist electorate recognised that the middle path of seeking balance between the regional and the national is the best approach for the Union and Northern Ireland.
On the positive for the DUP it maintained 8 of its 9 seats despite apocalyptic predictions. The overall Unionist Nationalist split remained stable. There were no nationalist gains. Sinn Fein's vote remained relatively static and Ruane received some well-deserved electoral punishment for her failure at education.
On the negative, the principal architect of the party's strategy and its leader, Peter Robinson, lost his seat in East Belfast. In that constituency the party's core vote of 11,500 stayed loyal but a rainbow coalition of Alliance, UUP, PUP, SDLP and SF votes proved enough to unseat him.
This result has not precipitated a leadership crisis because that is not the DUP’s nature. Its many years as Unionism’s second party taught it to react carefully to public opinion. Some shifts are temporary others permanent, identifying which is which is the key. The UUP’s decades of dominance means that skill is lacking and failure tends to lead to a sense of crisis.
Beyond East Belfast, Fermanagh and South Tyrone remained in Sinn Fein's hands by the cruellest of margins and in South Belfast faced with another split ticket, about 3,000 Unionist voters chose to stay at home. The projections for the Assembly election based on last Friday's result show it will be a fight but the DUP is in pole position.
Last week will undoubtedly lead to a re-examination of the idea of greater Unionist Unity and whatever its outcome, it is a discussion well worth having. Such a debate could contribute to defining 21st century Unionism, thinking about the organisational structures needed and how to build the traditional voter base and a realistic vision for expanding beyond it.
Whatever the details of the result, there is still a strong temptation for the most successful party to celebrate. To boast of how well-crafted the message was. To crow about how strong the campaign was. To heap derision on your opponents for the mistakes they had made. However, for the DUP to achieve the result it did there needed to be something deeper than a good billboard or slogan.
The European election result did contribute but was not crucial. The Unionist electorate gave the DUP a clear shot across its bows. Sensibly, the DUP examination of it identified the correct lessons and its campaign dealt with many of their voters concerns. The result also gave the Unionist electorate a glance into what a three way split in Unionism meant. Amidst all the public anger and perceived unimportance of Europe, this had not been foremost in many minds. Afterwards, it did not look a wise option for the future.
However, the deeper reasoning was how do we shape the Union? Unionists here tend to talk about the Union as if it has a singular meaning but the Union adapts in small and major ways. This is how the internal relationships of the UK change to deal with political, social and economic shifts. This has been its inherent strength. In this election the Unionist electorate were faced with a three way choice of approach to managing those relationships – supplicant, dictator and battler.
The underlying tone of the Ulster Unionist message was that the Union exists on the forbearance of others. For the Union to be maintained we must supplicate ourselves to a ‘national interest’ (aka whatever the government wants). The Conservative link-up reinforced this tone. This is not a new phenomenon in Ulster Unionism with it being the ethos of Trimbleism throughout his leadership.
The TUV had the simple message that Unionism should be the sole determinant of what happens here. The regional interest is supreme. However, 40 years of bitter experience has taught Ulster’s Unionists that is no longer achievable. It is also built on the perception of an Ulster that owes more to 1960 than 2010.
The DUP’s message was the middle path. While we cannot dictate, our interests are not served by rolling over either. In the ongoing process that is the Union, to maintain the cohesion of the whole by battling for a balance between the regional and national.
In their good sense the Unionist electorate recognised that the middle path of seeking balance between the regional and the national is the best approach for the Union and Northern Ireland.
2 comments:
"Last week will undoubtedly lead to a re-examination of the idea of greater Unionist Unity and whatever its outcome, it is a discussion well worth having. Such a debate could contribute to defining 21st century Unionism, thinking about the organisational structures needed and how to build the traditional voter base and a realistic vision for expanding beyond it."
Certainly the last few months have proven, I think that a large element of the UUP are comfortable, idealogically and on a practical level with closer cooperation with the DUP and logistically a unified fighting force (if not a party) makes sense.
But curiously enough (given the raison d’etre behind the concept) the most optimistic messages about the result and the present state of play from a Unionist pov are coming from the likes of Liam Clarke and Anthony McIntyre, along the lines of a pro-Union voters now confident enough in the basic strength of a Union to ignore the more lazy calls to communal solidarity (eg “Smash Sinn Fein” in the Euros), move beyond the normal comfort-zone at the ballot box (Long) or simply stay at home. I think they are slightly exaggerating (eg Long was the classic protest vote) but what if their basic premise is right?
How would Unionist Unity tap into that now more volatile pro-Union electorate (never mind do the necessary evangelical work to pull the non-traditional in)?
”The underlying tone of the Ulster Unionist message was that the Union exists on the forbearance of others. For the Union to be maintained we must supplicate ourselves to a ‘national interest’ (aka whatever the government wants).”
Congratulations if you can determine any kind of coherent tone behind the UUP message of the last few months! We must “supplicate” ourselves to the dire economic position the UK is in, not for a Conservative government, who for some unknown reason that is never outlined by the DUP, would love to punish specifically Northern Ireland. The Union is surely a political and economic unit, where political or economic action in one part has an inevitable knock on and usually reverse effect in another. For the SNP and Plaid Cymru that’s justification enough to push for preferential treatment in their part of the UK; ie for them whether that preferential treatment is justifiable or not is less important than the detrimental effect it will have on the overall Union
For a Unionist party there must be much more recognition of the fact that our region, its requirements AND responsibilities doesn’t exist in isolation to the rest of the UK's; “England’s” (or “Westminster” if you believe the revised BBC version) “difficulty” shouldn’t be “Ulster’s opportunity” for a Unionist.
"closer cooperation with the DUP and logistically a unified fighting force (if not a party) makes sense."
And if that is all that comes from a discussion then all the better. 'Unity' like the Union can have multiple forms - if they arrive Unionism at an improved position then good.
I would share the view of LC and AM that it would be wrong to see the election results as some sort of calamity but would not go as far as their rose-tinted analysis.
My core concern is some are not trying to point out the risks of unionist unity or unwise forms of it rather trying to prevent the discussion from seriously commencing.
As regards the electorate never under-estimate the power of retail politics and doing basic politics better. There is also the issue of can consolidation create flexibility rather than stymie it?
"We must “supplicate” ourselves to the dire economic position the UK is in"
This is were we diverge somewhat. A simplistic strategy that fails to take account of the differential reliance on the public sector in different parts of the UK is a recipe for entrenching division within the UK and not healthy for the Union.
Power can be brutal game - as unionists here learnt the hard way - and that involves playing hardball when it is needed. The balance I believe is needed will only be achieved through a battle not self-effacement.
Post a Comment