Litmus

An opinion piece I have in today's News Letter on the issue of Unionist Unity.

UNIONIST unity is a term guaranteed to produce Pavlovian and negative responses.

This is driven by the inability of some to realise how politics can move on. Many of the same commentators who complain about our politics happily use its truisms when it suits them to kill an idea they dislike.

With unionist unity they say it is a sectarian comfort blanket or worse a 21st century sectarian bogeyman. Others reject it as their politics is driven more by a visceral dislike of different parties than belief in a set of positive values.

They peddle conspiracy theories and play on the genuine loyalty of party activists to try and prevent discussion. The former is wrong and the latter offers nothing genuinely positive to anyone.

Unionism has two electoral challenges – falling turnout and the need to expand its electoral base beyond its traditional community (without alienating the existing base).

There is the political challenge of making Northern Ireland a beacon of political, social and economic success within the Union and regaining the global presence it once enjoyed. None of these tasks are easy.

There are also shifts in voter attitude going on among the electorate that unionism needs to be conscious of.

The present structures, relationships and attitudes among the unionist parties have been shaped by the peace process. Northern Ireland’s politics has begun to move on from the politics of the peace process.

As we look forward to the centenary of Northern Ireland in 2021, would focusing our efforts on these challenges and changes not produce greater benefits for the Union and unionism than finding arguments for the sake of them?

Unionist unity could be an opportunity to create something new and better. This is its litmus test. If after a thorough, intense and constructive debate the conclusion is that we can create something better then we should proceed.

If it doesn’t then we shouldn’t. The debate itself is something no unionist or anyone else in Northern Ireland should be fearful of.

Mixed

Apparently spending money on the Maze site is a waste (24-27 seconds):



But also not spending more to regenerate it is a failure (29-31 seconds):

Toe

In his latest column Alex Kane reflects on the "diem horribilem" of the UUP.  As regards the McGimpsey's decision on the Altnagelvin Cancer Unit he describes it as:

"...as a bizarrely ill-judged and ill-timed decision..."

While on the internal splits he highlights how that this was not a low level spat but caused by senior party members who simply should have known better:

"One is a former chief whip; one a former leadership contender; and the other is presently the deputy leader. All are senior figures, all are candidates and all are breaking the rules and causing yet more existing and potential voters to delete the UUP from their list of options."

Neither is a good backdrop for a party trying to claim that it is dedicated to deliver and to making Stormont work for you.

However Kane's proposed solution is problematic.  He believes that the party rules should now be enforced against all three to ensure they toe the line and that this would prove popular with the party membership.  This would simply guarantee that the story continued during the campaign - three senior members in key constituencies being subject to disciplinary charges would do little to assist an already faltering campaign.

The time for enforcement was in the past few years since the rules were introduced.  It is not like any of these three do not have form for example McCallister broke with the party position on water charges, McNarry is a repeat offender across numerous issues with McCrea a close second.

Kane also argues that this type of situation wouldn't arise in the DUP because the party's action would be:

"... immediate and brutal."

This is a common perception which I have previously argued is a misconception.  The DUP's culture is as much a product of common sense rather than enforcement.

Cheat

Part of the difficulties that UCUNF ran into was the legislation governing our elections had not considered/allowed for alliances between or joint endorsement of candidates by parties.  Now it seems the Tories are going to legislate to allow for it.  The justification is problems that Labour and Co-operative Party candidates face but the suspicion is that it is more to do with keeping the option of Coalition government candidates open.  However, it would likely solve the 'local' difficulties as well.

Each attempt to clarify what the relationship between the UUP and Conservatives usually falls flat because the next day someone says something different.  Overall the attempt seems to be put greater distance between them the closer we get to election day but still claim a relationship exists so that distance can be narrowed after the election.  Has the relationship descended to the level of a couple conning the social?  Telling people they are separated when they really aren't to try and gain extra benefit.

Catch-up

Note to UUP:  Catching up with the position of others doesn't change the game.

After

McGimpsey's comments yesterday on the Nolan Show where interpreted this morning by Nolan as a threat to resign.  As this blog has charted the UUP have been all over the place on the issue of health spending.  McGimpsey has ploughed his own furrow on the health budget. How much support he got from the UUP changed from day to day or who'd been asked.   If McGimpsey has continued in doing what he wants rather than an agreed party approach then this threat leaves poor Tom Elliott with another hand grenade in his lap.

However, beyond the budget is McGimpsey on political manoeuvres?  Sam McBride in the News Letter recently chronicled the febrile internal state of the Ulster Unionist Party with it fearful of what will happen to it at the Assembly polls.  Tom Elliott has not succeeded in steadying the ship (although that is as much the fault if not more of others in the UUP).  The debate about whether it should stay in or out of the Executive continues to rumble on with no conclusion in sight. If the UUP fears come to fruition and it does have a poor election what would its future direction be and under whom?

Basil McCrea's defeat in the leadership election was two fold.  He lost but he also damaged himself with his own supporters that he is not considered a future option either.  So if a leadership vacancy arose who would step into the a possible breach?  

McGimpsey delivered a crowd pleaser of a speech to the party conference.  He has enough a sufficient liberal track record to please some but sufficiently dialed down in the past few years that it wouldn't scare the conservative horses now.  He ticks the box for visceral dislike of the DUP.  A dramatic pre-election resignation would increase his profile.  It would also be a easy set up for him to then lead the UUP into opposition post-election.

Top

When appointed as Secretary of State the UUP considered Owen Paterson a top bloke:

"Owen's sterling commitment to Northern Ireland has been amply demonstrated during his time as shadow secretary of state," he said."And, in stark contrast to his Labour predecessor, Owen will have no ambiguity in stating his support for the Union. We can be certain that he will be a strong, positive voice for Northern Ireland at the cabinet table."

It doesn't seem to be the view today.

Question of the Day

Has commenting on the UUP reached the level of ghoulishness?

Fantasy

Stop digging is the advice to someone in a hole but the UUP seems to be have considered shovels inadequate and called in a JCB.  After managing to make their position on the budget even more obscure they tactic today is to go on the attack.  Tom Elliott's has issued another statement on the topic of the economy - the facebook description of it states:

"The people of Northern Ireland will not be sucked in by fantasy and propaganda."

However, the statement itself is a textbook case of fantasy.  To try and negate attacks about the franchise relationship with the Conservatives it seems the response is to create an imagined relationship between the DUP and Labour.  This leads to the claim that the economic crisis was caused by:

"...a combination of a worldwide recession and Labour economic policies which the DUP supported."

DUP support?  Has he checked the voting record of DUP MPs in the last parliament e.g. Nigel Dodds.  There were a number of prominent politicians who both praised and committed to continue Labour's policies that Tom may know, they were called David Cameron and George Osborne.  Their rejection of Labour economic policies coincided with the crash.  However, this is merely the starter for the complete loss of reality:

"We must never forget that the DUP were the Party that kept Labour in power"

Huh? In 2005 the Labour government was elected with a majority of 64 seats.  What kept it in power was itself.

Plan

A while ago IJP highlighted the contradiction in a Tom Elliott statement over the Tory link - with him managing to make it as look as clear as the Alliance Party/Liberal Democrat relationship ;-).  Now the issue of contradictions has risen again (but to be fair its spread over two statements rather than contained in one).  Yesterday the UUP made a move on the budget declaring:

"...the Ulster Unionist Party is unable to endorse the draft Budget proposal"

This prompted Three Thousand Versts and Open Unionism to ask what was planned next and was interpreted as a rejection.  Judging by the statement issued by Tom Elliott there was no plan with the position diluted to:

"At this stage we believe it is prudent to reserve our position. We are not rejecting the budget."

With Ulster Unionist Minister Danny Kennedy seemingly in the dark about the shift, did McNarry go on another of his solo runs as he has appeared to do with a finance paper which rejected policing and justice for  years and then his cuts document?  This would be hard enough for any communications unit to deal with never mind the hollowed out vessel that is trying to deal with it all.

McClartygate

I must admit I never thought I would see the day that my hometown paper would manage to get a story to which it could add 'gate' on to.  However, the deselection of David McClarty and a former party colleague's failure to lock their mobile keypad has done just that.

Channel

It appears that the policy significance of the North Channel cannot be over-estimated.  During Prime Minister's questions last week David Cameron said the ring-fencing of the health budget was enabling the Coalition government to improve health services:

"Today we are announcing a new cancer plan that aims to save another 5,000 lives every year by the end of the current Parliament. This is all about the early diagnosis that we need in the NHS, but I must tell the hon. Gentleman that we would not be able to do it if we had not, as a coalition Government, made the right decision to protect NHS spending-a decision completely opposed by the Labour party."

The equivalent policy of protecting the health budget lines has been instituted in Northern Ireland yet according to the Health minister here this will cause significant deterioration of the Health Service (and accepted by some of the media even when McGimpsey persists in the clear misrepresentation of the DHSSPS budget being the same as the DoH budget).  How can the same policy have such radically different outcomes?

There is also the broader question of who is setting the policy tune for the UUP on this.  The hundreds of millions more McGimpsey wants has to come from somewhere - more taxes, cuts elsewhere (tuition fees for example) or is it happy to continue with its multiple approaches of the past few months?

Deputy

The DUP has chalked up its second council defection since Tom Elliott became leader, Harry Dunlop, of North Down Council.  Coincidentally the second Deputy Mayor to jump ship. The pattern of defections seems to be the unelected head towards Alliance while councillors head DUP with what de-selected MLAs will do still unclear.  As to the reasons why for this flow IJP has it pretty much covered with the systemic/longer-term issues covered here.

Chalk

Chalk up a defection for the DUP.  The News Letter reports that UUP Councillor and Deputy Mayor of Castlereagh, David Drysdale has defected to the DUP.  Some of his reasons are quoted from his resignation letter.
  

Contagion

It appears that the UUP's confusion over health spending has now infected its water charges policy.  UUP Deputy leader, John McCallister, on the Nolan show backed the introduction of water charges as a means to boost health spending.  He highlighted a UUP 2007 manifesto pledge for a £100 water charge (if Direct Rule had implemented water charges by the time devolution was restored):

"• Capping the Direct Rule Administration’s introduction of water charges at a maximum of £100 – prohibiting any rises while the Assembly and Executive devise a fairer, more sustainable alternative."

Leaving aside the manifesto pledge being conditional on them already being introduced and presented as a temporary measure, the recent policy paper of the UUP was more circumspect on the issue:

the Ulster Unionist Partyrecognises the serious financial difficulties families are facing across Northern Ireland and recognisethat households are on average paying £160 per year servicing water charges through their rates. Wetherefore call upon the Minister for Regional Development to lay out the facts and options open to theNorthern Ireland Executive with regards to water charges – focusing on the potential increase in costto the average household in Northern Ireland if they were to be introduced. The Ulster Unionist Partyfirmly believes that an informed and time-bound debate must take place and that if water charges are

the Ulster Unionist Partyrecognises the serious financial difficulties families are facing across Northern Ireland and recognisethat households are on average paying £160 per year servicing water charges through their rates. Wetherefore call upon the Minister for Regional Development to lay out the facts and options open to theNorthern Ireland Executive with regards to water charges – focusing on the potential increase in costto the average household in Northern Ireland if they were to be introduced. The Ulster Unionist Partyfirmly believes that an informed and time-bound debate must take place and that if water charges are

"...the Ulster Unionist Party recognises the serious financial difficulties families are facing across Northern Ireland and recognise that households are on average paying £160 per year servicing water charges through their rates. We therefore call upon the Minister for Regional Development to lay out the facts and options open to the Northern Ireland Executive with regards to water charges – focusing on the potential increase in cost to the average household in Northern Ireland if they were to be introduced. The Ulster Unionist Party firmly believes that an informed and time-bound debate must take place and that if water charges are to be introduced the most vulnerable in society must be protected, any charges must be phased in over a period of years and all revenue must be hypothecated to frontline health and education services."

Meanwhile John McCallister's comments led to UUP Councillor Ronnie Crawford to call for  his Deputy Leader to be:

"sacked or hanged"

Demand

Considering the difficult position the Northern Ireland economy finds itself in both in terms of recovery and the  budget issues, particularly on capital, there are a number of things could be sought from the Conservatives. However, it takes breathtaking levels of navel-gazing and warped priorities to make closing down the NI Conservatives the key demand in discussions rather than something that would benefit the people of Northern Ireland. 

Dedicated Redux

The UUP Deputy Chairman, Terry Wright, one of the men charged with the post Westminster review of the party, has added his tuppence worth to the Conference fall-out:

"...has said he would not have attacked former candidates in the way David Campbell did on Saturday."

He went on to clarify that his comments should not be viewed as criticism of the Chairman David Campbell.  On the resignations he commented:

"...when people leave - and this is always likely to happen - you have to address the issues which prompted the decision."

Dedicated... (Updated)

..to wash dirty linen in public.  Flash Harry walked on Friday.  On Saturday it was revealed John K Lund had been suspended for comments on the Nolan show (only one of a number of members who participated in that sorry affair) with the result he was quitting and predicting others would follow (UPDATE a correct prediction judging by 3000 versts latest post).  Now on Monday a Lisburn UUP councillor, Ronnie Crawford, asserts on Flash Harry's facebook page:

"When will the UUP get a grip of itself?  We are a total shambles."

Before attacking the Party Chairman for his negative comments about those who had quit (scroll down), David Campbell:

"Following today's conference it was confirmed we need more Flash Harry's and fewer rash Campbell's."

Campbell attacking those Westminster candidates who had subsequently left the party which made at least one of their Assembly candidates, Lesley Macauley, uncomfortable.  As mentioned before disciplinary action doesn't necessarily create a culture of discipline it needs a membership that grasps the basic common sense of it.

Jpeg of facebook comments below the fold

Dinosaur

So Tom has delivered his first speech as leader.  I was doing some facilitation work on Saturday so missed it all so will examine the official version of his speech.

First the re-arranging of speeches on the day was a necessity built on an error.  With the TV coverage due to end at 1pm the idea the party leader would deliver a speech from 12.40-1.00pm was bad planning.  It needed to be re-arranged and it was on the day.  However, a message of dedicated to delivery isn't helped by last minute re-jigging.  This also necessitated the bumping of the women's slot as it was no doubt originally intended to overcome previous negative comment, the shift ended up provided evidence for it.

As to the speech itself, opening platitudes dealt with in the customary and acceptable manner.  The idea of using the speech as a platform to define himself was obvious and sensible but the manner in which he did so was a mistake.  Political animals underestimate how little attention is paid to a) news and b) those parts of the news they appear on.  Tom's low profile since becoming leader was thus of an advantage - if people hadn't really noticed he was leader (as UTV cruelly pointed out) then they wouldn't have noticed the negative things said about him.  The speech should have been solely the positive defintion of what his politics are. 

However, he listed all the negative things said about him which for some in the TV audience will have been the first time they'd heard them.  This error was summed up by the dinosaur line:

"So let no-one try and say that Tom Elliott is some sort of political dinosaur: for I am not"

This line was a gift to the negative media narrative and it was picked up by both BBC and UTV on the day.

Broadcast

The UUP PPB broadcast is now available over on iplayer (but not yet on the party site as far as I can see).  

Visually it has some comparisons with the DUP broadcast - bright skies Belfast skyline - although it has something of a softer vibe to the music and overall feel.  The use of the list about 30 seconds in didn't fit with the rest of it. Also there was a key emphasis point about 2.30s in that would made a better end point but they chose to  tack on another 30 secs that didn't add especially much and could have easily come before.  

What really hampered it was some wooden delivery from the party leader and some (but not all of the candidates).