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.

Unity Strategies

In his review of the week in politics over on Geoff makes an interesting observation about how the two main Unionist parties have managed the Unionist Unity debate:

"PS. Interesting message from the DUP in the ‘unity’ links. Looks to me like the DUP are nimbly making their ‘unity’ appear broad and pluralist, while branding the UUP’s ‘unity’ as narrow and sectarian. How will the UUP (and Tom Elliott’s campaign) respond? In my opinion, the DUP has managed to appear big and generous throughout the ‘unity’ debate. The UUP on the other hand seem to have fallen into the trap of largely selling ‘unity’ on an anti-nationalist (sectarian) platform. The DUP’s strategy is clear – but what strategy has the UUP been following?"

In the UUP's defence it isn't an easy to have a clear approach in the midst of a leadership election, although clarity of position wasn't better before it began.  The amount of focus on the FM issue by the UUP and the media is a bit curious.  If the UUP think it is a potentially harmful electoral issue for them then highlighting it repeatedly gives it more profile.  As for the media, it has given them something to talk about during silly season but it demonstrates that for all their talk of 'new' politics they'll happily focus on the 'old' politics.

Included in the list of articles is one by Alex Kane (that I'd managed to miss up until now) where he picks up the theme of neither leadership candidate getting it. However, when you see his definition of the task you can undestand why it could be overwhelming:

"to unite the party; create a very clear and separate identity for it; replace the almost 100,000 votes it has lost in the last decade; get it taken seriously again by the media and the electorate; rebuild it at constituency level (where half of a dwindling membership are members in name only); make some very tough internal decisions on discipline, finance and administration; deliver — in a matter of months — some hard proof of political and electoral recovery; and, most difficult of all perhaps, instill the sort of confidence and enthusiasm which will encourage the canvassers to return to the doorsteps again because they really do believe they can win."

Unionist Competition v Unity

The FST result has been used as the whipping boy of Unionist Unity.  South Belfast is ignored.  In it two Unionist parties competed against one another in a marginal seat with a nationalist incumbent.  How did the Unionist vote perform there?

It was down and down more, significantly more than Fermanagh.  In FST the Unionist physical vote dropped by 1675 votes and 1.5 percentage points.  This was a 7.3% drop in the Unionist vote on the previous result.  In South Belfast the Unionist physical vote dropped 2375 votes and 10.1 percentage points.  This was a 14.4% drop on the previous result.  Both saw a drop but Unionist competition in the marginal held by a nationalist saw a much greater drop in every category than the seat where an agreed candidate was run.

Towards Northern Ireland's second century

Below is my contribution to the Union 2021 series in the News Letter.

1) What do you think Northern Ireland's Union with Great Britain will look like in 2021?

It will look like whatever Unionism puts its mind to and spends the next decade working for. It would be complacent to expect a better future to fall into Unionism’s lap regardless of how good the economics or other factors look. If Unionism is lazy it could be surprised how dissatisfactory a Northern Ireland of 2021 could look.

2) What would you like it to look like?

Rather than engage in fantasy politics with 2021 it should be approached as a chance for strategic politics. Unionism should set itself a series of targets for 2021. This would mean Unionism and Northern Ireland not crawling across the centenary line but bounding over it into its second century.

A target should be Northern Ireland taking its place on the national stage as a full and constituent part of the United Kingdom, re-integrating us into national politics. This will not be achieved through shallow deals with a consistently unreliable Conservative Party. Instead it will be achieved by making Northern Ireland a success. Through the full utilisation of devolution Ulster should seek to become a beacon within the Union. Many of our policy challenges are common throughout the UK and if you wish the national media and political class to build a meaningful relationship with you then tackling them is the means to do so. We need to be the tailor of new policy not wearing hand-me downs.

Electorally we need to grow, 50% +1 may be all that Unionism needs but it shouldn’t be satisfied with it. Unionism should aim for a vote share of 57% by 2021 and a total non-nationalist share of 65%. Unionism should seek to grow its vote among three groups:

• Protestant working class – This is the section of past Unionist voters that have seen the greatest decline in turnout, not the middle classes as often claimed.

• Minority Ethnic Communities – This is the social group that has seen the largest growth in Northern Ireland in the past decade. With many entirely new to Northern Ireland they have no allegiance to any party.

• Catholic Voters – This will be a generational task and Unionism needs to be realistic. A full ideological jump from Nationalism to Unionism in a society like ours is a significant step. Therefore, Unionism’s task is a series of steps. Someone who previously voted for a nationalist party becoming a non-voter or voting for a non-nationalist party is an advance for Unionism. After these a further step towards Unionism becomes a greater possibility. The increasing identification with Northern Ireland to 1 in 4 Catholics also means a regional emphasis would be of value to Unionism (and not a closet Ulster Nationalism)

3) Is unionist unity essential for the achievement of your vision?

If unionist unity is done properly then it would help.

4) If so, what does that mean?

It means having a proper debate about what Unionist unity could be rather than someone presenting a finished plan. The discussion so far has told you more about the recriminations within the UUP than the risks and benefits of unity. The question should be what would a broad based Unionist party fit for the 21st century look like? The answer to that will help people genuinely assess its value and if people’s concerns can be adequately addressed. A decent debate, rather than the presently stunted one, could ensure at least productive co-operation and collaboration as an outcome.

5) Could you accept a Sinn Fein first minister?

The risk of this has become over-stated with a DUP first minister the more likely result. Unionism need not face this possibility nor should it. Planning for failure is not conducive to a good vision or strategy but gets you mired in reactive counter-strategy.

FST and Unionist Unity

Opponents of Unionist Unity invoke the Fermanagh and South Tyrone result to undermine the case but does it?

There were a number of other problems that can help explain what went wrong:

• 
  
  A 'Faux' Unity - The lateness of the decision (and resulting ad hoc nature of the campaign), the localised nature of the decision, the distinct unhappiness of sections of the UUP and Tories with the decision, the refusal to follow through in South Belfast undermined how genuine the initiative looked (especially by UCUNF.)
• 
  
  The Tory link - This did not prove popular with the Unionist electorate overall so taking the whip, while a necessary compromise to get a deal, could have made the candidacy less appealing.
• 
  
  Localised rumours - Sinn Fein successfully spread a number of rumours that demotivated sections of Unionists voters e.g. Connor was pro-abortion were common led some evangelicals to stay at home.  TUV types already somewhat sceptical of Connor's more open and liberal approach had a handy excuse to stay at home or spoil their ballot and the numbers would seem to validate that.

As to the claim of galvanisation of nationalism it is only partially correct.  The nationalists who voted did shift but the nationalist vote was down (810).  So it did not provide an extra impetus for nationalists to turn out.

Also in terms of political tactics success, while preferable, does not negate the utility of doing something. If Sinn Fein were faced with a split Unionist ticket in FST then they would have had little to worry, posted in their campaign and got the seat.  With a serious challenge they had to expend political resources to do so e.g. busing down activists.  These activists could have been elsewhere targeting other seats but this initiative made them have to worry about their own backyard.  It has also potentially increased the risk to their Assembly seat in South Belfast.

It also misrepresents what unity could be. What happened in FST is not the only way of implementing it. It  need not be full-blown merger but co-operation and collaboration of different levels of intensity across Northern Ireland or at a more localised level e.g. Belfast.

Economic determinism

Chekov has made his contribution to the Union 2021 series.  While reiterating his opposition to Unionist Unity and his theme of integration into national politics he places a strong emphasis upon economics.  He declares:

"If Northern Ireland can be made to work economically, then it will work politically...If instead the focus is on economic achievement, contributing to the politics and culture of the UK and ensuring that Northern Ireland is a desirable place to live for everyone, then support for the Union will flourish. If we are seen to pay our way, then mainland resentment at our addiction to subsidies will die away."

Positive possibilities

University of Ulster academic Pol O'Dochartaigh has made a series of pronouncements of Unionist Unity in yesterday's Irish News (subs reqd).  However, while there may have been selective quoting by the journalist the argument as presented is full of holes.

Economics and Unionism

Graham Gudgin has provided the second contribution in the Union 2021 series with significant challenge in its content.  His focus is upon economics and Unionism.  His analysis seems somewhat tainted by what appears to be negative experiences of the UUP, like most economists he doesn't grasp that a politician has to marry economic necessity with the politically possible and fails to sufficiently acknowledge the steps towards a greater policy focus that have been made.  However, this doesn't take away from the fundamentals of his argument.

He stresses the scale of the economic difficulties our region faces:

"This was sustainable during the UK's debt-driven boom, with ever increasing amounts of money flowing into Northern Ireland, but in a post-recession world realities must now be faced.  Cuts will reduce public services by 15 percent over five years, economic growth will slow to a trickle and unemployment will rise."

Something I doubt people have yet truly grasped here.  He rightly highlights a problem in Northern Ireland's governance that is often overlooked, the bureaucracy:

"The relevant civil service departments show little desire for radical change and as have allowed their capacity for strategic economic thinking to wither away."

Gudgin also does not dimiss Unionist Unity out of hand but grasps its potential for a new departure in Unionism:

"Should the two main unionist parties unite to prevent such a prospect? Only if they could do so around a radical and reformist economic programme."

He concludes that:

"Unionism faces a choice as it looks towards 2021.  It can either fight an unsuccessful rearguard action on economic change or it can embrace reforms as part of a modern unionist programme."

But expresses doubts that it will happen, that may be less of a problem than he imagines.

We're Northern Ireland

As part of its Union 2021 series the News Letter is trumpeting the new Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey and the growing personal identification with Northern Ireland over other identities in both the main religious communities. 

This data has to be treated with some caution as the NILT has had difficulties in its sampling, the transformation is very slow and we don't know if it will continue to grow.  Also the change has been a partial result of benign manipulation / social engineering by the NIO.  However, a growth from 10% to 25% over a sustained period is a clear trend.

This raises an interesting question for the future definition of Unionism here if it is trying to attract this section of voters.  During the recent election UCUNF tried to label any regional identification by the DUP with Northern Ireland as some form of closet (or overt) Ulster nationalism.  However, does this data mean that a regional emphasis may have greater utility in attracting beyond the traditional base?

Middle ground politics

I contributed a guest column to the Belfast Telegraph today on the topic of "middle ground politics". In it I argue that a greater policy focus will develop as a consequence of devolution and as a means to tackle voter turnout issues. As regards tackling traditional voting patterns, I contend it can assist such a process but people need to be realistic about the level of return it will yield. As to the role of Unionist Unity I argue it is how that idea is shaped that will determine whether it is a help or hindrance.

There are two alternative viewpoints with Owen Polley argues that Unionist Unity will prevent any such development while Dr Peter Shirlow thinks the two present Unionist parties incapable of attracting the groups of Unionists that have stopped voting.

Polley's rejection is no surprise. He has been a persistent critic of various forms of co-operation and collaboration in Unionism. On his blog he highlights my use of 'dead-head'. I had toyed with whether to include the term or not but in the end kept it in because I consider the much of the commentary to be just that. The idea was never explored for any potential benefit it was simply rejected upon mere mention. Simply an unthinking approach was adopted to it and I dislike that whether from a liberal or anyone else. It is like rejecting the idea of a new house before a design has been even produced let alone built. Any idea deserves some basic consideration before rejection. I have made this criticism before of an Alex Kane piece where I argued:

"Both unity and a stronger policy agenda are perfectly possible, they are not mutually exclusive. Unionism overall might also be better off if its commentators didn't try to kill a potentially useful debate because of a burden of history and perception or simply list problems but rather engage in creative thinking about possible solutions."

Shirlow's contribution does recognise the working class element of non-voting Unionists that the media regularly overlooks but in his conclusion he seems to lump in the reasons for their disenchantment in with a 'liberal' section of the middle class which I think is unwise. Also as someone who worked in the community sector for over 15 years I can see the bog-standard sector whinge a mile off and Shirlow appears to have bought into hook line and sinker. Blaming politicians is the common conclusion to many a debate in Northern Ireland but it doesn't mean it is always legitimate.

Finger-pointing and missing the point

Today's Alex Kane column truly sums up the worst of the debate about Unionist Unity. I must admit to be sorely tempted to fisk it. It certainly provides ample material for it even falling into conspiracy theories at the end. I must also admit I am surprised that someone general produces more thoughtful and thought-provoking articles ends up relying on what is standard UUP boilerplate.

However, Alex makes this point:

"Yet the truth is that both the UUP and DUP are losing votes separately, so I'm not convinced that they could increase votes together."

This admits that the present arrangement is not fulfilling the potential, thus if that is the case why is an exploration of something different so bad?

Kane makes the claim:

"It's not the absence of unity which is turning off the unionist electorate"

Elsewhere he expresses concern for evidence so he might care to look at the result in FST were Unionism came within 4 votes of taking the seat and closely matched the 2005 result while in South Belfast a divided Unionism delivered a deteriorated Unionist position. So unity came much closer to delivering an extra seat than division did.

As to the desire for a policy agenda maybe he should see the "unity of added potential" as a means to move towards such a goal. Both unity and a stronger policy agenda are perfectly possible, they are not mutually exclusive. Unionism overall might also be better off if its commentators didn't try to kill a potentially useful debate because of a burden of history and perception or simply list problems but rather engage in creative thinking about possible solutions.

Thorough, Intense and Constructive

This is my personal contribution to the Open Unionism debate on the topic of Unionist Unity. Please comment on this post on the Open Unionism blog.

Regardless of the quality of the individual contributions about the idea of a United Unionism, it has been more a spasm than a proper debate and it is a proper debate that is needed.

Opponents of the idea have been keen to portray a United Unionism as some sort of monster. This is premature considering there had not been anything approaching serious discussion let alone any formal proposals or agreement. They will argue that they are warning of the possible dangers in such a process. However, the dirty rush and negativity seems more to kill the debate at birth.

Others have advocated Unity under a model they personally prefer. However, this approach will hamper the discussion as well. Any examination needs to be as open to a breadth of ideas not bog-downed in an individual model. So what is the basis of the United Unionist debate? What form should the debate take?The Westminster Mathematics

Any debate must be based on honesty and the Assembly projections for both the DUP and UUP based on the Westminster results are reasonable. The DUP are well-placed to retain largest party status and the UUP should maintain their present size with scope for modest growth. Therefore, there is no short-term electoral necessity for it. However, this is not an argument not for trying rather it is an argument for it.

In any negotiation you need a Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA). This gives each negotiator something to assess any proposed deal against. A negotiation is healthiest when the respective parties have a good BATNA and both the DUP and UUP do. Although, the longer-term strategic benefits of Unionist Unity should prove better than their BATNAs.

Furthermore, a Unionist Unity borne out of short-term necessity could be quite possibly the worst form. It would be a shot-gun marriage most likely destined for a bitter and early divorce.

Known Brands

Beyond the BATNAs there needs to be recognition of the strength of a known brands. The fact the DUP was able to come through the testing times it did in a strong position is a demonstration of the endurance of brand loyalty. Similarly, despite the multiple somersaults and Janus like approach of the UUP in recent years, tens of thousands still go out and vote for them regardless.

Brand development, innovation and amalgamation are perfectly possible. Also neither the DUP nor UUP brand is perfect but any new United Unionist brand has to be clear on how it can be at least as strong as the existing ones and preferably even stronger.

Moving Forward and Reaching Out

The discussion must also examine the two long-term strategic challenges for Unionism – the fall in turn-out and the need to expand beyond its traditional community. It will need to be clear that the fall in turn-out is in working class areas and turning it round will involve serious and sustained work on the ground. Anyone who tries to peddle the myth of a problem with garden centre prods should be taken to such a centre and introduced to a large shovel until they recognise the evidence of box turnout and voter registration shows a working class problem. The core reason the UUP has been unsuccessful in tapping this vote for the past decade or more is because it isn’t there.

The assumption of critics is that the consolidation of unity would take the form of circling the wagons. However, it could equally be a consolidation to create the space and organisational capacity for growth beyond Unionism’s traditional community. Such work must be on a realistic basis. Minority ethnic groups need to be considered as much as the Roman Catholic community. Growth will be limited and slow. The work needs to be through direct engagement with such voters, not using civic society groups as ciphers.

It will also give the opportunity to examine the role of identity politics and whether it is possible to provide credible and compatible messages to different audiences. To suddenly pretend that there isn’t a relationship simply isn’t credible but neither should it be the sole basis of Unionism.

The Value of the Debate

The debate is worth having as Unionism does not do enough internal debate about itself. The debate is worth having at tackling some of the mutual myths about the parties that develop as false barriers. It gives an opportunity to get Unionism beyond than the ‘who did what when and why’ during the peace process. The debate is worth having because regardless of overall success, it should create better and more productive working relationships. The debate would facilitate people to move beyond a guttural reaction to the idea towards something more considered.

The Debate

The debate needs to be structured so that it includes the party officers and representatives, memberships and general public. This is to ensure that any progress is built upon a meeting of minds at all levels. The debate needs to examine the benefits of Unionist Unity, its risks (and potential means to manage them), the different levels of intensity it could take and the organisational options. This should involve the production of public consultation papers, debates and town hall meetings.

The debate also needs to be time-bound. The party conferences in October and November seem to provide a natural and obvious end date. This would enable any new entity the lead-in time it would need before the Assembly election or if it fails sufficient time for their parties to make the necessary preparations for the Assembly.

It would be helpful if a local newspaper would be interested in facilitating such a debate – although that would have some problems. The News Letter’s reach is not as wide is as needed and the Belfast Telegraph is sceptical of the idea. Although possibly its scepticism could prove healthy and if it proved ultimately persuaded by the debate a worthwhile boon to any developments.

A properly managed debate would reduce the risk that of any failure leading to renewed bitterness and finger-pointing.

Conclusion

The difficulties in such a process should not be under-estimated with many seeking to undermine it throughout and many a bear trap of personality clashes to avoid. However, a thorough, intense and constructive debate threatens no section of Unionism and would be good for Unionism overall.

An Analogy for Unionist Unity

Last Friday lunch-time I was discussing with some politically interested but uninvolved friends about the possibilities and probablities of Unionist Unity.

I asked them of possible models to enable a positive Unionist Unity conversation. One person told the tale of the creation of the Lutheran Church. When they gathered together to examine the possibility of establishing the church they asked the plain and simple question "What do we agree on?". The answer to this question proved sufficiently broad and strong that from it the Church was established - that points of consensus put the areas of disagreement in sufficient perspective that they ceased to be a barrier.

Unionist Unity - Keep Calm and Carry On

So far the debate about Unionist Unity has been more media based than anywhere else with some contribution by the blogosphere. However, aspects of it are rather tiresome.

First, most of the contributions to the debate have been from those who are opposed explicitly or implicitly to the concept skewing the discourse, whether it be well-known sceptic Owen Polley or the UUP leader (pro tem) Sir Reg Empey with a notable exception of Burke's corner. A consistent theme of critics has been painting Unionist unity as some sort of ethnic circling of wagons, preordaining the outcome before even a single meeting has been held to discuss the idea nor a single piece of paper written. Some of it is also based on an analysis of the DUP that owes more to 1990 than 2010.

The fact that the analysis and predictions of a number of them have been shown to be fundamentally flawed do not seem to act as a barrier to their words being treated with sage reverence, but it was forever thus.

Second, some of the commentary has also engaged in fantasy politics such as the recent News Letter article on an Alternative Voting system being a life-line for the Ulster Unionists - if the Ulster Unionists should take one lesson from this election it is not to fall for simplistic visions of a restoration of its political fortunes. Meanwhile others have decided the debate is almost over when it has barely begun.

Electorally, Unionist Unity is not an electoral imperative. On the basis of the result, it is perfectly possible for the DUP to maintain largest party status and the UUP to maintain its present size with the possibility of a couple of more seats (I use possibility because as a former member, and now electoral competitor, the UUP's ability to make basic electoral mistakes to their own cost has never ceased to amaze).

Many would see this as a disadvantage, without the electoral imperative then it won't happen. I think it is better as it prevents a shotgun marriage hammered out in a rush and not enabling a meeting of minds of leaders, representatives and members. An alliance borne out of nothing deeper than number crunching would be difficult to sustain for any length of time. This present scenario allows for a more considered process that whether it delivered unity or not could offers the potential for sensible co-operation, improve relationships and possibly even the standard of discourse in Unionism.

The eye of the beholder

On the last minute offer to attain Unionist Unity, Sir Reg Empey described it as:

"It is all very grubby."

The News Letter editorial disagrees, it describing it all as:

"The DUP made a very generous offer to Miss Bradshaw...The offer was regrettably spurned."

The News Letter also picks up that despite the close of nominations it is still not too late for an agreement:

"...which is still possible even if both names appear on the ballot paper."

A 1918 lesson for South Belfast?

The deadlines for nominations and to withdraw for the 2010 Westminster election have passed. At their close in Fermanagh and South Tyrone there was an independent, Rodney Connor, running in Fermanagh and South Tyrone with the support of the DUP and UUP facing the Sinn Fein incumbent, Michelle Gildernew, and SDLP candidate Ferghal McKinney. In South Belfast, we have a pan-nationalist candidate, Alasdair McDonnell, with his main challenger Jimmy Spratt of the DUP and then the UUP's Paula Bradshaw. So the chance to make a deal has come and gone - or has it?

There is a precedent for an electoral pact agreed after nominations were closed. In 1918 the Irish Parliamentary Party and Sinn Fein agreed a pact in 8 constituencies were a Nationalist split would have resulted in a Unionist being elected. So in all 8 constituencies both parties remained on the ballot papers but voters asked to ignore one and vote for the other. For example, in East Donegal, it was agreed the IPP incumbent was to be the preferred candidate and nationalist voters abided by it with only 46 voting for the Sinn Fein candidate.

Sinn Fein backs McDonnell in South Belfast

It's been reported that Sinn Fein have withdrawn Alex Maskey in South Belfast. How does McDonnell feel about this Shinner endorsement? With Sir Reg Empey not responding to yesterday's call to agree a Unionist Unity candidate, for South Belfast to return to Unionism we are looking at the second option outlined yesterday at the DUP manifesto launch:

"If no arrangements are made by the close of nominations tomorrow then it will be for the voters to decide...In South Belfast I call on those voters who believe in unionist unity to recognise the DUP’s substantial, sincere and repeated efforts to achieve an agreed candidate and to vote for Jimmy Spratt who is the only unionist who can win."

Today's announcement crystallises that situation.

The almost MP speaks on Unionist Unity

Christopher Montgomery offers his last minute encouragement for a united unionist approach in South Belfast in today's Belfast Telegraph. He was almost the Ulster Unionist nominee in 2005 and had the endorsement of the outgoing MP Martin Smyth at the selection meeting. It was thought highly likely that if he had been chosen there would have been no DUP challenge. This morning Peter Robinson renewed the offer to make a pact in South Belfast:

"My party and I stand ready to act in the interests of unionism and reach a similar agreement in South Belfast. I believe a comparable figure to Rodney Connor can be found for South Belfast, even at this late stage."

Chinks of light on South Belfast

Two chinks of light have emerged on South Belfast regardless of what Owen Patterson says.

Tonight UCUNF candidate Paula Bradshaw has given a conditional offer to withdraw (facebook membership reqd) if asked to do so by Sir Reg Empey on the basis that a candidate with "the same record of cross-community credentials and record of service" as Rodney Connor has been found. This should not be beyond the capabilities of Unionism working together as Fermanagh and South Tyrone showed.

The local Loyal Orders have made their views known - not only seeking the FST model in South Belfast but promising to publicly blame any party that blocks such a move and encourage people not to vote for that party. Over to you Sir Reg.

One down one to go

A deal has been agreed for a Unionist Unity candidate, Rodney Connor, in Fermanagh and South Tyrone against Sinn Fein's multi-jobber Michelle Gildernew. The square was circled on the Tory demand that all candidates take the Conservative whip by a division of the whip - the former Chief Executive of Fermanagh District Council will follow the Tory whip except on matters relating to Northern Ireland where he will have freedom of action. First things first, congratulations to those who persisted and kept the issue alive so that this agreement was reached.

Now that FST has been sorted this leaves the other constituency of Belfast South. On the face of it there seems little reason why a comparable agreement can't be reached for there if a suitable candidate be identified although it better be done quickly with only 11 days remaining. However, this would involve a strategic shift from the UUP who have been following the SDLP line on a number of issues despite Ritchie making it clear she isn;t interested in partnering with the UUP and Alliance in the Assembly. Or perhaps the new SDLP leader Margaret Ritchie could live with her leadership opponent being brought down a peg or two?

Although I would suggest that UCUNF should bring their candidate into the loop on the possibility of such things (see front page story on South Belfast news).