Bow Group's 'More for Less' document

A quick line this morning (there will be lengthier posts appearing later this week I can assure you). John Redwood and Carl Thomson (from Moscow Tory) have produced a pamphlet entitled 'More For Less' on behalf of the Bow Group. It aims to set out practical methods which could deliver public savings cuts whilst protecting front line services.

Eighteen candidates - no discussion!

Tom Elliott MLA has appeared on Hearts and Minds attempting to fudge the issue of agreed candidates. He also claims to be 'relatively' supportive of the Conservative and Unionist pact. O'Neill has previously pointed out that the Fermanagh man appears to have a shaky understanding of what UCUNF actually involves. We know that it entails eighteen candidates and yet UUP representatives still remain coy about declaring unequivocally that eighteen candidates will stand.

Liverpool sign striker Placenta?

Benitez' new player gets a medical?


I am, it should be said, rather cynical about experimental medicine of any type. However the basting of Liverpool Football Club's players with horse placenta I fully support. Better yet, play the placenta at centre forward instead of Andriy Voronin.

The civic space: Towards a civic unionism

At Forth magazine, I write about unionism's capacity to deliver civic politics to Northern Ireland. Jason Walsh will reply from the nationalist perspective.

Jason and I share the conviction that Northern Ireland’s politics ought to focus on civic discourse, if they are to assume a less confrontational, less sectarian shape. My contention is that a province, remaining solidly within the United Kingdom, is best placed to draw upon civic and institutional influences, rather than the cultural preoccupations which currently predominate, precisely because the state is a multi-national construct which makes its appeal primarily on the basis of political allegiance, rather than a perceived monolithic identity. It is incumbent upon unionists to celebrate the diversity of their state and frame their arguments in civic terms, rather than continue to call forth Conor Cruise O’Brien’s ‘ancestral voices’.

Read more: http://forth.ie/index.php/content/article/two_views_on_real_politics_part_one_the_civic_space/20091125/#ixzz0Xsf8TvdY

Sorry Liverpool depart Champions League.

Liverpool’s Champions’ League victory recedes ever further into the rear-view mirror of history. It is now the fifth season since that campaign, which climaxed in Istanbul, and to celebrate the club has tumbled out of this year’s competition at the group stages.

Rafa Benitez’ side was not eliminated on the strength of its performances against Debrecen. Although last night the team delivered another unconvincing one goal victory against the minnows. Liverpool, under Benitez, have a habit of doing ’just enough’ to beat substandard opposition in Europe and have often advanced on that basis. This time two fortunate victories against the Hungarians could not offset a defeat at Fiorentina and, crushingly, one point from six against Olympique Lyonnais.

The brutal truth is that Benitez’ team deserves to be eliminated from the Champions’ League, just as it deserved to be beaten by Arsenal’s second string in the Carling Cup and just as it deserves to languish seventh in the Premier League.

An exceptional run of form between January and the end of last season obscured the incontrovertible fact that the squad is really rather threadbare. With Xabi Alonso’s replacement suffering an interminable injury, Fernando Torres sidelined and Steven Gerrard struggling for fitness, Rafa Benitez can field only a distinctly ordinary team.

He has exacerbated his problems with some inexplicable decisions. Yossi Benayoun, producing rampant performances in a free role behind the striker, was consigned first to the wing and now to the bench.

The Greek, Kyriagos, continues to feature, despite a string of lamentable performances. A series of mediocre players which Liverpool’s budget, and Benitez’ transfer decisions, brought to the club have had their inadequacies continually exposed, simply because the manager has been forced to select them.

The fans have been remarkably patient with their manager, but he should be under pressure. The derby is on Sunday, and another defeat cannot be explained away with reference to the club's American owners.

If they act like thugs, and join an organisation devoted to thuggery, safe to say, they're thugs.

‘When Tory politician William Hague referred to loyalists as ‘thugs’, my heart sank’, claims Roy Garland, in his weekly diatribe against ‘English’ Conservatives. ‘No group of people’ should, he contends, be dismissed in such a way. Not even, apparently, groups whose activities conform to the very definition of thuggery.

First, I don’t believe that Garland’s ‘heart sank’ when the Foreign Secretary attacked loyalist paramilitaries. On the contrary, his communal instincts kicked in, ‘he’s having a go at ussuns as well as themmuns, what an opportunity’ (or words to that effect).

Second, his latest article contains a heart rending tale of a nice young man who joined a paramilitary organisation and then began to change it. Indeed it is positively glowing on the topic of loyalist groups and their stout community work in general.

What a load of twaddle! This is the same narrative, told from a different perspective, which we get from Republicans. Fine young men, compelled by extraordinary circumstances to commit dreadful deeds.

Nobody would claim that paramilitaries are irredeemable. They can gain acceptance by leaving paramilitary groups and joining the lawful society which they have previously terrorised. Attitudes like Garland’s just entrench the influence of shadowy groups within the very communities which he purports to care about.

Loyalist thugs have used guns and intimidation to run areas which, rightly or wrongly, felt under siege. William Hague is absolutely right to pledge to oppose them at every opportunity. Roy Garland, in contrast, demonstrates precisely the moral ambivalence to Protestant terrorists which has undermined unionism over a series of decades.

No group of people deserve to be labelled thugs? How about the morons who murdered Kevin McDaid.

Scots' support for the Union solidifies

When unionist parties vote down Alex Salmond’s proposed independence referendum he hopes to encourage the idea that democracy is being denied. A new poll demonstrates that Scots might not be so receptive to this argument after all. According to You Gov, backing for independence has fallen to 29%, whilst support for the Union is up four points, to 57%.

Anthony King set the question, in line with the SNP’s proposed ‘softly softly’ approach. Rather than seeking honestly the Scottish people’s assent to break up the United Kingdom, the party will propose a mealy mouthed formulation about ‘negotiating a settlement with Westminster‘. King observes that in rejecting this proposition,

“most Scots regard the idea of a referendum on Scottish independence as an irrelevant bore and that, if any such referendum were held in the near future, it would be overwhelmingly defeated".

Indeed only one in eight Scots named a referendum as one of the top two priorities on which Holyrood should concentrate.

Salmond is well aware that his Referendum Bill will not gain the assent of the Scottish Parliament. His strategy is to use its defeat as a springboard for the general election, during which he will portray the SNP as the party prepared to give the electorate its say on Scotland’s constitutional future.

This survey indicates that there may be less leverage in these tactics than Salmond hopes. It also demonstrates that a referendum would kill stone dead, for a generation, the notion of Scottish independence.

Perhaps the brave response from unionists would be to grant Mr Salmond his separatist poll, on the understanding that it poses an honest question to the electorate and that the answers are restricted, simply, to ’Yes’ or ’No’.

Conservatives should be able to avoid asking for Clegg's help

In the wake of the Observer’s Ipsos-Mori poll, which suggested that the general election could result in a hung parliament, Nick Clegg has indicated that, in that eventuality, his party might be prepared to enter into an arrangement with the Conservatives. On ‘The Andrew Marr Show’ the Liberal Democrat leader set out a position which it is difficult not to interpret as encouragement to the Tories.

"Whichever party has the strongest mandate from the British people, it seems to me obvious in a democracy they have the first right to seek to try and govern, either on their own or with others.”

On Conservative Home Jonathan Isaby suggests that Clegg would find it impossible to sell coalition with the Tories to grass roots Liberal Democrat supporters.

However the modern Conservative party, with its emphasis on social justice, is relatively in tune with liberal sensibilities. Although, as Isaby observes, it is unlikely to accede to demands for proportional representation.

Ultimately, the Observer’s poll is not in line with the vast majority of surveys, which still indicate that the Tories are likely to form the next government with a clear majority. There might be fewer Conservative MPs than David Cameron would ideally like, but as long as he plots a centrist course, a hung parliament can be avoided.

Young Unionist Chairman addresses Conservative Future Scotland

Congratulations to Michael Shilliday, whom many of you will know. He had the distinction of addressing the Conservative Future Conference this afternoon. The final draft of his speech is reproduced below.

Mr Chairman it is a tremendous privilege to be addressing this conference, Alasdair and I were delighted to be invited, and are delighted to be here. Your hospitality and generosity have been greatly appreciated, and we have been greatly impressed at the scale and organisation of this conference.

In years gone past, similar gatherings of Young Conservatives in Scotland would I am certain have counted amongst them unionists from Northern Ireland, either as members of the Conservative Party locally, or as guests from my party, here as friends in support of a party and a cause with which they would have had considerable sympathy.

I feel however Mr Chairman, a particular honour in addressing this particular conference at this particular time, because I feel that I am here not only as a friend, but also as a colleague and partner. I am the first Chairman of the Young Unionists in 40 years who has been able to say that, and I do so with a great sense of pride.

The historic agreement reached between our two great parties earlier this year, is hugely important for the future of Northern Ireland. By putting to the electorate a potential government for the first time in a generation, by giving them the opportunity to have their voice heard in national government for the first time since 1974, and by putting Northern Ireland back at the heart of United Kingdom politics, the Ulster Unionist Party and the Conservative Party have taken Northern Ireland society a step further away from conflict and a step closer to being at peace with itself.

However Mr Chairman it should not be said that our renewed partnership is in any way surprising.

Firstly Ulster Unionism and British Conservativism are traditionally and closely aligned movements. We are not engaging in a new departure but re-establishing an old friendship which stemmed from the foundations of Irish Unionism in the 19th century. The reasons for that friendship drifting apart are numerous and contributory to the failure of the Conservative Party to become electable in Northern Ireland over the years since. But the recognition of those facts and the magnanimous manner with which the Conservative Party has dealt with those legacy issues has played a massive role in setting them to one side and allowing us to progress. David Cameron has publically reiterated the regret of Mrs Thatcher for the Anglo Irish Agreement, and emphatically contradicted Peter Brooke’s statement that the UK Government had no selfish strategic or economic interest in Northern Ireland. That was necessary, that took courage, and that speaks volumes about the commitment of the leadership of the Conservative Party to our shared initiative.

Secondly Mr Chairman, for the Ulster Unionist Party, re-establishing a link is another step on the road to a shared Northern Ireland, at peace with itself. That road began in earnest in the mid 1990’s and the UUP has achieved much in that time and since which we are rightly proud of. The IRA has surrendered its weaponry and core ideology to a partitionist settlement within the Union under the Crown. The principle of consent secures the future of Northern Ireland as an integral region of the United Kingdom to it’s people, and the ever increasing proportion of Catholic support for the Union leaves me with a certainty that I will not see a united Ireland in my lifetime. At it’s core, the dual legacy of the Belfast Agreement is peace, and an enduring Union between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Having made those achievements, it is entirely predictable that the Ulster Unionist Party would seek to reengage Northern Ireland with national politics – that is the logical progression of the Belfast Agreement. The Ulster Unionist Party having achieved it’s mission of securing Northern Ireland within the Union, has taken the logical step to seek new goals and pursue new avenues for politics in Northern Ireland, with an old friend and partner.

Of course Mr Chairman it will not be lost on anyone here that the battle to keep our Kingdom united is no longer dominated by Irish separatism. Today it is arguable that it is you and not I who face the greatest challenge to British unity. Whilst it is crucial to remember that the rise in electoral support for the SNP does not correspond to a rise in support for Scottish independence, the realities of Scottish politics as it exists makes it incumbent on all unionist parties in Scotland to make the case for the union clearly and unequivocally in the years ahead.

That challenge will be heightened for the Scottish Conservative Party in the event of there being a Conservative and Ulster Unionist Government next year. The ourselves alone alliance of the SNP and DUP have made clear that they intend to try to pin the blame for any and every pressure and failure on the finances of their administrations on an English Tory Government. It is up to us in the Scottish Conservatives and Ulster Unionists to make sure that they don’t get away with that lie. It is up to us before and after the election to be honest about the public finances, and to be up front with the public in the face of unashamed hypocrisy and dishonesty. It is up to us to make sure that the Scottish and Northern Irish electorates know that a Conservative Government is not an English Government, it is a British Government, fighting for Scotland and fighting for Northern Ireland.

And it has to be said that the National Conservative Party has done much better in the past three years than the previous three in recognising the realities of the United Kingdom beyond England. The “little Englander” mentality that was the prevailing image of the Conservative Party has largely been replaced. The phoney argument about “subsidies” for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has all but disappeared from the lexicon of English representatives. Sir Edward Carson, very much the father of Ulster Unionism, argued passionately for extra resources for schools in rural Mayo and elsewhere in pre-partition Ireland. The principle was equal services for equal taxation of equal citizens. That principle still holds today, and no longer is the Conservative Party backing away from that commitment to our nation. No longer is the Conservative Party suggesting that Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish MP’s should be a lower class of MP. It is quite clear that David Cameron knows that he could be the last Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, and that he is doing what is necessary to avoid such a situation, out of conviction. It is clear that the Conservative Party is determined to maintain the entire Union.
Of course one of the key benefits to both parties of our partnership, is the opportunity to engage with each other and learn from each other’s experiences. Perhaps there is a heightened opportunity for Unionists and Conservatives in the devolved regions to co-operate. Where your party has a history of scepticism towards devolution, mine once had a thriving debate between devolutionists and integrationists. The Ulster Unionist Party has long put that debate behind us, and as a friend, I urge Scottish Conservatives to fully embrace devolution.
I strongly believe that devolution is not something to be feared by Unionists, but something to be embraced . Devolution, approached positively, can secure the union, rather than threaten it or undermine it. Devolution is fundamentally a form of bringing about decentralisation of power and greater local control, principles that should be welcomed and advanced by Conservatives.
In Northern Ireland through our two Ministers, Sir Reg Empey (Employment and Learning) and Michael McGimpsey (Health), we are making tangible, positive and innovative improvements to public services on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland that is responsive to the needs of our region. Michael McGimpsey has recently completed the most fundamental overhaul of the Northern Ireland Health Service since my party founded it in the 1950s. Opinion polls rank our Ministers as among the most popular, respected and appreciated ministers of the current Northern Ireland Executive.

The challenge then for what you might call the "Celtic Conservatives" is to both nurture our hunger for Executive authority in the devolved political arenas, and upon obtaining such authority, readily demonstrate the effective difference that can be made when conservative solutions are applied to social, economic and political problems.
Boris Johnston in London, has shown what can be done, when Unionists and Conservatives set our sights on resting control of a devolved body from the grasps of charismatic socialism. It is vital we do not surrender any of the devolved executives to the bankrupt intellectual houses of socialism and small-minded nationalism.

For Unionists and Conservatives, the coming days weeks and months are about change, change we all desperately need from a Labour Government that has long outlived it’s welcome. The United Kingdom desperately needs a modern and forward-looking Conservative Government at Westminster.

But we also need modern and forward-looking Conservatives in the Cardiff, Holyrood and Stormont Executives. The entire United Kingdom needs change at all levels and in all institutions. To create that change, the United Kingdom needs the Conservative Party at all levels to embrace devolution, win authority in all devolved regions, and to govern. Conservatives and Ulster Unionists hold the key to preserving the Union in the long term. It’s now up to us to go forward, persuade the electorate, and do it.

Alliance prefer Hermon to Parsley?

Jeff Peel doesn't reveal any sources, but on his (Public) Diary blog he suggests that the Alliance Party is set to 'support' Sylvia Hermon 'rather than' Ian Parsley in the North Down race for Westminster.

How this support would manifest itself is not made clear. Conservatives and Unionists have not selected a candidate for North Down, but the former Alliance man, Parsley, has been nominated and it is thought that the Conservative party is unlikely to countenance an endorsement of the current Ulster Unionist MP.

Is Alliance set to intervene in another party's selection process or is it prepared not to stand in North Down, should Sylvia Hermon decide to contest the seat as an independent? Perhaps, within the party, there is simply a preference for a figure considered to be left liberal, rather than a recent defector?

After all, whether or not, as Jeff contends, Alliance voters are intrinsically sympathetic to the Conservatives, its leadership are a rather different case.

An intriguing, but rather confusing, piece of gossip.

Blogtalk NI (Episode 5)

Blogtalk (episode 5) from Northern Visions/NvTv on Vimeo.

Brian Crowe from Burke's Corner, Alan Meban from Alan in Belfast ans Slugger's oppression correspondent, Chris Donnelly, discuss several topics.

Armstrong aims to remind electorate that Conservatives and Unionists offer best option in North Antrim

The media has already established its angle on the North Antrim general election contest. It’s all about Jim Allister and whichever Paisley is nominated to rebuff his challenge. To a degree the preoccupation with the DUP / TUV contest is understandable. After all, in 2005 Senior romped home with more than 25,000 votes and Ulster Unionist candidate, Rodney McCune, was beaten to second spot by Sinn Féin.

However, four years have elapsed and Northern Ireland’s electoral landscape looks rather different. Conservatives and Unionists will hope to improve their vote share considerably in the constituency. The TUV’s irrelevance to Westminster politics is manifestly obvious, and the Paisleys‘ reputation has been tarnished, even within their traditional heartlands. If voters in North Antrim need any reminder of the venality which caused the family’s downfall, they need only glance at a whopping £500,000 advice centre in Ballymena.

Of course, if UCUNF is to benefit from a fragmented DUP vote and its own particular relevance to a Westminster contest, it is important that the right candidate is selected. The UUP in the area has chosen two hopefuls to appear before the party’s selection committee. Ballymena councillor, Neill Armstrong, and Robin Swann (a defeated candidate at the last Assembly election).

In 2005 Neill had the distinction of increasing his vote in the Ballymena North ward, very much against the predominant trend for Ulster Unionist representatives. In contrast to his opponent, he has a record of election success with an established reputation, particularly in the Ballymena and Cloughmills areas. And, in a climate where the perceived impermeability of the political class can represent a severe handicap, Armstrong is an integral part of a successful family business.

It is my belief that, in order to achieve the results which are needed, UCUNF’s general election candidates should have an innate understanding of the pact’s principles. They should, in other words, be wholeheartedly committed to the Conservative and Unionist project. I know that, from its inception, Neill has been a strong proponent of the New Force and enjoys cordial relations with the local Conservative party.

In the speech which he delivered to the North Antrim selection meeting Neill described, in lucid terms, the particular relevance of the Conservatives and Unionists to North Antrim.

Our society suffers from all the ills of family breakdown, drug misuse and disengagement amongst young people, which Cameron is preoccupied with. Our society is broken just as society on the mainland is broken, and it is that broken society which we can address by becoming part of a Conservative and Ulster Unionist government.

Conservatives and Unionists believe that tackling these problems, realising progressive ends, is best achieved through socially conservative means.

As a husband, and a father with a young family, a government which wishes to make marriage the cornerstone of society is music to my ears. It is a message which will have resonance on the doorsteps, from Ballymoney to Bushmills, from Ahoghill to Aughnacloy.

As a business man, involved in a flourishing family firm, I’m excited by the prospect of a government which will cut red tape, and allow our company to generate employment unfettered. Owners of other small businesses in North Antrim will certainly feel the same.

As a local councillor, I appreciate that excessive government centralisation has taken its toll on communities and on democracy.

The Conservatives and Unionists believe local people should be empowered, and decisions should be made at a local level, in order that solutions can be tailored to a particular area.

It is simple common sense. And the people of North Antrim are renowned for their common sense.

In conclusion, as someone who is proud to be a Briton and a unionist, I am convinced that the Conservatives and Unionists will form a government which is good for Northern Ireland and good for the integrity of the United Kingdom.

The historian, FSL Lyons, coined the phrase ‘we are all Northern Ireland now’. With devolved governments operating throughout the UK, and unionists in Wales and Scotland facing their own separatist threats, it has never been more pertinent.

Our nation’s integrity faces challenges Kingdom wide and it is a Kingdom wide political movement which is best placed to defend the Union.

Unionism, in the sense by which I understand it, involves protecting the constitution of the United Kingdom. Britishness involves playing a full role within that Kingdom and participating in its politics.

Unionists in North Antrim have an ideal opportunity to do just that and I am eager to play my part in offering them that opportunity.

I’m certain that whoever is selected to contest North Antrim for UCUNF will deliver a stark reminder that the constituency is not all about Allister and Paisley. I think Neill would do a particularly good job.