Friday, 22 January 2010

The DUP to stand down in two seats?

Is some sense finally beginning to emerge from the rumours surrounding Owen Paterson's infamous meeting? The Belfast Telegraph has suggested that the DUP is prepared to give up two Westminster seats in an attempt to secure UUP support for policing and justice.

It might seem like a heavy price to exact, but it makes a degree of sense.

The DUP is rocking after the European defeat, by election results and a series of scandals. It expects to take heavy losses in the forthcoming election.

By voluntarily standing down in Fermanagh South Tyrone or South Belfast or both it appears to take its own 'unionist unity' spiel seriously. Indeed it can be portrayed a a selfless act.

Of course it would be anything but. It would simply be an attempt to smooth things over as regards policing and justice and put off any Assembly election.



Glyn Chambers said...

I'm not going to opine on the particulars of this but, on Election Night (Northern Ireland will be counting overnight this time -, it would be great to see the following result flash up in blue on the scroll bar at the bottom of the TV screen:

Fermanagh & South Tyrone - CON GAIN from SF

Anonymous said...

I'd calm down a little before you actually start believing your own hype.

To believe the DUP (as the larger party in both constituencies) would voluntarily allow UCUNF a free run is fanciful even for the crap printed in the Tele.

Agreement doesn't just mean demanding that others come along to your position - something both UCUNF and the Shinners might need to learn.

I'd love to see Gildernew & McDonnell removed - but frankly either the DUP or UCUNF demanding that it happens their way just won't work. Even if either party centrally took the decision they'd have a hell of a job persuading all the electorate that it would be a good idea....

Do you not remember 2001 or perhaps you just weren't actually interested in politics back in those nasty days. The Ulster Unionist Party tried to dictate to the people of F&ST and sufficient people just wouldn't wear it that they were prepared to go and vote for someone like Dixon.

Grow up and just because you've had a few columns in the Tele doesn't mean you have to believe all the tripe that appears in it.

Anonymous said...

think it's the price for UUP support on P+ J and think Paterson is up to his ears in it. So much for non-sectarian politics and a new beginning, but the DUP being the DUP they have to spin it as generosity to the poor realtion

DC said...

Reg Empey says the DUP and UUP will form a superficial compact should new elections be called so that SF cannot get the First Minister's post on a party basis.

If that isn't sectarianism what is?

The message is getting blurred here re this UCUNF thing.

Truth is Empey is too long in the tooth to be a moderniser to pull UCUNF off properly - he goes back to Vanguard. Nuff said.

Secondly Adams and Robinson have been around for too long as well. Same old recycled agendas, styles and neurotic approaches.

Lastly, rather than form bogus party compacts with the DUP at Stormont why not instead take up the political argument that the DUP made an error of judgement in gifting the largest party the First Minister's post, and ripping out the cross-assembly/community vote on the joint First Minister nominees? Isn't that better politics?

Empey simply isn't able to keep this thing together or argue that out with the DUP to win - his views are constructed on his memories of the 70s.

You've blown it.

Anonymous said...

DC - if you think unionism is sectarian join the Alliance Party.

Gary said...

Thoughts during these delicate times?........interesting excerpts from a book entitled, "Ulster Unionism and the Peace Process in Northern Ireland" by Christopher Farrington:

In talking about unity within the broad Unionist bloc,

"Therefore unity does not mean uniformity. Instead it is a strategic question. The analysis which underpins the appeal of this strategy is common to both Unionists and Nationalists and states that Unionists are in a stronger position and better able to achieve strategic goals when they are united" "Conversely a long running theme within Nationalism has been that it will be necessary to split Unionism in order to extract concessions for Irish Nationalists" "In July 1973, during the negotiations for the formation of the Executive and prior to the Sunningdale conference, the then Attorney General of the Republic of Ireland, Declan Costello, went on a fact finding tour of various SDLP constituency associations around Northern Ireland. During one of these meetings, John Hume expressed concerns that, if Faulkner was dropped as leader this could result in Unionists uniting. Faulkner was seen as a divisive figure and thus Nationalists stood to get a better deal and more concessions under a divided Unionism. It should be noted that Faulkner was also one of the most progressive and accommodating Unionists at this time, in the same way that Trimble was to be 25 years later. Nevertheless, the same thinking can be seen behind parts of the AIA, as we saw in Chapter 2; in order to get an accommodation between Unionists and Nationalists, it was necessary to split Unionism. Again in 1996 when UKUP and the DUP walked out of the all party talks, this was seen by key figures as a useful development; as George Mitchell remarks, "Reaching agreement without their presence was extremely difficult; it would have been impossible with them in the room" Taken from pages 183-184.

The reason I am repeating verbatim what Chris Farrington has stated in his book about Unionist "unity" is that I am concerned at present that his "revelations" are being played out as we speak. During these times, reference to Policing and Justice. The DUP are at loggerheads with the UUP. The UUP and Conservative link up is on shaky ground or at least in a state of confusion whether engineered that way or not. Nationalism is threatening to collapse the Assembly therefore putting Unionism under "duress" and the media is definitely not helping (especially since in my opinion a lot of the Northern Irish/Irish media and left wing rags have never been sympathetic to the Unionist case). Also the trolls that pop up now and again using Anons or the more known trolls that shite stir also don't help as they well know. Could it be that Nationalism has seen another chance and splitting Unionism given the current difficultly the DUP finds itself under regards to Robinson, Paisley Jr, and the various other issues circulating. A divided house will indeed fall. What I am not saying is that we should just have one Unionist party (I don't believe that is healthy in a democracy) however Unionism should not allow Nationalism in conjunction with the Government to exploit the current difficulties that Unionism faces to gain ever more concessions, be that Policing and Justice (for which I am not against per se - it must be done to everyone's satisfaction) and/or achieving the position of First Minister which IMO would be a blow to the pro-Union "community's" confidence.

I believe it is up to ALL pro-Union parties and actors involved in the present political state of affairs not to let the Unionist people down. This is an important time. The people will not be forgiving if it goes wrong.

Gary said...

"SDLP demand meeting with Tories over unionist talks"

This is why I think it would be unwise of the SDLP leadership to elect McDonnell as their top man above Ritchie. The man is reactionary and sectarian, he doesn't understand the words irony or hypocrisy.

"The SDLP's deputy leader has written to David Cameron demanding to discuss what he described as the "naked, sectarian play of the orange card"

I hope Cameron tells McDonnell to wind his sectarian neck in.

"In the letter, Dr Alasdair McDonnell said he was deeply concerned by "Tory intervention" during a sensitive period of political negotiations.
He said the talks had created mistrust.
Dr McDonnell accused Mr Cameron of exploiting the crisis at Stormont and said political stability in Northern Ireland would not be achieved by "secret Tory/unionist back room deals in the face of a possible hung parliament after the Westminster elections".
"No one is buying the Tory line that this secret, all-unionist meeting was an attempt to overcome political instabilities," he said.
"If this was the genuine motivation then why haven't the Tories met with the nationalist parties which represent half of the population living here?"

Presumably McDonnell would have no problems the Irish Government sticking their oar in in UK internal affairs whilst ignoring the will of the majority here. The man is a cretin. Presumably he had no issues with the UK government and indeed his very own party having secret back room meetings with the leaders of violent republicanism whilst ignoring the Unionist people whilst the murder campaign of the IRA was in full swing!?

The man is hateful and is nothing more than a hypocrite. Talk about fucking up your priorities!