Answering Arlene

I think it’s fair to say that the news of the ongoing UUP/Conservatives talks and possible merger caught the DUP completely by surprise. As a result, their Press Office and some of their more hysterical and intellectually-challenged representatives (yes, I’m talking about you, Edwin) went into their accustomed and automatic knee-jerk attack mode. The dust has now settled and in certain quarters, we’re now beginning to see a more rational analysis of the developments. Arlene Foster is unusual amongst the DUP politirati in that she does “do” “reflection” and “rational argument” and that being the case at least part of her article in Monday night’s Telegraph is worth the read.

So, why the DUP won’t merge with the Tories...well, the snap answer is that they wouldn’t have you; whilst Mrs Robinson’s homophobia and Edwin’s belief that God created the flat-earth may play well amongst a certain outback-dwelling section of the DUP’s electorate, it doesn’t sit easy with the new, socially all-encompassing Cameron Conservatives. Flagging their front bench with 9 fingers after they lost the 42-day vote by 9 (DUP) votes probably didn’t help either.

But anyway, Arlene, after declaring that “that devolution is delivering” (think she must have been on holiday for the last 3 months), sets out her reasons why the DUP wouldn’t have joined up with the Tories, even if they had asked:

1. When it comes to the conduct of our party representatives in Westminster we believe that it is best not to be tied in with any single political party and that unionism is best served through establishing good contacts in all parties.

First of all, “unionism” is not confined to Ulster; building up a strong unionist base in each mainland party is as, or even more, important than trying to influence from the outside. Secondly, to have any influence at all you must treat both Westminster and your fellow MPs with respect- attending the place a bit more often would be a good start and that will be made easier if the present batch of Northern Irish MPs realise that they can do not do the networking required if they are double and some cases, even triple-jobbing. Turning up like hicks from the sticks only when there’s a chance to blackmail the government is not good enough if you really are serious about building up those good cross-bench contacts.

2. We believe unionism can be all-encompassing — it is possible to be a right-wing unionist, a centrist unionist or a left-wing unionist.

But is it also possible to be, for example, a homosexual Irish Catholic Unionist? Would it possible for such a person to progress within the DUP (or for that matter the UUP)? If not, then your version of unionism is not "all-encompassing". That previously mentioned person may not fit the traditional picture of what a Unionist should be, but they still have a vote and a brain that could be used for the benefit of our cause. Could such a person be accommodated and feel comfortable within whatever entity emerges from the UUP/Tory talks? We really don’t know at the moment, but we’ve got nothing to lose and quite a lot to gain by at least trying to create a NI version of Unionism that is closer to the secular, non-discriminatory mainland version.

3. The DUP believes that Northern Ireland is best served by its MPs having the scope and capacity to adopt a free stance on issues as they arise. What, for example, would the Ulster Tories, i.e. the UUP once it abolishes itself, do if Prime Minister Cameron wants to rip up the Barnett Formula (as he has hinted publicly he wants to) because it discriminates against England in favour of Scotland and Ulster?

Again, whilst the cry of "Ulster uber alles" may play well on the Ballymena doorstep, it is a dishonest and potentially dangerous policy to adopt in the present political climate. The Union is not between N.Ireland and Great Britain, but between England, N.Ireland, Scotland and Wales- if any of those four parties decides to call it a day, then the United Kingdom and the Union is finished. So, a bit more awareness and sensitivity towards our fellow Brits wouldn’t go amiss here; at times we do have to look at the bigger picture, even if it may have short-term ramifications for our own part of the nation. Regarding the specific example of Barnett, even its architect has admitted that it is now out of date and no longer appropriate for our present situation. Nothing has been decided definitely on its future however and rather than standing outside the tent (with the SNP and Plaid Cymru for company) NI Unionism should be taking part fully in the debate in those arenas which really matter.

I suspect at this point in the article the DUP Attack Hounds took over from Arlene because it all gets predictably negative, but anyway, to answer a few of their more coherent points:

1. Here’s what Ken Robinson, UUP MLA for East Antrim, had to say about the Conservatives: “The Tory Party is going nowhere fast and is rapidly becoming an irrelevance in British politics.

Sorry, I did say "more coherent", didn’t I? The UK's next governing party simultaneously rapidly becoming an “irrelevance” is an interesting concept to consider.

2. Senior Northern Ireland Tories haven't been backward either in expressing their opinions on a key constituency that makes up the Unionist family. Jeffrey Peel, the deputy chairman of the Northern Ireland Tories with responsibility for policy, said in an email to a member of Reg Empey's own party: “I'd suggest you go and take refuge in an Orange Hall somewhere and console yourself that you have faith and there won't be any Catholics in your midst. Because that's your choice and as a Conservative I'm all for choice. “

Senior NI Tory singular and he’s entitled to his opinion, we live in a democracy, a plurality of views is permitted. Some political parties even encourage it for the sake of their own development and future.

3.The reality is that this initiative has more to do with Reg Empey desperately attempting to provide some purpose to his failing leadership of the Ulster Unionist Party and his comprehensive inability to turn things around for them than any high-flown desire to bring so-called “real politics” to Ulster. People can see through such gimmickry just as they can see straight through Reg Empey.

If people can see through it then why are your party hacks running round like headless chickens over the topic? In contrast, Nationalists and Republicans have been remarkably apathetic over the talks, what do you know that they don’t? My own opinion is that the DUP strategists have not really sat down and thought this one through, but have reacted in exactly the same way they did with the much more real threat (coming as it does from the fundamentalist right-wing) from the TUV Ultras.

There’s two questions for them to consider:

1.Will it weaken the DUP, will there be defections of party members, will we lose votes?
2.Will it weaken the Union (ie will the total Unionist vote diminish)?

Question 1), the answer is a clear "no". People don’t vote for the DUP because they believe in an all-inclusive version of the Union, there will be no drift away of their liberal or secularist vote, simply because it doesn’t exist. I also doubt that they will lose any MPS or MLAs to any new entity...Unionism as a whole might gain at the expense of Irish nationalism, but as members of the same big, happy Unionist family we'd all welcome that...well, wouldn't we?

Question 2) I’ve asked of DUPers on several occasions on other forums. None have yet answered.