With more than two unionist candidates in the race in 1999 John Hume came within 2,000 votes of topping the poll. While that would have been a blow to unionism it is nothing compared to the consequences of Sinn Fein being able to tour the world claiming the largest mandate of any party in a Northern Ireland-wide election; but unionists should be under no illusion that this is a very real possibility in this June’s election.
Robbo calls then for a DUP One to reduce this potential scandal; which the majority of the Unionist electorate delivered in the last EU elections. Have the DUP being touring "the world claiming the largest mandate of any party in a Northern Ireland-wide election;" proclaiming this fact?
No, because "the world" had and has slightly more important issues to care about.
Will the "world" care if SF "win" the poll in June?
Outside the usual pro-Irish Republican "intellectual" ghettoes, no.
What's important for the long-term future of Northern Irish Unionism (as opposed to the narrow sectional interests of the DUPes) is a total increased Unionist vote and that will be obtained not by worrying as Robbo does about "the demographics", but giving as wide a range of Unionism as possible to all the electorate.
6 comments:
Everything in moderation, a sensible level of competition and a comparably sensible level of co-operation will deliver an increase in the Unionist turnout.
Choice alone does not deliver. There has been plenty of choice for decades and the overall trajectory is down.
Are there many examples where cooperation in the case of an agreed Unionist canditate has actually increased the overall Unionist vote?
There has been plenty of choice for decades and the overall trajectory is down.
There has been liberal/secular/UK Unionism on offer, but with the exception of McCartney, not with:
a)The full backing of a UK-wide party behind it and
b) A realistic chance of winning at a European/Westminster/Stormont level
"Are there many examples where cooperation in the case of an agreed Unionist canditate has actually increased the overall Unionist vote?"
Frank Millar in West Belfast in 1987 is the best example. He polled 18.7% about 7% better than the prior election when both the UUP and DUP ran. Ken Maginnis's share of the vote over his term rose to 51% from 47.6%.
There is also no guarantee that running two candidates increases the vote. In 2001 Ken Maginnis polled 51%. In 2005 with two unionist candidates vote share fell to 48% and physical vote down 153 votes too. The Unionist split helped energise nationalist parties and voters to take the seat.
Also in elections there are two battles votes and seats, just ask the Lib Dems what it is like to get so many votes and so few seats. The Unionist parties trounched the SNP on votes but they still get to form the government and milk being the largest party for all it is worth.
Also it would not be a universal tactic 16 of 18 constiuencies would have a full choice. (Technically 17 as a 1 for 1 deal would give people the chance to vote for the party you prefer.)
"There has been plenty of choice for decades and the overall trajectory is down."
Do you accept the overalldownward trend despite 'choice'?
"The full backing of a UK-wide party behind it "
The Conservatives have been organised here for some time. If they lacked 'backing' then it undermines the present claims 'sincerity'. As I suggested before check your Carson quotes.
"There has been liberal/secular/UK Unionism on offer, but with the exception of McCartney, not with:
a)The full backing of a UK-wide party behind it and
b) A realistic chance of winning at a European/Westminster/Stormont level"
Hoping an idea (just because you like it) will get more votes because it's a little bit different doesn't mean or guarantee it will.
You also overlook that the arrangements with the Conservatives are limited to Westminster. Co-operation is needed among Unonists to maintain strong representation in the Assembly and on Councils. Something harder to work on if at one level its a two finger salute but at Assembly and Council its can we talk about transfers. Never mind the poisioning of the atmosphere preventing practical co-operation that on voter registration turnout management etc.
Politics is the balancing of the ideological with the practical. Too much of either is unwise.
There is also no guarantee that running two candidates increases the vote.
Obviously works the other way also, in which case why not leave it up to the electorate to make the choice rather than imposing one candidate on them?.
Also in elections there are two battles votes and seats, just ask the Lib Dems what it is like to get so many votes and so few seats.
I’d say there is an extra battle, that of ideas and philosophy and by attempting to stifle that battle by employing agreed candidates you are weakening the more important longer-term future of the Union. That being the case, the increasing number of votes for the Union is more important than “losing” the odd seat (which in the case of F & ST, have been “lost” on a regular basis since the foundation of NI anyway).
The Unionist parties trounched the SNP on votes but they still get to form the government and milk being the largest party for all it is worth.
It’s a price that occasionally has to be paid for having a democratic system, in reality the pr arising from being “the largest party” is less important than the fact that because of the practicing of that democratic system, they remain a minority government very much dependent on the other parties for their more important policies to be carried out.
Also it would not be a universal tactic 16 of 18 constiuencies would have a full choice. (Technically 17 as a 1 for 1 deal would give people the chance to vote for the party you prefer.)
The principle is the important thing, once that is conceded even in one constituency, then we might as well give up the fight and join the DUP and get back to one monolithic Unionist party and "vision".
"There has been plenty of choice for decades and the overall trajectory is down."
Do you accept the overalldownward trend despite 'choice'?
Has there really been plenty of choice?
A choice of voting for a truly UK party which offers a secular, non-communal form of Unionism? That hasn’t been available for decades/ever.
The Conservatives have been organised here for some time. If they lacked 'backing' then it undermines the present claims 'sincerity'. As I suggested before check your Carson quotes.
As the DUP has shown, party’s obviously change tactics over time, for whatever reason- is that necessarily a sign of insincerity? It appears they are serious about backing this project; if they are, I can’t see why that is going to be damaging to the cause of Unionism (or the DUP tbh).
Hoping an idea (just because you like it) will get more votes because it's a little bit different doesn't mean or guarantee it will.
Obviously not, doesn’t mean that I or anyone else shouldn't at least test the water- we live in a democracy.
You also overlook that the arrangements with the Conservatives are limited to Westminster. Co-operation is needed among Unonists to maintain strong representation in the Assembly and on Councils. Something harder to work on if at one level its a two finger salute but at Assembly and Council its can we talk about transfers. Never mind the poisioning of the atmosphere preventing practical co-operation that on voter registration turnout management etc.
My purely personal opinion is that other than the Union, there is very little that I’d agree with the DUP on and I’d be loath (and hypocritical) to ever give certain of their representatives my vote because of that fact. I want to have an option of voting for a party close to my political beliefs and in democracy I should have that right. At an Assembly/council level the DUP work and cooperate with SF and I guess where realpolitik dictates, they’ll be able to do the same with the UUP/Conservatives.
Politics is the balancing of the ideological with the practical.
It should be (whether for the canditates or electorate) being able to live with your conscience, no matter the consequences.
Rather than a point by point rebuttal I will make two general comments, you exaggerate how much a limited pact is a denial of choice, you are seeking an ideological purity that goes beyond the bounds of political common sense possibly a political selfishness e.g. "I’d be loath (and hypocritical).." There is a greater good and occasionally the unpalatable is necessary. The idea of voting for Micheal McGimpsey in south Belfast is not one that would have me popping champagne corks but such a scenario is possible. My conscience could cope with both voting for him and campaigning for him as it serves a cause that is bigger that either of us and our respective parties. I fully admit I was not always of such an opinion but I've tried to learn lessons from my political activity and that is one of them.
"A choice of voting for a truly UK party which offers a secular, non-communal form of Unionism?"
The Conservatives in NI would argue that is exactly what they have offered since their creation here. So the choice was available.
PS On the UUP Tory link I intend one of my last posts on slugger to cover that.
My conscience could cope with both voting for him and campaigning for him as it serves a cause that is bigger that either of us and our respective parties. I fully admit I was not always of such an opinion but I've tried to learn lessons from my political activity and that is one of them.
I don't have a party yet....but apart from that I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that, for me "the end" is devalued when you use "means" to achieve it that involve going against your core beliefs. I guess I'll learn the appropriate amount of pragmatism/cynicism to cope with it through time though;)
It's a pity you're bowing out from Slugger, but I look forward to your piece.
Post a Comment