"This model - the concept of a coalition of unionist parties - may be a more productive route for us to follow in that it allows the parties to retain their separate, distinct and historical identities while working together for the good of unionism and the Union."Rather than a "separate" and "distinctive" mere "historical" identity, a "separate" and "distinctive" set of policies or even...gasp..."vision" would have been more reassuring.
If the UUP only differs from the DUP now on "historical" identity, as opposed to those more substantive issues, what then is the point in remaining a separate party?
2 comments:
None. The liberal wing of the UUP should join the Conservatives or Labour and fight to bring mainland politics to the province, and the Orange wing of the UUP should join the DUP.
I believe Kennedy is only thinking in terms of the aggregate number of unionist votes.
Taking that to its logical conclusion, he is saying that the only thing which matters to those extra voters that they would not otherwise attract is the "separate, distinct and historical identities"
To be frank, since St. Andrews, there has been little to chose, policy-wise, between the DUP and the UUP. The previous commenter has a point.
Post a Comment