Welcome
03 February 2010
Never the twain shall meet?
O'Neill over at a Pint of Unionist Lite has a poll asking whether there should be a pact between the DUP and UUP. The UUP Executive may have given an answer last night but go and have your say!
26 January 2010
Stoop rattles cage
Hypocrisy knows no bounds for the SDLP’s Alasdair McDonnell. Writing in a letter to the Prime Minister he howls that attempts to unseat him are both sectarian and destabilising to the peace process.
It’s a pity then, that in spite of his long career in politics, his memory runs short. In 1981 at the height of the hunger strikes the SDLP withdrew in Fermanagh and South Tyrone, leaving a clear run for Bobby Sands. Standing on a platform that he and his friends such as Bik McFarlane, who bombed the Bayardo Bar and opened fire on those escaping the wreckage, weren’t criminals the SDLP failed to mount a challenge against this attempt to legitimise the sectarian killers of the IRA. The SDLP once again stood down to give Owen Carron a clear run in spite of a spate of sectarian killings conducted by Bobby's pals.
Ironically McDonnell claims to seek an alliance with the party he has branded bigots to work against the SF/DUP axis in the Assembly. It’s a shame McDonnell wasn’t interested in reaching across the divide when Sinn Fein and the IRA were defaulting on decommissioning. If the SDLP had the courage to insist Sinn Fein live up to its commitments under the Belfast Agreement rather than backing their tribal partners we may now have effective cross-community government up at Stormont.
McDonnell would have been better employed earning the support of his constituents to remain at Westminster. The double, and until recently treble, jobbing MP’s abysmal attendance record would have seen him dismissed from any employment in the private sector. Not that you would realise this looking at his expenses, running up bills of £23,000 for housing and nearly £10,000 in travel costs. While obviously work shy he certainly seems to enjoy the amenities London has to offer.
One wonders what the dire consequences Alasdair warns of if he is deprived of the high life at the expense of the public purse. Is he seriously proposing that the ranks of dissident republicans shall be swelled by disillusioned stoops, disgusted the SDLP’s abstentionist MP has been ousted? Perhaps ‘big Al’ thinks we should dispense with elections altogether!
The Conservatives and Unionists should push on to give South Belfast some real representation. If the DUP stand aside so an end can be put to Al's party then they will have done the taxpayer, and south Belfast, a small service.
It’s a pity then, that in spite of his long career in politics, his memory runs short. In 1981 at the height of the hunger strikes the SDLP withdrew in Fermanagh and South Tyrone, leaving a clear run for Bobby Sands. Standing on a platform that he and his friends such as Bik McFarlane, who bombed the Bayardo Bar and opened fire on those escaping the wreckage, weren’t criminals the SDLP failed to mount a challenge against this attempt to legitimise the sectarian killers of the IRA. The SDLP once again stood down to give Owen Carron a clear run in spite of a spate of sectarian killings conducted by Bobby's pals.
Ironically McDonnell claims to seek an alliance with the party he has branded bigots to work against the SF/DUP axis in the Assembly. It’s a shame McDonnell wasn’t interested in reaching across the divide when Sinn Fein and the IRA were defaulting on decommissioning. If the SDLP had the courage to insist Sinn Fein live up to its commitments under the Belfast Agreement rather than backing their tribal partners we may now have effective cross-community government up at Stormont.
McDonnell would have been better employed earning the support of his constituents to remain at Westminster. The double, and until recently treble, jobbing MP’s abysmal attendance record would have seen him dismissed from any employment in the private sector. Not that you would realise this looking at his expenses, running up bills of £23,000 for housing and nearly £10,000 in travel costs. While obviously work shy he certainly seems to enjoy the amenities London has to offer.
One wonders what the dire consequences Alasdair warns of if he is deprived of the high life at the expense of the public purse. Is he seriously proposing that the ranks of dissident republicans shall be swelled by disillusioned stoops, disgusted the SDLP’s abstentionist MP has been ousted? Perhaps ‘big Al’ thinks we should dispense with elections altogether!
The Conservatives and Unionists should push on to give South Belfast some real representation. If the DUP stand aside so an end can be put to Al's party then they will have done the taxpayer, and south Belfast, a small service.
17 January 2010
A guest blog piece by Alexander Redpath, Chairman of Lagan Valley Young Unionists and Speaker of Queen's Students' Representative Council.
Dear Sir,
The Human Rights consortium is doing its best to drum up support for the Bill of Rights. However I must urge the people of Northern Ireland to take part in the consultation on the Bill of Rights and express the opinion that the Human Rights Commission’s report would be disastrous for the future of Northern Ireland and that the Secretary of State’s limited proposals are sufficient.
I conform completely to the views laid down by Daphne Trimble in her dissenting report to the bill of rights. My fundamental objections to the commission’s report are that it goes far beyond its remit, is fundamentally undemocratic and represents a wasted opportunity for Northern Ireland.
The Human Rights Commission’s remit was to,
“Advise on the scope for defining…. rights supplementary to those in the European Convention on Human Rights to reflect the principles of mutual respect for the identity and ethos of both communities and parity of esteem.”
In this sense the commission’s report is a failure. The report goes far beyond the European Convention and at many points’ attempts to redefine and change it. It also goes far beyond matters reflecting the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland.
The bill is fundamentally undemocratic. The Bill subverts the power of the Assembly under the Good Friday agreement to reform the election system. Most worryingly of all the bill goes into detail on socio-economic “rights”. These include rights on health, standard of living, accommodation, work, the environment and social security. Their inclusion in the Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland is to give the judiciary a role in government which is properly a role for elected representatives, namely, over the allocation of resources. I do not want Judges to set the level of the minimum wage; or to allocate social housing or to set the level of social security. If the report is implemented all this and more could happen.
My final objection to the report is that the commission, in an orgy of self-indulgence, have squandered their chance to create a bill of rights for Northern Ireland. This report is madness and would make business and government much more difficult. That is why the Secretary of State’s consultation ignores the vast majority of the report and focuses on only two of the commission’s suggestions.
The failure of the Commission to draft a workable report represents ten years and millions of pounds of waste. Monica McWilliams is an intelligent lady who unfortunately acted without common sense, as no government in Western Europe would have accepted her proposals.
It is my view that the eight commissioners responsible for this report should resign their posts. I would also like to commend the bravery and conviction of the dissenting Commissioners Daphne Trimble and Jonathan Bell who at great risk to their own positions had the wisdom to dissent against the lunacy of this report.
Dear Sir,
The Human Rights consortium is doing its best to drum up support for the Bill of Rights. However I must urge the people of Northern Ireland to take part in the consultation on the Bill of Rights and express the opinion that the Human Rights Commission’s report would be disastrous for the future of Northern Ireland and that the Secretary of State’s limited proposals are sufficient.
I conform completely to the views laid down by Daphne Trimble in her dissenting report to the bill of rights. My fundamental objections to the commission’s report are that it goes far beyond its remit, is fundamentally undemocratic and represents a wasted opportunity for Northern Ireland.
The Human Rights Commission’s remit was to,
“Advise on the scope for defining…. rights supplementary to those in the European Convention on Human Rights to reflect the principles of mutual respect for the identity and ethos of both communities and parity of esteem.”
In this sense the commission’s report is a failure. The report goes far beyond the European Convention and at many points’ attempts to redefine and change it. It also goes far beyond matters reflecting the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland.
The bill is fundamentally undemocratic. The Bill subverts the power of the Assembly under the Good Friday agreement to reform the election system. Most worryingly of all the bill goes into detail on socio-economic “rights”. These include rights on health, standard of living, accommodation, work, the environment and social security. Their inclusion in the Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland is to give the judiciary a role in government which is properly a role for elected representatives, namely, over the allocation of resources. I do not want Judges to set the level of the minimum wage; or to allocate social housing or to set the level of social security. If the report is implemented all this and more could happen.
My final objection to the report is that the commission, in an orgy of self-indulgence, have squandered their chance to create a bill of rights for Northern Ireland. This report is madness and would make business and government much more difficult. That is why the Secretary of State’s consultation ignores the vast majority of the report and focuses on only two of the commission’s suggestions.
The failure of the Commission to draft a workable report represents ten years and millions of pounds of waste. Monica McWilliams is an intelligent lady who unfortunately acted without common sense, as no government in Western Europe would have accepted her proposals.
It is my view that the eight commissioners responsible for this report should resign their posts. I would also like to commend the bravery and conviction of the dissenting Commissioners Daphne Trimble and Jonathan Bell who at great risk to their own positions had the wisdom to dissent against the lunacy of this report.
11 January 2010
Strung up on her own petard, the world has come crashing down round Ulster’s scourge of the gays, Iris Robinson. With every passing day fresh revelations paint an increasingly sordid image of her sexual liaisons. Abusing the trust placed in her by Kirk McCambley’s father, she embarked on an affair with his son, forty year her junior.
These days an affair alone is not enough to finish a career, even in our supposedly frigid puritanical climate of Northern Ireland. However Mrs Robinson has raised herself up on the pedestal as the guardian of morality, judging gays to be the vilest of the vile. Yet now she stands before us a serial adulteress, stripped of the excuse that it was a brief moment of emotional weakness, whose string of affairs included Kirk’s father, Billy McCambley. Iris must be down on her knees, thankful other legislators in the land do not see it as their duty to uphold God’s law.
Snatching Kirk from the funeral she wooed him with promises that his future would be bright if only he stayed under her wing. Securing two loans of £25,000 each to aid the young entrepreneur things turned nasty when she demanded a cut of £5000, motivated by what can only be presumed as greed from a woman enjoying three lucrative salaries from the public purse. Mrs Robinson’s shoddy treatment of Kirk continued after she terminated the affair, demanding the immediate repayment of the £45,000, money he could ill afford. Iris’s behaviour in this respect raises more questions about whether she was fit to hold public office than her failure to declare these loans.
So where does this leave Peter? He appeared before us, a broken man to bare his heart. The media storm around him has been furious, yet on the face of it he appears to have acted in as proper a manner he could, considering the circumstances. While not declaring knowledge of the loans, he insisted they were immediately repaid and put an end to Iris’s ambitions to appear the philanthropist with another’s money. Would we have respected him more if he had no sense of loyalty to his wife, or do we expect him to have volunteered for the public humiliation the details of Iris’s affairs have caused?
His conduct in this regard however has no bearing on the political calculations for the DUP. With Allister’s tanks ripping up the lawn in North Antrim and UCUNF snapping at their heels can the party afford to keep Robinson as leader? A successor would need to be elected to the post of First Minister, requiring support from Sinn Fein, which will hardly be forthcoming lest a date for devolving policing and justice is agreed. This would leave the party vulnerable to the TUV in the run up to the general election. In the absence of an agreement to replace the First Minister a fresh poll for the Assembly would conducted, held under the less favourable auspices of STV enabling the TUV to carve deep into the DUP’s Assembly caucus.
So Robinson will survive, for now. He makes a useful scapegoat for the Westminster results and may serve some purpose in negotiating the tricky obstacle of policing and justice. Once Peter leads the DUP over this Rubicon his successor shall wash his hands, as if Pontus Pilate, of the whole sorry story.
These days an affair alone is not enough to finish a career, even in our supposedly frigid puritanical climate of Northern Ireland. However Mrs Robinson has raised herself up on the pedestal as the guardian of morality, judging gays to be the vilest of the vile. Yet now she stands before us a serial adulteress, stripped of the excuse that it was a brief moment of emotional weakness, whose string of affairs included Kirk’s father, Billy McCambley. Iris must be down on her knees, thankful other legislators in the land do not see it as their duty to uphold God’s law.
Snatching Kirk from the funeral she wooed him with promises that his future would be bright if only he stayed under her wing. Securing two loans of £25,000 each to aid the young entrepreneur things turned nasty when she demanded a cut of £5000, motivated by what can only be presumed as greed from a woman enjoying three lucrative salaries from the public purse. Mrs Robinson’s shoddy treatment of Kirk continued after she terminated the affair, demanding the immediate repayment of the £45,000, money he could ill afford. Iris’s behaviour in this respect raises more questions about whether she was fit to hold public office than her failure to declare these loans.
So where does this leave Peter? He appeared before us, a broken man to bare his heart. The media storm around him has been furious, yet on the face of it he appears to have acted in as proper a manner he could, considering the circumstances. While not declaring knowledge of the loans, he insisted they were immediately repaid and put an end to Iris’s ambitions to appear the philanthropist with another’s money. Would we have respected him more if he had no sense of loyalty to his wife, or do we expect him to have volunteered for the public humiliation the details of Iris’s affairs have caused?
His conduct in this regard however has no bearing on the political calculations for the DUP. With Allister’s tanks ripping up the lawn in North Antrim and UCUNF snapping at their heels can the party afford to keep Robinson as leader? A successor would need to be elected to the post of First Minister, requiring support from Sinn Fein, which will hardly be forthcoming lest a date for devolving policing and justice is agreed. This would leave the party vulnerable to the TUV in the run up to the general election. In the absence of an agreement to replace the First Minister a fresh poll for the Assembly would conducted, held under the less favourable auspices of STV enabling the TUV to carve deep into the DUP’s Assembly caucus.
So Robinson will survive, for now. He makes a useful scapegoat for the Westminster results and may serve some purpose in negotiating the tricky obstacle of policing and justice. Once Peter leads the DUP over this Rubicon his successor shall wash his hands, as if Pontus Pilate, of the whole sorry story.
12 November 2009
Up the UCUNF!
"Treachery" declares Roy Garland, "never took up a cause they didn't betray" mutters Chris McGimpsey, brooding darkly in the corner. Utterances one would expect to hear at the TUV conference, yet the four zimmermen of the apocalypse harking back to Tory perfidy come from the supposedly progressive wing of the UUP.
One wonders whether a senior moment has inspired Garland's lurch to the right, seeing himself once again a youthful commander of Tara, seething at Stormont's prorogation to appease the Romanist foe. Otherwise it is difficult to appreciate what aspect of the Tory record he would consider treacherous. Roy is utterly committed to power-sharing, protested in favour of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and was the sole unionist to make a submission at the New Ireland Forum.
Garland is convinced the UCUNF project will damage the UUP in working class areas. Yet the working class vote is what cemented previous Conservative victories. A snide insinuation is made in the Irish News implying that when William Hague described Loyalist paramilitaries as thugs he was really referring to the unionist working class. Ironically Peter McCann, the Conservative nominee for south Belfast, has vigorously defended Garland and others from puerile attempts on behalf of the Alliance Party to portray them as bigots.
The crux of the matter revolves around whether the UUP should remain a broad church incorporating both left and right. This has been the situation for 80 years, failing both unionism and the UUP. Those on the left cannot find this a satisfactory arrangement; their views have been stifled in a party which advances centre-right policies.
Chris McGimpsey has spoken of setting up an alternative party to stand in opposition to UCUNF. His efforts would be better directed towards Labour, which is set to field candidates for the 2011 council elections. Unionists would be offered with a genuine left wing choice while being able to push a pro-union case where it is sorely needed.
We live in one of the most exciting polity's in the world; by needlessly cutting ourselves off from the British mainstream we squander one of the union's strongest selling points. People are interested, and want a say, in the major issues of the day; the war on terrorism; the NHS; immigration. The electorate tires of the stalemate and sectarian bickering at Stormont. Sir Reg Empey has risen to the challenge; can his internal critics do the same?
One wonders whether a senior moment has inspired Garland's lurch to the right, seeing himself once again a youthful commander of Tara, seething at Stormont's prorogation to appease the Romanist foe. Otherwise it is difficult to appreciate what aspect of the Tory record he would consider treacherous. Roy is utterly committed to power-sharing, protested in favour of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and was the sole unionist to make a submission at the New Ireland Forum.
Garland is convinced the UCUNF project will damage the UUP in working class areas. Yet the working class vote is what cemented previous Conservative victories. A snide insinuation is made in the Irish News implying that when William Hague described Loyalist paramilitaries as thugs he was really referring to the unionist working class. Ironically Peter McCann, the Conservative nominee for south Belfast, has vigorously defended Garland and others from puerile attempts on behalf of the Alliance Party to portray them as bigots.
The crux of the matter revolves around whether the UUP should remain a broad church incorporating both left and right. This has been the situation for 80 years, failing both unionism and the UUP. Those on the left cannot find this a satisfactory arrangement; their views have been stifled in a party which advances centre-right policies.
Chris McGimpsey has spoken of setting up an alternative party to stand in opposition to UCUNF. His efforts would be better directed towards Labour, which is set to field candidates for the 2011 council elections. Unionists would be offered with a genuine left wing choice while being able to push a pro-union case where it is sorely needed.
We live in one of the most exciting polity's in the world; by needlessly cutting ourselves off from the British mainstream we squander one of the union's strongest selling points. People are interested, and want a say, in the major issues of the day; the war on terrorism; the NHS; immigration. The electorate tires of the stalemate and sectarian bickering at Stormont. Sir Reg Empey has risen to the challenge; can his internal critics do the same?
19 May 2009
The National Union of Students-Union of Students in Ireland
This is a guest piece from Alexander Redpath, a member of Lagan Valley Young Unionists.
The National Union of Students-Union of Students in Ireland, Northern Ireland’s national student’s union elected two Ulster Unionists to their nation executive committee. NUS-USI has in recent years earned a reputation as an “extremist liberal organisation” and recent arguments over the Israel-Palestine dispute and NUS-USI’s controversial abortion policy have reinforced this. Taking this into consideration it was even more impressive that the two Unionists secured their seats at the executive table.
Alexander Redpath NUS-USI Deputy President-elect said,
“I was surprised when I heard I had been elected. I have never tried to hide my views at NUS-USI and I have upset a lot of people by standing up for broadly conservative values. However I relish the challenge ahead of me and I hope that my election will encourage other Unionists to get involved in their national union. I have been involved with NUS-USI since joining Queen’s I have always believed that the National Union should be for everyone. I have fought hard to change the political ethos of the organisation. Trying to move it away from the extremist views that have marginalised its influence in the student community. NUS-USI has to make a conscious effort to avoid adopting positions which its members cannot support. The abortion issue is a key example of this.”
Alexander also outlined what he hoped to do over the year,
“I hope to work actively in some key areas in NUS-USI. One priority is to improve the National Union’s public image. For too long the image of the National Union has been tainted. Students are seen by some as unconstructive, obstructionist and unwilling to accept responsibility for their actions. This image was created by ill advised campaigns and protests such as the recent Socialist Society protest against “Police Brutality” in the Holy Lands. This protest involved NUS-USI officers. We need to remake the image of the National Union and the image of students in general by highlighting our hard work, industry and our care for the community around us.
I also look forward to building up the union movement in FE institutions. FE institutions are too often forgotten by the National Union. This is unacceptable. The strength of the union depends on the unity of all students whether FE or HE.”
The new executive committee takes office in July and both Ulster Unionist officers hope to continue the party’s century old tradition of serving their community.
16 July 2008
Labour in Chaos!
Normally this headline would please me as I would see myself as a Conservative in terms of my views on British politics.However at this time this is actually a major threat to the Union.Labour are the only party in the UK to have success in Scotland,Wales and England. The Conservative party in Scotland for example has only the 1 Westminster seat(Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale.)Contrast this to Labour who have 40 of the 59 Westminster seats in Scotland(including the Speaker.)
The problem comes in that the party in Scotland who are gaining most from Labour's unpopularity is the Scottish Nationalist Party.This was most clearly shown in the election to the Scottish Parliament where the SNP gained 20 seats and became the biggest party at Holyrood.On top of this the SNP led administration in Scotland has been widely regarded as a success with the charismatic 1st Minister Alex Salmond becoming very popular.Further evidence of this was shown in the Telegraph on July 11th where a You Gov poll gave the SNP a 4 point lead in the polls for Westminster Elections for the first time.If these results where repeated across Scotland however Labour would still be the biggest party with 31 seats however the SNP would gain 8 seats to 14 overall.
Of course all this brings me to the Glasgow East by-election which normally would prove an easy Labour victory and with the SNP needing a swing 0f over 20% an SNP gain would seem unlikely.However the truth of the matter is the SNP will never have a better chance of gaining the seat.The Scottish Labour party in recent weeks have lost their leader Wendy Alexander over a debate on her expenses.Labour also made a mess of selecting their candidate when Glasgow councilor George Ryan withdrew from the race and eventually MSP Margaret Curran was selected.Also on top of this Gordon Brown's position as Labour Leader has come under fire due to poor by-election results in Henley where the Green party and BNP beat Labour into 5th place as well as in Crewe and Nantwich where Labour lost its 7,000 majority and saw a 16% swing to the Tories who won with a 7,000 majority.Anyway a party divided is never very popular with voters.Also lets not forget the recent downturn in the economy and the growing price of living.
The problem comes in that the party in Scotland who are gaining most from Labour's unpopularity is the Scottish Nationalist Party.This was most clearly shown in the election to the Scottish Parliament where the SNP gained 20 seats and became the biggest party at Holyrood.On top of this the SNP led administration in Scotland has been widely regarded as a success with the charismatic 1st Minister Alex Salmond becoming very popular.Further evidence of this was shown in the Telegraph on July 11th where a You Gov poll gave the SNP a 4 point lead in the polls for Westminster Elections for the first time.If these results where repeated across Scotland however Labour would still be the biggest party with 31 seats however the SNP would gain 8 seats to 14 overall.
Of course all this brings me to the Glasgow East by-election which normally would prove an easy Labour victory and with the SNP needing a swing 0f over 20% an SNP gain would seem unlikely.However the truth of the matter is the SNP will never have a better chance of gaining the seat.The Scottish Labour party in recent weeks have lost their leader Wendy Alexander over a debate on her expenses.Labour also made a mess of selecting their candidate when Glasgow councilor George Ryan withdrew from the race and eventually MSP Margaret Curran was selected.Also on top of this Gordon Brown's position as Labour Leader has come under fire due to poor by-election results in Henley where the Green party and BNP beat Labour into 5th place as well as in Crewe and Nantwich where Labour lost its 7,000 majority and saw a 16% swing to the Tories who won with a 7,000 majority.Anyway a party divided is never very popular with voters.Also lets not forget the recent downturn in the economy and the growing price of living.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
