David Ervine seems (not surprisingly) to support Reg Empey's claims that it's better to involve loyalists in the political process than to have them outside the tent pissing in, having said yesterday that "It will work, if Reg Empey can be left alone to do the job."

The one thing I can say for Reg Empey following the controversial decision to bring a representative of a paramilitary group under his party's umbrella group at the assembly is that it's a brave step. I haven't even seen that much of the news the last week or so but whenever I've seen Reg Empey it's been clear that he's taking a radical approach - the success of which just might make or break his party.

Empey has claimed that the move was, as well as a tactical decision to get the extra executive seat, part of a strategy to bring loyalists in from the cold and work to reduce the feeling of alienation from the political process felt by many in loyalist communities. As noted on Slugger, the Ulster Unionist leader has also been backing this claim recently with the way he has been speaking about his past actions.

Follow up:

Speaking about his role in Vanguard, an umbrella group that saw unionist politicians share a metaphorical platform with loyalist terrorists to bring about the 1974 Ulster Workers' Council Strike Empey said clearly and succinctly "I think my attitude in 1974 was wrong". This hasn't gone completely unnoticed, but I'm not sure many recognise it for what it is - and I don't just mean a politician actually admitting he was wrong! Here we have a clear indication of a Unionist leader realising that actions they deemed to be necessary at the time may, in hindsight, have been a less than perfect way to handle things.

It's difficult for Unionists generally to admit that we (collectively) have made mistakes in the past, largely because we're constantly being told that fact by republicans. That in itself is nearly a reason to disbelieve it! While a lot of (probably the majority of) what republicans claim are examples of discrimination and miseeds by unionists in the past are exaggerated and/or fabricated, there are parts of history that unionists could have handled better. (An obvious example the boast about a "Protestant Parliament and Protestant State" - not the best terminology that could have been used, regardless of context).

So I applaud Reg for taking the brave decision to admit he has made mistakes. The question for the Ulster Unionists is, especially in light of recent events, will Reg Empey's candidness and acceptance of his fallibility be enough to help him retain the support of those UUP voters turned off by the thought that a vote for the Ulster Unionists could be seen as endorsing paramilitary activity for long enough to allow Reg to have a crack at bringing the loyalist group(s) onside? Or will recognising mistakes made in the past simply leave an open goal for those unionists whose mindsets haven't changed in 30 years?