Only the other day someone said to me that Notherrn Ireland is almost unique in the Western world for the length of time a party leader typically gets to hold onto his* position.

In most countries if someone gets to lead their party for 15 years it is considered a long time. Here it seems to be regarded as a job for life. We are almost rivalling the Cubans !

Tim Roll Pickering has mentioned on Slugger that the longest serving British leader mantle passes from Paisley to.......Gerry Adams.

I think Tim Roll-Pickering's comment was "Am I right in thinking that this means the UK’s longest serving party leader will now be… Gerry Adams?". Slightly different to British, but the idea is still the same.

That being said, I think Doc was the longest serving leader of a UK party of all time.

Actualy it's identital to British.

Um, no. I am a citizen of the UK, but I'm not British. I would imagine Gerry Adams would be somewhat offended being described as British, but ultimately would admit that he was born in the UK, because it is an unfortunate fact.

UK = Britain + Northern Ireland

UK citizen = British citizen. Demonym of UK = British. Fact

It is defacto rather than fact. It is considered correct. It is one of those gray areas where Fact can not be applied as there is no legal framework for it.

Also, Sinn Féin are a party in the UK, but they are not British as they operate all over the island of Ireland, including areas outside of the UK. To say they were a British party would indicate that they only operated in the UK.

Personally, Beano, I can't describe a person who said "Many in this audience employ Catholics, but I have not one about my place. Catholics are out to destroy Ulster...If we in Ulster allow Roman Catholics to work on our farms we are traitors to Ulster...I would appeal to loyalists, therefore, wherever possible, to employ good Protestant lads and lassies" to be the greatest Prime Minister in the history of Northern Ireland. The most bigoted, not the best.

Actually my name's Michael. He did say some bigoted things. but his actions were every bit as fair and consiliatory as O'Neill's. But much later in his career.

But no detail tonight. Much too late.

"He did say some bigoted things. but his actions were every bit as fair and consiliatory as O'Neill's. But much later in his career."

But that's the problem, Michael.

He opposed O'Neill, Faulkner, the AIA and Trimble. In doing so he threatened violence, provoked violence, set up paramilitary organisations and was ambivalent to others.

He then proceeded to agree to more than those mentioned above ever did!

He did not though split Unionism for his own ends.

As opposed to whom?

You're getting your Basil Brookes and Paisleys mixed up Reg, I think Michael was referring to the former.

What? i've lost the gist of this altogether. Paisley opposed all those things, not Brookeborough, who died in the 1970s. Wasn't that who Michael was defending? Brooke would have been going some to oppose Trimble!

"i've lost the gist of this altogether"

I don't think it's you who's lost, Chekov.

To recap. I think Basil Brooke was the best of Northern Ireland's 6 Prime Ministers. He did make some unsavory remarks in his career, but once he got into power he changed. Henry Patterson quotes an Civil Servant from the republic as saying

"There is a definite cleavage of opinion between those like Lord Brookeborough and Mr Brian Maginness who believe that they best way of preserving partition...is to pursue 'moderate' policies designed to pacify the minority and impress opinion abroad, and those Unionists like Mr Minford, Mr Norman Porter and Mr Harry Midgley who consider that the only sure course lies in an uncompromising adherence to Orange and Protestant principles"

(page 119)

He was genuine in his determination to be fair, as he believed it was the right way forward for all of Northern Ireland. He also did not split Unionism for his own ends to get to the top. Unlike some.

Oops, I didn't even read Seamus' post! That makes much more sense.

I also have an oops, as I didn't realise that Michael had posted the original blog. Sorry, Beano.

On another note, you say that Basil Brooke didn't split Unionism. Well, that's because he didn't need to. Paisley, from the beginning, incorrect as he probably was, differed in opinion to that of the leadership of the Official Unionists. And you say when Brooke got into power he changed? What did he change? Did he bring in one man, one vote and an end to gerrymandering? Did he bring in a proper system for the allocation of housing? Did he disband the Ulster Special Constabulary, and repeal the Special Powers Act? No, he did none of these things. He might not have given severely bigoted speeches anymore, but he did nothing to change the regime which he became leader of.

Also, he gave the "protestant lads and lasses" speech while Minister for Agriculture. What would be said if Michelle Gildernew gave a speech saying "Many in this audience employ Protestants, but I have not one about my place. Protestants are out to destroy Ireland...If we in Ireland allow Protestants to work on our farms we are traitors to Ireland...I would appeal to republicans, therefore, wherever possible, to employ good Catholic lads and lassies"?

Did he have legislation passed to provide equal treatement for teachers in Catholic Schools? Yes. Did he attempt (and largly succeed) to ban Orange parades where they were deliberatly provocative? Yes.

Could he have taken the other measures necessary to undo the damage of James Craig to community relations without causing a Paislyite mass reaction? Almost certainly not.

He did what he could. He knew what he could get done without splitting the moevement. And for doing so he was more than once hauled in front of Grand Lodge to explain his actions.

Did he pass the "Flags and Emblems (Display) Act (Northern Ireland)? Yes, he did. This act was one of the most sectarian pieces of legislation passed in the 60 years of Unionist hegemony, and passed by the Government of one Basil Brooke. If this was a Basil Brooke that was conciliatory, and moderate, I'd hate to see what an extreme Basil Brooke would have done.

Get your hands on a copy of Party Versus Order: Ulster Unionism and the Flags and Emblems Act
Henry Patterson - Contemporary British History, 1999, and then comment on that.

Um, I don't exactly have a copy on me Michael. Why don't you give me the gist of what it says and then I'll comment on it.

The point is the majority of Unionists in the Country didnt want to move this last 40 years. But society doesnt stay static, things change, contexts change. People change. Paisley was the voice of a majority who didnt want any movement. If he hadnt of been there another voice would have emerged and i doubt very much whether we could have been any further on than we are now.

Politics is of its 'times' and politicians are of their 'time. Success in politics is about knowing when something has to be done/needs to be AND having the judgement to know what actually can be done, i.e. what your 'constiency' will accept. The vast majority of Unionism now supports the regime at Stormont. Even the Dromore by-election gave the DUP the biggest party by first preferance votes, which when you consider all the supposed anger (supposed? I dont here feel the massive swathes of discontent on the ground that certain people would tell us there is. While theres electric, tv and tescos there isnt going be any 'revolution' in Ireland again of any description) within Unionism against them is quite an achievement (Persoanl view- the TUV vote was a small but significant protest vote against a political party of government in mid-term. Happens in every country in the world with a similar system).

Paisley stepping down from where im sitting is not something the TUV, UUP or anyone else should be gloating about because for them to make any sort of headway they needed him there to castigate. For years i heard people say how they would give more creedance to a Robinson led DUP. For years ive heard how so many people just wouldnt vote DUP because of Paisley. This could well be the death of the UUP as we know it. As for the TUV- when you take the Chuckle Brothers comment out of their promotional material there isnt a big pile left. David Addams on Talkback yesterday was spot on- try and get a hold of it. Someone with a hatred of Paisley giving a realistic and pragmatic interpretation of the situation based on fact.

He held us back for decades and ill always castigate him for that but, as i have said, he moved when he saw his people wanted to/had to/needed to move. And thats a good political leader irrespective of all other related comment.