![Northern Ireland [right]](img/ni.gif)
28th April 2005
Westminster Focus: Upper Bann
![[NI Map showing Upper Bann]](http://www.everythingulster.com/election2005/gfx/2005constituencies/upperbann.png "Upper Bann")
CONSTITUENCY of Ulster Unionist leader David Trimble, since 1990, Upper Bann has an electorate of 72,402 from a population of 102,947 (2001 census; 3rd highest in NI). For a seat that is so closely associated with Unionism, Upper Bann has a Catholic population (by community background) of 43%.
History
Upper Bann was created in 1983 and survived the 1995 boundary shakeup almost entirely intact. David Trimble took the seat in a 1990 by-election when UUP deputy leader Harold McCusker, who had held the seat since it's creation, died. Despite the 40% Catholic population (as stated above, 43% by community background), the nationalist vote has averaged around 35% since 1996, dipping to 28% in 1997's council elections, peaking at 39% for the Assembly election in 1998, while the Alliance vote has declined from 6% in 1997 (Westminster) to 1% in 2003 (Stormont) after standing aside in 2001.
Unionist Candidates
The real battle in Upper Bann is to see which Unionist wins the seat, as the DUP try to oust Ulster Unionist leader, David Trimble. Trimble has come in for a lot of personal attacks from the DUP in the campaign and the lead up to it and it will be interesting to see how much this influences voting behaviour.
Trimble, according to his own profile, was the first Ulster Unionist leader to meet an Irish Prime Minister for a generation and led the Ulster Unionists in negotiating the Good Friday Agreement (and whether or not it ultimately succeeds or fails, I applaud him for having the balls to try).
David Simpson, standing for the DUP, is apparently a gospel singer, and like most of the DUP candidates' web pages, most of his "achievements" seem to be generic DUP claims, rather than anything to do with his work as a councillor on Craigavon Borough Council.
In the 2001 election Trimble was elected with only a 4% majority over the Simpson and the belief is many Alliance (and even some SDLP) voters voted tactically to keep the DUP out. The candidates and leadership of these parties have called for no tactical voting in this elecion (generally, not specifically in Upper Bann). Also, in 2003, while Trimble topped the poll by quite a margin, the UUP out polled the DUP by only 386 votes, down from closer to 7,000 in 1998!!
It has been claimed that the town of Portadown (the biggest town in Upper Bann) has swung to the DUP, leaving the contest mainly in Banbridge. At the same time the UUP are claiming Trimble is being better received on the doorsteps than in the last Westminster election and that the DUP are having problems in the local elections with rebel candidates running for council as independents.
Chris Thornton (Belfast Telegraph) reckons Trimble, "the Great Survivor," can't be written off just yet, and I hope he is right. This man was willing to sacrifice his career to improve Northern Ireland for everyone, and there is no doubt we're in a better position now than we were when Trimble became leader of Ulster's biggest party in 1995.
Nationalist Candidates
A single nationalist candidate could probably have won this seat with the Unionist vote so evenly split, but that's all academic really. The contest between the SDLP's Dolores Kelly and Sinn Fein's John O'Dowd will always be overshadowed by the contest between the Unionist candidates. Both candidates are MLAs and councillors on Craigavon Borough Council.
Kelly has spent time working in Craigavon Area Hospital, later as a day-care manager in Banbridge for 6 years and is now day care manager in a rehab centre in Portadown. Can't find much interesting about O'Dowd, other than the fact he spends some of his time sitting on the board that doles out European peace money.
Other Candidates
The Alliance party are standing Alan Castle here, the man who seems to have stood in Foyle in 2003's Assembly election. While the belief is that many Alliance voters voted for Trimble after their party stood aside in 2001, this poor showing in 2003 might suggest that the Alliance won't present much of a challenge this time.
The Worker's Party (formerly Official Sinn Fein) will be fielding Tom French who polled 247 (0.6%) in 2003 and 527 (1%) in 2001.
Prediction
UUP / David Trimble to hold with a slender majority ( < 1,000 votes)
This one's far too close to call, so I wouldn't bet the farm on it (if I had one to bet)
Statistics
General Elections
2001: DUP 29% - UUP 33% - SDLP 16% - SF 21%
1997: DUP 11% - UUP 44% - SDLP 24% - SF 12%Assembly Elections
2003: DUP 29% - UUP 29% - SDLP) 15% - SF 21%
1998: DUP 14% - UUP 29% - SDLP 24% - SF 15%
Comments:
Comment from:
Steven [Visitor]
I belive that David Simpson will unseat David Trimble, it was very close in the last Westminster Election, and I feel it will be a close contest, but the DUP will take the seat, by a very small margin
28th April 2005 @ 13:28
Comment from:
stephen [Visitor]
HOPE YOU ARE RIGHT, STEVEN.
Sooner we get rid of Trimble, the better.
History will show Trimble to be the worst ever leader of the UUP, and the best thing for the nationalists ever.
uup - wipeout.
Sooner we get rid of Trimble, the better.
History will show Trimble to be the worst ever leader of the UUP, and the best thing for the nationalists ever.
uup - wipeout.
28th April 2005 @ 13:51
Comment from:
beano [Member]
· http://www.everythingulster.com
I think general consensus is that Paisley has been the best thing to ever happen to nationalism but that's another debate.
In the absence of any evidence other than speculation, I'll retain my 'wait and see' attitude on this seat.
In the absence of any evidence other than speculation, I'll retain my 'wait and see' attitude on this seat.
28th April 2005 @ 14:33
Comment from:
stephen [Visitor]
Beano, At least Paisley knew enough to read the Agreement properly, and not be fooled by the ira.
As for your comments about him being a help to nationalism, I can only conclude you are as uninformed as you appear.
Just remember, the ira are under the cosh thanks to the dup's pressure, and steadfast opposition to these scum.
Unlike trimble, who I know for a fact is thought of as an easy touch by republicans.
As for your comments about him being a help to nationalism, I can only conclude you are as uninformed as you appear.
Just remember, the ira are under the cosh thanks to the dup's pressure, and steadfast opposition to these scum.
Unlike trimble, who I know for a fact is thought of as an easy touch by republicans.
28th April 2005 @ 16:53
Comment from:
beano [Member]
· http://www.everythingulster.com
The IRA are "under the cosh" for no other reason than they committed Northern Ireland's biggest ever bank robbery, closely followed by the brutal murder of "one of their own," it has little or nothing to do with the DUP and to try and attach credit to them for the fact that the IRA have been exposed for what they are is ridiculous.
If it hadn't been for Trimble's "soft touch" as you call it, the IRA would still be 'active' and the Northern Bank robbery would have been just another fundraising operation and McCartney would be just another victim. The reason that these events were brought to worldwide media attention is because the IRA are supposed to be on a transition to purely peaceful and democratic engagement with the Unionist community - something brought about in the Good Friday Agreement which Paisley has helped the IRA destroy.
And I assure you my comments about nationalistm are informed. All you have to do is watch shows like "Have I Got News For You" to see the contempt that ordinary British people have for Paisley - it's right up there with that which they have for Adams and McGuinness. When they see Paisley mouthing off the way he does, quoting bible references at everyone and claiming that the pope is the anti-christ it makes the rest of the world think Unionists are all right wing religious fundamentalist nut-cases like him - are you so blinkered by DUP proaganda that you seriously cannot see how that undermines the Unionist cause?
If it hadn't been for Trimble's "soft touch" as you call it, the IRA would still be 'active' and the Northern Bank robbery would have been just another fundraising operation and McCartney would be just another victim. The reason that these events were brought to worldwide media attention is because the IRA are supposed to be on a transition to purely peaceful and democratic engagement with the Unionist community - something brought about in the Good Friday Agreement which Paisley has helped the IRA destroy.
And I assure you my comments about nationalistm are informed. All you have to do is watch shows like "Have I Got News For You" to see the contempt that ordinary British people have for Paisley - it's right up there with that which they have for Adams and McGuinness. When they see Paisley mouthing off the way he does, quoting bible references at everyone and claiming that the pope is the anti-christ it makes the rest of the world think Unionists are all right wing religious fundamentalist nut-cases like him - are you so blinkered by DUP proaganda that you seriously cannot see how that undermines the Unionist cause?
28th April 2005 @ 17:02
Comment from:
Paul [Visitor]
· http://www.nimagyar.blogspot.com
My own( completely unscientific )observation from DT's body language on TV performances is that he has given up the fight and can't wait to retire from politics.
Hope I'm wrong and I agree with your comments on Dr Paisley-over the years, I believed he has damaged more than strengthened our cause.
Hope I'm wrong and I agree with your comments on Dr Paisley-over the years, I believed he has damaged more than strengthened our cause.
28th April 2005 @ 17:11
Comment from:
Steven [Visitor]
Pailsey has not damaged.. he has brought the unionist people up of their knees, where david trimble lead them in 1998, by signing the agreement, it was an agreement to trimble, but a document to process ulster into a united ireland for nationalists. This election will further endorse the DUP as the voice of unionism, once and for all, wipe out the UPP all together, (no more concessions a day!))
28th April 2005 @ 21:55
Comment from:
beano [Member]
· http://www.everythingulster.com
I'll presume you meant the UUP, but even so what you're saying only confirms to me that the DUP are more interested in annihilating the UUP to further their own party than they are in protecting the Union.
For that reason alone, I hope Trimble survives and holds his seat. That said, I'm beginning to wish he would step down as leader, the problem is I'm not sure if anyone else in the party has the ability to follow him. Realistically there's Burnside, Empey or McGimpsey - McGimpsey's already proved too 'soft' for some in South Belfast and would probably further shrink the party, which leaves 2. Empey won't be an MP after this election without something drastic happening so that won't help his cause. It doesn't look good really.
For that reason alone, I hope Trimble survives and holds his seat. That said, I'm beginning to wish he would step down as leader, the problem is I'm not sure if anyone else in the party has the ability to follow him. Realistically there's Burnside, Empey or McGimpsey - McGimpsey's already proved too 'soft' for some in South Belfast and would probably further shrink the party, which leaves 2. Empey won't be an MP after this election without something drastic happening so that won't help his cause. It doesn't look good really.
29th April 2005 @ 09:38
Comment from:
stephen [Visitor]
Beano, I agree the portrayal given by paisley hasnt always been perfect.
However, he has correctly interpreted the so called 'peace process' for what it is, blatant and shameful appeasement of sfira.
If, on balance one looks at the damage done by the UUP against Paisley's non pc, calling a spade a spade, I would still prefer a truthful paisley than a weak, lying trimble.
You say that 'If it hadn't been for Trimble's "soft touch" as you call it, the IRA would still be 'active' and the Northern Bank robbery would have been just another fundraising operation and McCartney would be just another victim.'
Do you seriously think this ISNT the case? lol!
The truth is, the IRA are still active, still recruiting, still buying weapons, whilst all the time pocketing concession after concession.
The five hunger strike demands were met with the Belfast Agreement (there is no such thing as a 'good friday agreement'), plus a whole plethora of concessions to keep bombs out of London.
Some of us have fought tooth and nail against these murdering bastards, and will continue to propagate the truth, while opposing any attempts to weaken the Union further at the expense of our people, and to the gain of republicans.
UUP - responsibility lies at their door, thats why the unionist community will see them off come May 5th.
However, he has correctly interpreted the so called 'peace process' for what it is, blatant and shameful appeasement of sfira.
If, on balance one looks at the damage done by the UUP against Paisley's non pc, calling a spade a spade, I would still prefer a truthful paisley than a weak, lying trimble.
You say that 'If it hadn't been for Trimble's "soft touch" as you call it, the IRA would still be 'active' and the Northern Bank robbery would have been just another fundraising operation and McCartney would be just another victim.'
Do you seriously think this ISNT the case? lol!
The truth is, the IRA are still active, still recruiting, still buying weapons, whilst all the time pocketing concession after concession.
The five hunger strike demands were met with the Belfast Agreement (there is no such thing as a 'good friday agreement'), plus a whole plethora of concessions to keep bombs out of London.
Some of us have fought tooth and nail against these murdering bastards, and will continue to propagate the truth, while opposing any attempts to weaken the Union further at the expense of our people, and to the gain of republicans.
UUP - responsibility lies at their door, thats why the unionist community will see them off come May 5th.
29th April 2005 @ 09:49
Comment from:
stephen [Visitor]
I think there is a possibility that if and when trimble loses his seat and leadership, maybe in years to come, if Paisley steps down we could realign Unionism under one umbrella.
This HAS to be our medium term aim, and one which is not possible until Paisley retires.
There is nobody credible enough in the UUP to lead them at present.
This HAS to be our medium term aim, and one which is not possible until Paisley retires.
There is nobody credible enough in the UUP to lead them at present.
29th April 2005 @ 09:52
Comment from:
stephen [Visitor]
Beano, if you dont think the ira are still up to their usual murders etc, read this link:
so much for trimble's 'progress'!!!
Edited to fix the link, beano
so much for trimble's 'progress'!!!
Edited to fix the link, beano
29th April 2005 @ 10:21
Comment from:
beano [Member]
· http://www.everythingulster.com
ME: You say that 'If it hadn't been for Trimble's "soft touch" as you call it, the IRA would still be 'active' and the Northern Bank robbery would have been just another fundraising operation and McCartney would be just another victim.'
STEPHEN: Do you seriously think this ISNT the case? lol!
Within Northern Ireland it probably is. That said, and I may be wrong but, I get the impression that as far as the US, British and even Irish media is concerened, these were brutal criminal acts rather than part of a campaign against a colonial power, which IRA apologists could have used as an excuse if they had still been fighting such a 'war'.
STEPHEN: Do you seriously think this ISNT the case? lol!
Within Northern Ireland it probably is. That said, and I may be wrong but, I get the impression that as far as the US, British and even Irish media is concerened, these were brutal criminal acts rather than part of a campaign against a colonial power, which IRA apologists could have used as an excuse if they had still been fighting such a 'war'.
29th April 2005 @ 10:23
Comment from:
beano [Member]
· http://www.everythingulster.com
I read a story like that about the IRA still recruitng and stuff, and of course it's alarming and shows that we haven't made as much progress as we may have thought - but think about it - would this even have been a story without the GFA? The IRA would have been recruiting, targeting and killing regularly. Now, not only are the killings reduced, but the IRA are being exposed for the untrustworthy criminals that they are, rather than some brave bunch of rebels fighting a 'noble' cause.
Do you not agree that this is the case, and is largely down to the fact that they are supposed to have agreed to pursue democracy under the GFA?
Do you not agree that this is the case, and is largely down to the fact that they are supposed to have agreed to pursue democracy under the GFA?
29th April 2005 @ 10:27
Comment from:
beano [Member]
· http://www.everythingulster.com
If you don't trust what I've said about foreign opinion, check out the comments attached to this post at the Northern Irish Magyar.
29th April 2005 @ 10:47
Comment from:
stephen [Visitor]
what is the gfa?
no such thing....
Beano, they are still fighting their 'war', and their fight is not over until they see a united Ireland. They have admitted that the Belfast Agreement is the vehicle to take them there. This analysis of the agreement is shared by the SDLP, DUP, UKUP, British and Irish governments, Us governments, actually, everyone except for the UUP.
What does that tell you?
They can kill, maim, rob, rape and pillage, and still they are able to fall back on their mandate from nationalists time after time, and the governments, (with the sickening approval of the SDLP) will include them in any assembly, or talks process.
You are repeatedly missing the point.
Of course the violence is reduced, because they have got their way, they have received the largest amount of concessions ever from spineless Blair, and people like you should wake up and realise that when you reward bullies, the rest of the playground may be quieter, but not for long.
Trimble was wrong to negotiate from an unwinnable postion, and was wrong to u turn time after time. No guns, no government? dont make me laugh.
If he had stood fast, and said, no, we will not enter government until they decommission totally etc, then he would have done well, and would not find himself in political meltdown now.
Now the DUP will follow exactly that tactic and take the thanks for what he should have done.
Foreign opinion may be what it is, but it doesnt affect the truth. I agree with you on paisley's bluster doesnt look good, and I dont admire his religious rants, but he does tell the truth.
My previous post about unionism uniting stands, and this WILL happen after both trimble and the big man step down.
no such thing....
Beano, they are still fighting their 'war', and their fight is not over until they see a united Ireland. They have admitted that the Belfast Agreement is the vehicle to take them there. This analysis of the agreement is shared by the SDLP, DUP, UKUP, British and Irish governments, Us governments, actually, everyone except for the UUP.
What does that tell you?
They can kill, maim, rob, rape and pillage, and still they are able to fall back on their mandate from nationalists time after time, and the governments, (with the sickening approval of the SDLP) will include them in any assembly, or talks process.
You are repeatedly missing the point.
Of course the violence is reduced, because they have got their way, they have received the largest amount of concessions ever from spineless Blair, and people like you should wake up and realise that when you reward bullies, the rest of the playground may be quieter, but not for long.
Trimble was wrong to negotiate from an unwinnable postion, and was wrong to u turn time after time. No guns, no government? dont make me laugh.
If he had stood fast, and said, no, we will not enter government until they decommission totally etc, then he would have done well, and would not find himself in political meltdown now.
Now the DUP will follow exactly that tactic and take the thanks for what he should have done.
Foreign opinion may be what it is, but it doesnt affect the truth. I agree with you on paisley's bluster doesnt look good, and I dont admire his religious rants, but he does tell the truth.
My previous post about unionism uniting stands, and this WILL happen after both trimble and the big man step down.
29th April 2005 @ 14:01
Comment from:
beano [Member]
· http://www.everythingulster.com
If you will insist on going on and on about the name of the Good Friday Agreement then please at least tell me what your objection is or stop complaining.
Firstly, I don't think the British government see the agreement as a stepping stone to an all-island state or 'united Ireland'.
So Trimble was wrong to negotiate? In that case, please tell me what you think should have happened instead - and I hope it's something better than to "continue shouting 'no' and 'never' and 'not an inch' and see what happens" because we'd be right back where we were 15 years ago.
I think you dismiss international opinion too easily, particularly that of America, where the IRA traditionally have had their strongest international support. Thanks to their backtracking on their part of the agreement (which if Paisley had his way would never have existed), George Bush and even your man Kennedy have realised that rather than freedom fighters, we're dealing with thugs. This puts a lot of pressure on Sinn Fein and their friends, albeit seemingly temporarily.
Firstly, I don't think the British government see the agreement as a stepping stone to an all-island state or 'united Ireland'.
So Trimble was wrong to negotiate? In that case, please tell me what you think should have happened instead - and I hope it's something better than to "continue shouting 'no' and 'never' and 'not an inch' and see what happens" because we'd be right back where we were 15 years ago.
I think you dismiss international opinion too easily, particularly that of America, where the IRA traditionally have had their strongest international support. Thanks to their backtracking on their part of the agreement (which if Paisley had his way would never have existed), George Bush and even your man Kennedy have realised that rather than freedom fighters, we're dealing with thugs. This puts a lot of pressure on Sinn Fein and their friends, albeit seemingly temporarily.
29th April 2005 @ 15:56
Comment from:
stephen [Visitor]
simple, there is NO such agreement.
The proper title is 'The Belfast Agreement'.
Secondly, the British government, or Labour administration's policy on NI, is a paper called Dual strategy towards a United Ireland, penned by Mowlam, McNamara, and Livingstone. Their policy is a united Ireland.Fact.
Next point is quite simple as well. Elsewhere, I have told you that all unionist parties rejected the framework documents as any basis for talks. All of them. The UUP,DUP, and UKUP agreed a joint approach which was they wouldnt enter talks which were confined to the parameters of these documents, nor whilst sfira remained armed.
Mr Trimble reneged, joined up with the uvf, and uda, and went into talks.
This was his first mistake. Bear in mind that the best he could achieve was confined to within the rejected framework documents.
Hardly intelligent, is it?
Now, the point I made elsewhere also, is that if Trimble had stood his ground, then we could have secured a united unionist front, which could hold sway against republicans, within the democratic process.
Leaving all of that aside, lets forward wind a few years, and many broken promises later.
If Trimble had the sense to stick to his no guns, no government stance, (which is exactly what the DUP are doing at present), then he would have gained credibility, and put the worldwide pressure on sfira to a higher extent. The line of wanting peace, but the ira holding everything up, would, and still is, powerful globally.
I didnt say he was wrong to negotiate. I say again, he was wrong to negotiate with confines for any outcome limited to a unionist rejected document, and also, he should have stuck with the rest of unionism, and resisted entering into doomed talks with armed terrorists.
The present dup, and it seems uup, (if we can believe them), is that they will not enter into any government whilst the ira remains armed and active - in other words, no guns, no government.
This was the policy before, and trimble went back on his word.
I am all for negotiating on a level playing field with democrats. If republicans want to discuss a way forward, then they have to divorce themselves from their private army, and sever links with criminality, and paramilitary activity.
The SDLP have a lot to answer for, because while they lambast sfira, they say in the next sentence that they wont form a government without them.
Lastly, worldwide opinion is important, I am not denying that, but weak, defeatist unionism, like trimble serves no purpose.
They can backtrack on any part of the agreement, becasue there is no punishment for doing so, and crucially, sf were treated as a democratic party, and NOT as the ira.
This was another mistake.
SF are not, and were not obliged to do anything, other than use whatever influence they had to bring about decommissioning. All they say is, we tried, but we are not the IRA!
The mcartney family have done the most damage, not the Belfast Agreement in America, believe me.
I do understand where you are coming from, though, but, at the end of the day, in a years time, they will still be included in any talks. In fact, the last trip to us got them 700,000 pounds.
The proper title is 'The Belfast Agreement'.
Secondly, the British government, or Labour administration's policy on NI, is a paper called Dual strategy towards a United Ireland, penned by Mowlam, McNamara, and Livingstone. Their policy is a united Ireland.Fact.
Next point is quite simple as well. Elsewhere, I have told you that all unionist parties rejected the framework documents as any basis for talks. All of them. The UUP,DUP, and UKUP agreed a joint approach which was they wouldnt enter talks which were confined to the parameters of these documents, nor whilst sfira remained armed.
Mr Trimble reneged, joined up with the uvf, and uda, and went into talks.
This was his first mistake. Bear in mind that the best he could achieve was confined to within the rejected framework documents.
Hardly intelligent, is it?
Now, the point I made elsewhere also, is that if Trimble had stood his ground, then we could have secured a united unionist front, which could hold sway against republicans, within the democratic process.
Leaving all of that aside, lets forward wind a few years, and many broken promises later.
If Trimble had the sense to stick to his no guns, no government stance, (which is exactly what the DUP are doing at present), then he would have gained credibility, and put the worldwide pressure on sfira to a higher extent. The line of wanting peace, but the ira holding everything up, would, and still is, powerful globally.
I didnt say he was wrong to negotiate. I say again, he was wrong to negotiate with confines for any outcome limited to a unionist rejected document, and also, he should have stuck with the rest of unionism, and resisted entering into doomed talks with armed terrorists.
The present dup, and it seems uup, (if we can believe them), is that they will not enter into any government whilst the ira remains armed and active - in other words, no guns, no government.
This was the policy before, and trimble went back on his word.
I am all for negotiating on a level playing field with democrats. If republicans want to discuss a way forward, then they have to divorce themselves from their private army, and sever links with criminality, and paramilitary activity.
The SDLP have a lot to answer for, because while they lambast sfira, they say in the next sentence that they wont form a government without them.
Lastly, worldwide opinion is important, I am not denying that, but weak, defeatist unionism, like trimble serves no purpose.
They can backtrack on any part of the agreement, becasue there is no punishment for doing so, and crucially, sf were treated as a democratic party, and NOT as the ira.
This was another mistake.
SF are not, and were not obliged to do anything, other than use whatever influence they had to bring about decommissioning. All they say is, we tried, but we are not the IRA!
The mcartney family have done the most damage, not the Belfast Agreement in America, believe me.
I do understand where you are coming from, though, but, at the end of the day, in a years time, they will still be included in any talks. In fact, the last trip to us got them 700,000 pounds.
29th April 2005 @ 16:26
Comment from:
Robert [Visitor]
i'm definitly somewhere in the middle here. Being in Upper Bann i'll probably vote for David Simpson. This is because i dont like Trimble at all. The GFA is something i could never have supported (i was too young to vote at the time) and i believe from it was signed it was a mistake. Trimble is also a terrible constituency MP. he is also appears to be in politics purely for his own advancement rather than because of what he believes. And beano, to accuse the DUP of being out only to destroy the UUP is quite ironic after the deal the UUP offered regarding pacts in south belfast and fermanagh/south tyrone which was clearly only for the UUPs avancement and nothing to do with protecting unionism.
on the other im not much if a DUP fan. are they really as trustworthy as they'd have us believe? i doubt it and id say they'll possibly go into power sharing given half a chance.
Im of the belief theres no unionist worth voting for now
on the other im not much if a DUP fan. are they really as trustworthy as they'd have us believe? i doubt it and id say they'll possibly go into power sharing given half a chance.
Im of the belief theres no unionist worth voting for now
29th April 2005 @ 17:58
Comment from:
beano [Member]
· http://www.everythingulster.com
Robert, I urge you to read the DUP manifesto or other election literature (including their highly intellectual cartoon series) and count the number of attacks made personally against David Trimble, and generally against the Ulster Unionist party. Then come back and tell me that their main objective in this election is not to destroy them.
I should reiterate here that I do not have any undying loyalty to the UUP - I just find the DUP hard to stomach, particularly Paisley.
Stephen, I followed you down to: "If Trimble had the sense to stick to his no guns, no government stance, (which is exactly what the DUP are doing at present), then he would have gained credibility, and put the worldwide pressure on sfira to a higher extent. The line of wanting peace, but the ira holding everything up, would, and still is, powerful globally."
That was the line the Unionism followed for years and it didn't help at all. The longer it went on, especially with the IRA giving some (limited) ground, in calling a ceasefire, the world was watching to see if Unionism would negotiate. Had we said no, there's a good chance we would have been seen to be the ones in the wrong, and therefore, I believe, alleviate any pressure on IRA/SF and in many eyes give them justification for their illegal war - ie that there was no option to pursue dialogue.
I agree that the words of the Agreement that Sinn Fein only had to do what they could to secure the IRA's disarming was too light (and at the time I would have voted against it too, Robert).
I should reiterate here that I do not have any undying loyalty to the UUP - I just find the DUP hard to stomach, particularly Paisley.
Stephen, I followed you down to: "If Trimble had the sense to stick to his no guns, no government stance, (which is exactly what the DUP are doing at present), then he would have gained credibility, and put the worldwide pressure on sfira to a higher extent. The line of wanting peace, but the ira holding everything up, would, and still is, powerful globally."
That was the line the Unionism followed for years and it didn't help at all. The longer it went on, especially with the IRA giving some (limited) ground, in calling a ceasefire, the world was watching to see if Unionism would negotiate. Had we said no, there's a good chance we would have been seen to be the ones in the wrong, and therefore, I believe, alleviate any pressure on IRA/SF and in many eyes give them justification for their illegal war - ie that there was no option to pursue dialogue.
I agree that the words of the Agreement that Sinn Fein only had to do what they could to secure the IRA's disarming was too light (and at the time I would have voted against it too, Robert).
29th April 2005 @ 18:30
Comment from:
stephen [Visitor]
yes, I know, but I made the point that after negotiations, (and the stupidity of entering and completing talks within the set down parameters) the UUP should have stuck to the no guns, no government line.
My point is, had they done so, I believe they would not have lost so much support.
There is no actual requirement for decommissioning, nor is there any punishment for not doing so, and nor is there any linkage to any other part of the agreement.
I voted against it, and campaigned tirelessly against it.
The really crazy thing is, the alliance and womens coalition had as much responsibility to bring about decommissioning as sf!!
That was why Donaldson walked out, and if you look at the decommissioning section, there is no point 5. The missing point was a start date for decommissioning...and sf seen this solely as a transitional phase to secure political concessions, and not as a peace end game.
Bear in mind, ALL parties had to 'use whatever influence they have to bring about decommissioning'.
A disaster for Unionism, and irreversible.
My point is, had they done so, I believe they would not have lost so much support.
There is no actual requirement for decommissioning, nor is there any punishment for not doing so, and nor is there any linkage to any other part of the agreement.
I voted against it, and campaigned tirelessly against it.
The really crazy thing is, the alliance and womens coalition had as much responsibility to bring about decommissioning as sf!!
That was why Donaldson walked out, and if you look at the decommissioning section, there is no point 5. The missing point was a start date for decommissioning...and sf seen this solely as a transitional phase to secure political concessions, and not as a peace end game.
Bear in mind, ALL parties had to 'use whatever influence they have to bring about decommissioning'.
A disaster for Unionism, and irreversible.
29th April 2005 @ 18:52
Comment from:
beano [Member]
· http://www.everythingulster.com
An interesting point with which I think I agree. The problem is how should it have been worded better?
SF would surely have insisted that the Unionists ensure that loyalist paramilitaries decommission too - how would we get round that?
SF would surely have insisted that the Unionists ensure that loyalist paramilitaries decommission too - how would we get round that?
29th April 2005 @ 19:48
Comment from:
stephen [Visitor]
It is irrelevant really, as sf would never have agreed decommissioning, or, for that matter, responsibility for the ira.
You see, the premise that they were able to continue with, - that they are just sf, and not the ira, was central to their tactics.
The biggest mistake by the UUP was to have no interlinkage with decommissioning with any other part of the Agreement.
Austin, who was Trimbles legal advisor, actually resigned from his post in frustration, after Trimble did not secure any link with the rest of the agreement in the NI act,1998, which is the legislation used to underpin the agreement's structures.
In other words, he was advising that if the IRA didnt decommission, then there could be no executive, no places in the executive for those wedded to violence, and some form of exclusion from the assembly.
As we know, Trimble stuck his nose up, and arrogantly didnt bother....
If he had stuck to pinning down sf in the final negotiations to decommissioning, then it would have been more realistic and would have got more credibility.
But, he didnt. Thats why a house built on deceit, is as safe as a house built on sand.
Loyalist decommissioning, I believe would have followed if sfira were tied into decommissioning to get into government.
In other words, if sf moved along a genuine democratic path, and decommissioned, then they would be welcomed into government in the absence of ira activity etc, and if the loyalists didnt, they would be hammered both here and globally, think about it.
You see, the premise that they were able to continue with, - that they are just sf, and not the ira, was central to their tactics.
The biggest mistake by the UUP was to have no interlinkage with decommissioning with any other part of the Agreement.
Austin, who was Trimbles legal advisor, actually resigned from his post in frustration, after Trimble did not secure any link with the rest of the agreement in the NI act,1998, which is the legislation used to underpin the agreement's structures.
In other words, he was advising that if the IRA didnt decommission, then there could be no executive, no places in the executive for those wedded to violence, and some form of exclusion from the assembly.
As we know, Trimble stuck his nose up, and arrogantly didnt bother....
If he had stuck to pinning down sf in the final negotiations to decommissioning, then it would have been more realistic and would have got more credibility.
But, he didnt. Thats why a house built on deceit, is as safe as a house built on sand.
Loyalist decommissioning, I believe would have followed if sfira were tied into decommissioning to get into government.
In other words, if sf moved along a genuine democratic path, and decommissioned, then they would be welcomed into government in the absence of ira activity etc, and if the loyalists didnt, they would be hammered both here and globally, think about it.
30th April 2005 @ 09:18
Comment from:
beano [Member]
· http://www.everythingulster.com
I don't think the "Trimble stuck his nose up" line is particularly constructive or accurate. Far more likely that SF would not accept their link to the IRA to be set in print as part of the Agreement and the choice was either give up on the whole thing or bite the bullet. In hindsight it may have been the wrong decision but I don't think Trimble can take this blame alone. If other unionists had been more involved in the negotiations, perhaps they could have taken a stand together. As it was, it would have looked like Trimble had just sided with those who say 'No' to everything.
Re IRA decomissioning, I'm not sure if the loyalists would reciprocate or not, I think the domestic and international hammering would be far more likely as they lose what little support they have left and hopefully they'd be wound up either way.
Re IRA decomissioning, I'm not sure if the loyalists would reciprocate or not, I think the domestic and international hammering would be far more likely as they lose what little support they have left and hopefully they'd be wound up either way.
1st May 2005 @ 01:19
Comment from:
stephen [Visitor]
Beano, you miss the point, - again.
'If other unionists had been more involved in the negotiations, perhaps they could have taken a stand together'
You dont get it, do you?
Trimble went back on a promise to stay united, and went in alone, with the help of the uvf and uda to bring up the 50% needed of the voters to conduct talks.
I can tell you that as I was actually there, trimble did indeed 'stick his nose up', and walked out of the meeting.
This was approx one week before the talks.
Again, you are wrong, SF were admitted as speaking for the IRA, and managed to wriggle out of it, due to UUP incompetence.
You see, you have to realise that when trimble said ok to negotiationg within the parameters of the rejected framework documents, he couldnt get anything outside those documents.
Dont you get it? He was beaten before he even started.
If he had stuck with the rest of Unionism, we could have, (as we put forward) go into negotiations free of any restrictions.
We could all have held sfira on decommissioning, and other crucial aspects of the now failed agreement which trimble didnt.
Had these happened, trimble would have gained more electoral support, and Unionism and society would have had a proper foundation, rather than a half baked, short term disaster.
I know, - I was there....
'If other unionists had been more involved in the negotiations, perhaps they could have taken a stand together'
You dont get it, do you?
Trimble went back on a promise to stay united, and went in alone, with the help of the uvf and uda to bring up the 50% needed of the voters to conduct talks.
I can tell you that as I was actually there, trimble did indeed 'stick his nose up', and walked out of the meeting.
This was approx one week before the talks.
Again, you are wrong, SF were admitted as speaking for the IRA, and managed to wriggle out of it, due to UUP incompetence.
You see, you have to realise that when trimble said ok to negotiationg within the parameters of the rejected framework documents, he couldnt get anything outside those documents.
Dont you get it? He was beaten before he even started.
If he had stuck with the rest of Unionism, we could have, (as we put forward) go into negotiations free of any restrictions.
We could all have held sfira on decommissioning, and other crucial aspects of the now failed agreement which trimble didnt.
Had these happened, trimble would have gained more electoral support, and Unionism and society would have had a proper foundation, rather than a half baked, short term disaster.
I know, - I was there....
1st May 2005 @ 10:47
Comment from:
beano [Member]
· http://www.everythingulster.com
Bloody hell, just read back to the topic to realise that this post was supposed to be all about Upper Bann - we really have got sidetracked.
I still think this will be an interesting result come election day but I'm starting to think Trimble's high profile could be his undoing. Simpson's inexperience and relative lack of history could actually be a benefit if it's seen as something of a clean slate compared to all the anti-Trimble sentiment built up as a result of the GFA as witnessed above.
I still think this will be an interesting result come election day but I'm starting to think Trimble's high profile could be his undoing. Simpson's inexperience and relative lack of history could actually be a benefit if it's seen as something of a clean slate compared to all the anti-Trimble sentiment built up as a result of the GFA as witnessed above.
1st May 2005 @ 12:51
Comment from:
Steven Elder [Visitor]
The DUP dont want to humilate the UPP, just to beat them in every constituency and get a better deal for the unionist community in this country. When the UPP were speaking for unionism, they let them down by going into government with IRA/Sinn Fein 3 times,,, without 1 weapon from the IRA. A previous UPP election slogan was 'NO GUNS, NO GOVERNMENT' ,that went out the window.... as they sat in givernment with murders too many times..
This election will change the leadership of unionism, the community needs a strong, honest leadership athat will fight for the community and bring the unionist community of theeir knees, and demand our rights not ask for them!!!!
This election will change the leadership of unionism, the community needs a strong, honest leadership athat will fight for the community and bring the unionist community of theeir knees, and demand our rights not ask for them!!!!
1st May 2005 @ 16:33
Comment from:
stephen [Visitor]
I notice you reserved to comment on my post, other than a wry comment about anti-trimbleism.
I have told you repeatedly, there is no such thing as a 'gfa'. It is the Belfast Agreement.
Trimble will get beaten because of the reasons I have outlined above. He is the worst leader ever in the history of unionism, and one which has done the most damage.
His high profile will not be his downfall, rather the inept, and incompetent leadership, coupled with countless u-turns and Lies, - will.
Facts cannot be argued against.
I have told you repeatedly, there is no such thing as a 'gfa'. It is the Belfast Agreement.
Trimble will get beaten because of the reasons I have outlined above. He is the worst leader ever in the history of unionism, and one which has done the most damage.
His high profile will not be his downfall, rather the inept, and incompetent leadership, coupled with countless u-turns and Lies, - will.
Facts cannot be argued against.
1st May 2005 @ 18:26
Comment from:
Steven Elder [Visitor]
I agree totally with you 'stephen'
new, honest leadership is required to speak for unionism, the DUP has this leadership!!!!!
new, honest leadership is required to speak for unionism, the DUP has this leadership!!!!!
2nd May 2005 @ 12:49
Comment from:
beano [Member]
· http://www.everythingulster.com
I have no intention of stopping using the term GFA as that's what most people know it as, and what I've called it for 7 years.
Stephen the reason I didn't answer you in detail above is because you're talking about things I wasn't witness to and therefore can hardly have an opinion on and I don't think my comment about anti-Trimble sentiment was wry, you're clearly not a fan (and obviously entitled to that position).
I agree that new leadership is probably needed for unionism, but I'm not convinced the DUP (or the UUP) at the minute has the necessary leadership.
Stephen the reason I didn't answer you in detail above is because you're talking about things I wasn't witness to and therefore can hardly have an opinion on and I don't think my comment about anti-Trimble sentiment was wry, you're clearly not a fan (and obviously entitled to that position).
I agree that new leadership is probably needed for unionism, but I'm not convinced the DUP (or the UUP) at the minute has the necessary leadership.
2nd May 2005 @ 19:07
Comment from:
stephen [Visitor]
You are entitled to call it whatever you want, but it is an incorrect term.(gfa)
Anyway, I think a broad church of Dodds, Robinson, Burnside, Donaldson, McCartney and maybe Ross, or Foster, Arlene that is could sit in a new Unionist party executive.
Someone has to lead us..
I suppose the next argument would be what name to call them!!!
Anyway, I think a broad church of Dodds, Robinson, Burnside, Donaldson, McCartney and maybe Ross, or Foster, Arlene that is could sit in a new Unionist party executive.
Someone has to lead us..
I suppose the next argument would be what name to call them!!!
3rd May 2005 @ 14:17
Comment from:
W Brown [Visitor]
· http://wbrown@talktalk.net
The Somme - Loyalist Music, Loyalist, Orange, Ulster-Scots, Irish Unionist, Irish, Scottish, Folk music archive.
21st November 2005 @ 10:41
Recent Posts
- About Everything Ulster's Election 2005 Site
- Everything Ulster Moved
(1 comments) - Everything Ulster to be Reborn
(4 comments) - Hermon: UUP Must Be More Liberal
(7 comments) - Council Elections - It's not that bad.... is it?
(13 comments) - Withdrawn Councillor Elected Anyway!
(3 comments) - DUP Soaring In Council Elections
(1 comments) - DUP Take Early Lead
- German Neo-Nazis: The New MOPEs
(5 comments) - David Trimble Steps Down
(30 comments) - Election 2005 Post-Mortem
(12 comments) - North Down: Hermon Elected
(3 comments)
Archives
- Election 2005 Blog
- October 2005 (1)
- May 2005 (33)
- April 2005 (37)
- March 2005 (9)
- more...
| Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat | Sun |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| << < | > >> | |||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |||
Links
- Northern Irish Magyar
A Norn Irn ex-pat in Hungary - Portadown News
Spoof Northern Ireland News - Slugger O'Toole
Top N.I. News/Politics Blog - StadiumForBelfast
Keep Northern Ireland Sport in Belfast - Young Unionists
Blog by the Young Unionists (UUP)
Syndicate this blog 
What is RSS?
powered by
Content © EverythingUlster.com 2005 unless otherwise stated
