Following the resignation of Alex Kane as Communications Director of the UUP one would have imagined that Sir Reg would have wanted to replace Alex with a public advocate of the partnership with the Conservatives.
Instead Alex has been replaced by an Orangeman and apparent advocate for UUP-DUP “unionist unity” – Danny Kennedy. Moreover, if Kennedy took a psychometric test I don’t think it’d reveal communications skills as a key attribute.
After the leaked Hatfield House talks hit the headlines locally it was Danny who was trotted-out by the UUP at Stormont to argue why these talks were a good thing. “The pro-Union people will welcome these talks,” he said. By “pro-Union people” read “Protestant.”
He also appeared on the BBC’s Hearts and Minds Programme last week to defend the UUP’s decision to have secret talks with the DUP before Christmas – organised by the Orange Order. He and Sammy Wilson of the DUP were practically at one on the programme - agreeing enthusiastically with each other. According to Kennedy, “It’s perfectly natural for those with a pro-Union disposition to have conversations with each other…perfectly natural to look at might happen in the future…”
Last week Owen Paterson and Sir Reg Empey issued statements indicating that the partnership between both parties was solid. However, let’s look at where this relationship is. There has been continued delay and vacillation on the part of the UUP committee to work with the Conservatives to select candidates – resulting in two cancelled trips by David Cameron to Northern Ireland to announce them. The UUP’s one MP has announced she will be running as an independent rather than running as a Conservative and Unionist. The UUP has had secret talks with the DUP about “Unionist unity”. 3 excellent Conservative candidates have withdrawn because of moves towards UUP/DUP unity. And now the UUP has elevated an Orangeman and “Unionist unity” advocate to the role of Head of Communications.
One really has to ask what more the UUP has to do before Owen Paterson withdraws from this absurd partnership. Surely this must be the final straw.
Sir Reg Empey, if he is serious about a partnership with the Conservatives, should be removing the Party whip from Danny Kennedy and David McNarry. However, now one of them is the Party’s official spokesman.
Jeff
I once had a Christian friend who said that atheism is as much a religion as hers and that those who ascribe to that belief system are as intolerant and bigoted as any fundy bible-thumper. Do you not think your obsession with anyone who happens to belong to the Orange Order has the faint whiff of intolerance or bigotry about it?
You seem to be moving to a position where anyone who happens to be an Orangeman/woman cannot have any place in Unionist public life. If a DUP man were to say the same about atheists or humanists what would your response be?
Atheists have no belief system based on irrational thought. DUP activists often insult Atheists in general and me in particular. However, I’m very proud of that fact.
Another thing, Anon, Alex Kane was an Atheist too but I rarely agreed with him either. Put 50 Atheists in a room and they tend to take different views on everything – except their lack of faith in a divine being.
I used to wonder if Sir Reg had his finger on the pulse. Now that I realise he hasn’t I am beginning to wonder if he has a pulse.
He seems to be so far removed from the grass roots of moderate unionism as to be of no consequence. If I see one more picture of him grinning inanely under his bowler hat and above his orange sash I am liable to be sick. How many good people can he afford to lose before he is left as the leader? of a cabal of 5 or 6 in HQ.
Isn’t Reg a member of the OO?
Paul, yes I think so.
Mr Peel – thought you might enjoy Mr Kane’s resignation letter, sent on Sunday night to a wide audience in the UUP!
Especially where he points out our Leader, Chairman and Treasurer appear to tell no one else in the party anything, not even their Director of Communications. I understand that they are close ‘friends’ of yours.
Watch out for fireworks at the UUP Executive meeting, will heads roll?
Hi,
In mid-December I sent an e-mail to the Leader, Chairman and Treasurer setting out a number of frustrations I had in terms of my role as Director of Communications. This is part of what I wrote:
As you are probably well aware I have been increasingly uncomfortable in my role as Director. Part of that discomfort has to do with my frustrations about the chain-of-command re the Conservative relationship; and part of it has to do with the fact that I have little or no idea what I’m supposed to ‘communicate’ or to whom.
Anyway, my personal conclusion is that there really isn’t much for me to do in the areas which strike me as key areas. That being the case, I am offering my resignation, to take effect from January 31st, 2010.
I have chatted to the three of them since then and thought that maybe we could reach an arrangement which would allow me to do my job to best advantage.
But events over the last couple of weeks have caused me great personal concern. I still don’t know what is happening with the Joint Committee and the exact nature of the relationship between the UUP and Conservatives. I wasn’t told about the Hatfield House talks until the story broke; and nor was I told about the Orange Order-brokered talks until the day that Spotlight ran the story.
Putting it bluntly, a Director of Communications who isn’t told what is happening is a Director of Communications who cannot do his job properly, let alone professionally.
A few weeks ago we were in control of our media agenda. The DUP was clearly on the backfoot and struggling for credibility. The UUP, on the other hand, looked like a credible alternative. Today, however, we are back to the era of mixed messages and solo-runs. There is genuine surprise among the public, the media and our own grassroots about how we seem to have assisted in giving Peter Robinson and the DUP a leg-up. Let’s face it, how do we attack them when it looks as though we have been cosying up to them?
Again, after very long thought, I have reached the conclusion that any sort of deal with the DUP at this point would thoroughly compromise and tarnish this party.
I know that my views are not shared across the party and I know, too, that it’s going to be almost impossibe to get a coherent message in the run-up to elections. And even if a message was agreed upon, I suspect that it is one I wouldn’t be comfortable with. Some of you also know that I have ongoing concerns about the precise nature we have with the Conservatives.
That being the case I have decided to go ahead with my resignation–with immediate effect.
Can I take this opportunity to thank you for your cooperation over this past year.
Regards and best wishes,
Alex.
I had some insight into this when I was having to deal with Alex as my ‘opposite number’. I’d be briefed and would attend meetings; Alex wasn’t and didn’t. Yet another example of the appallingly badly run and ineffective organisation that Reg, Campbell and Cosgrove oversee.
Jeff
Nice attempt at a side-step. However you failed to answer my questions. Do you not think this seeming obsession that you have with excluding people who happen to belong to the Orange Institution from public life has the faint whiff of bigotry about it?
Anon. No.
So you acknowledge that you want anyone with any connection to the Orange Order our of Unionist public life?
Anon – I presume you mean “out of”. I certainly think that people who choose to join a clearly sectarian organisation must have sociopathic tendencies.
You really do seem to be a rather unpleasant individual, Mr Peel. Offensive but also stupid.
Actually Orangeman, no I’m not. I’m told I’m splendid company. Not unpleasant at all. Like Edward Carson just can’t see the attraction of all the old bones and rotten rags.
Let me just unpick your logic.
From your various posts the UUP are useless or malicious or duplicitous or possibly all three. The DUP are pariahs. The Orange Order seem to be some form of unter-mensch unfit for any rational human contact – indeed anyone who has knowingly been in a room with an Orangeman should be treated with caution. Presumably too, from your various posts, those who vote for them are similarly challenged intellectually or psychologically. Well there goes about 85% to 90% of the pro-union population.
Then you call for Cameron to dismiss Owen Paterson to ‘restore confidence’. I can only assume that this means your own confidence as, should he follow your line on the other issues, there will be almost no-one else left in the party.
Of course you could then borrow Sinn Fein’s tag line of ‘ourselves alone’ (if only you could find another party member to meet your standards). Indeed, given your evident displeasure with everything else (except strangely the 3 candidates one of whom is ex DUP(!)), I really wonder if you can cope with the stresses and strains of living in the real world of Northern Ireland, never mind doing what Owen and others are doing, trying to change things for the better for all its people.
Cynic…I’m a former Conservative Branch Chairman, former Conservative Councillor, Former Conservative Parish Councillor, Former Conservative Area Officer, Former Conservative Constituency Chairman. I think I know the Conservative Party and what it is to be a Conservative. All I ask is that the Conservative Party contest elections – as The Conservative Party – in Northern Ireland as it does in England, Scotland and Wales.
erm they did and got 1% of the vote.
Kilsally, and also without any financial support or enthusiasm from CCHQ. The Conservative Party spent more money on Jim Nicholson’s election campaign than it has spent on all previous elections combined in Northern Ireland in the 20 years it has been organised here. The Party has never actively sought a mandate to govern – many people aren’t even aware that the Party was organised here before the pact with the UUP. Moreover the media totally ignored all our campaigns and the Party leadership at no point ever campaigned with any enthusiasm for Conservative candidates. The Party leadership has been luke-warm at best about the Conservatives in NI until David Cameron came along. If the Party flexed its muscle here – even without UUP support – it could easily become a dominant force in NI politics.
…and isn’t it still the Conservative and Unionist Party in England and Wales?
Cynic – no. Party only uses the “and Unionist” title in Scotland for campaiging purposes. The Party used to the the Unionist Party in Scotland.
Its still registered with the Electoral Commission under both names (and the Welsh equivalent)
Cynic you know that’s a spurious point. When’s the last time you heard a journo on network TV referring to the Conservative Party as the Conservative & Unionist Party? The word “Unionist” is only needed in the context of constitutional crisis. Edward Carson considered Unionism to be a political expediency. He couldn’t have expected that this rag-bag collection of Ulster Unionist parties would still be kicking around nearly a century later. We’re stuck in a sectarian time-warp.
As to whether you’re splendid company or not, we can only go by what is on your blog. Since you can apparently dismiss tens of thousands of people whom you have never met as “sociopathic” (Carson never did), it’s tempting to psycho-analyse you as to why you feel the urge to be grossly offensive.
Funny though how someone who boasts of his humanist rationalism resorts to cheap nasty abuse which he would condemn if he found it on A Tangled Web. Dawkins would be proud of you.
Perhaps that’s why Tim Montgomerie has blackballed you.
Orangeman, if you find what I write so grossly offensive why do you visit my site so much? Self abuse perchance? I’d suggest you toddle off and read other blogs. As for Richard Dawkins he did tell me he very much enjoyed my blogging – especially my other site (much neglected these days) at http://conservativehumanist.net/
So, Cheery-Bye Orangeman, and delighted you popped by.
Jeff if you ban members of the Orange Order, then where do you stop? There are lots of religious based fraternities. The Ancient Order of Hibernians, Opus Dei, etc have admitedly none of the same record as the Orange Order, but I’m curious as to what organizations you advocate be excluded.
Shane I’m a Conservative so I don’t like the idea of banning as such. However, I believe the leadership of the Conservative Party should take a dim view of potential candidates that hold membership of organisations that are incompatible with the Conservative Party’s progressive objectives. Organisations don’t need to be banned but it can be made clear that candidates who hold membership of clearly sectarian organisations are much less likely to be selected – especially when up against more tolerant and inclusive nominees. If the Conservatives insist on having this UUP pact then these considerations should be made very clear to the UUP. However it will ring a little hollow when the UUP leader is himself a member of the “loyal orders”. That’s my point. This partnership is flawed at the very core. I know that many members of the Conservative Party locally share my view re. the Orange Order.
Owen Paterson makes the point repeatedly that we’re attempting to replace the politics of Green and Orange with the politics of Blue. No-one will be convinced of this until the Orange issue is resolved.
Jeff,
You certainly do have an obsession with the Orange Order. What about the GAA (grounds named after terrorists)? What about Opus Dei? In England, some of the Conservative MPs are Masons. Should they be banned too?
You need to stand back and accept that in Northern Ireland people may come from different backgrounds and may belong to different groups. Things need time to evolve in the joint Conservative & UUP project. You appear to want a revolution! It ain’t going to happen that way. Give the project time.
Ulster Times
I’m only focusing on the OO because the last time I looked the UUP didn’t have many Opus Dei members or GAA members. I’d also question whether members of those organisations could commit to non-sectarian politics. However, as I’ve said, those organisations do not present a problem in terms of potential joint Conservative & Unionist candidates. It was certainly the case that Ruth Kelly, for example, let her religious convictions get in the way of her ability to define what was sensible government policy. I’d hope you would agree that this site has a consistent theme of arguing the case for secular politics untainted by religious dogma.
“I’d also question whether members of those organisations could commit to non-sectarian politics. ”
Peter McCann was/is a member of the GAA – the GAA is not a religious organization, it cannot be sectarian.
Neither is Opus Dei as such. In fact, Opus Dei draws criticism from traditionalist Catholics for its inclusivity of Protestants.
http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/opus_dei.htm
Hey gimme a break. I’m an Atheist. I’d prefer my politicians untainted by religiosity. But we live in a real world – I accept that. I’m merely saying that candidates should avoid being labelled as favouring their own preferred sect over another. If they stick to that rule they’ll do their jobs better.
“Hey gimme a break. I’m an Atheist. I’d prefer my politicians untainted by religiosity. But we live in a real world – I accept that. I’m merely saying that candidates should avoid being labelled as favouring their own preferred sect over another. If they stick to that rule they’ll do their jobs better.”
Not in the Vatican, and England ( if we are being theocratic) has an established religion.
Everything I was ever going to ask of the UUP had religion attached to it. There is no such thing as private religion in Rome. What has the SDLP or SF done for Catholicism recently?
I had a lot of time for Alex.
Sepian
Sepian, in a funny kinda way so do I. have a lot of time for Alex. We often had our disagreements but often they were caused by the very thing he resigned over i.e. he was often out of the loop. He too is an Atheist and was/is very articulate. Sometimes his ideas were a bit all over the place but in Northern Ireland it’s refreshing to have a free thinker at the heart of the political debate.