More Kant and less cant from Parliament Buildings please

For decades the ‘fur coat’ brigade of Ulster Unionism played ‘power house’ (even after Stormont was abolished) with a complete disregard for the lower classes of Unionism who ‘did what they where told’. They took huge risk in the negotiations that led to GFA but post the agreement they didn’t keep their electoral base informed or on board. ‘Politic Grandeur’ attitudes disenfranchised their support base which has almost finished the Ulster Unionists though I know sterling individuals perform hard work to reconnect.

The agitators of the DUP who for decades thrived on attacking the UUP and basically everyone else risked nothing in negotiations and by electoral apathy to the UUP came by popular vote (by those that did vote) to be in a position of real political power which led to our mandatory government set up. For the first time they where in the ‘power house’ and they relished the dominance.

If one looks at “Unionism” there is a roughly equal split of what I would class dedicated constituency workers and what I would class ‘career politicians’ where whole families are in the business of politic – not for love of their constituents or that they have a zeal for social or political reform but business: their role as MLA, MEP, MP or support staff to those has become a commercial family, literally.

They will not take risks that will remove them from the ‘Power House’ of political business – why risk their livelihoods?

In addition, very few of those elected in Unionism actually participated ‘in action’ during the Troubles. I know of only a slight handful who with conviction can state “I put my hand up” and so by experience have a better appreciation of ground truths. It is easier to lead from experience and on the Unionist side such experience is sadly lacking – 14 years after GFA, there are still individuals who refuse to risk the basic common courtesy of a hand shake with former enemies – hardly dynamic?

Risk is alien to most “Unionists” today especially the career types.

On the Nationalist / Republican side of our mandatory government we have the SDLP who like the UUP have suffered electorally – again apathy but I sense a realization in Nationalism that the safest way to avoid violence is to vote for SF i.e. an increased SF electoral success kept the hawks at bay. SF Policy has changed to include the aspirations of these voters and so the SDLP are in a way fighting for a political identity – things are risky enough without rocking ‘the community’.

Then we have SF – with PIRA ‘exiting stage left’ there was, at last, the commitment to the total democratic process. With a sizeable portion of MLAs having been ‘in action’ and / or former prisoners they exude a confidence that only being part of a ‘movement’ can give. They want to move on at a pace in social reform community politics but are ham-stringed by their slow thinking Unionist partners who keep harping back to the past and the damage they did. Their risk needs to be patience, understanding and a less hypocritical approach to festering street sores they created.

As you correctly highlight Eamonn, there is a growing sense of the need “to step outside the box”. The majority of people want evolutionary politics for real: an end to the sectarian inheritance we all have and the creation of investment, jobs and social reform.

I’d happily engage and debate with anyone to bring about truth and consensus – if at first we don’t succeed then try, try again and I’d risk talking, debating & engaging with anyone…. but I am 1 voice ‘crying in the wilderness’ of the wide Unionist family.