Diane Splits the Unionist vote

I read with dismay the decision by the DUP to nominate Dianne Dodd’s as their European candidate. The last thing Unionism needs is the DUP standing a third candidate out of nowhere and splitting the vote. The DUP claim to be in favour of unionist unity but the DUP’s decision to stand a third candidate against two sitting MEP’s makes a non-sense of this. This DUP tactic is a throwback to the days when the DUP willingly backed vote splitting candidates to hand Westminster seats to Sinn Fein and the SDLP

What is even more ridiculous are Diane Dodd’s claims that only the DUP can beat Sinn Fein thus in her words,

“Denying Sinn Fein a license to parade on the world stage claiming to be the voice of Northern Ireland.”

Under the DUP’s watch Sinn Fein has gone from 2 ministers to 5 and thanks to the DUP Martin McGuiness is the co-equal first minister. The DUP handed Sinn Fein a license to parade on the world stage as leaders of Northern Ireland. It therefore smack’s of rank hypocrisy that Diane Dodd’s claims she wants to defeat her government bed fellows and deny Sinn Fein a license that her own party handed them long ago.

I thought the Dromore by-election would have taught the DUP that they can no-longer rely on a shot up party brand to get their candidates elected. The people of Northern Ireland have woken up to the DUP’s broken promises. On the DUP’s watch parents have been left in the dark about their children’s future, the era of stop start government has returned and policing and justice is being introduced on a timetable to suit Sinn Fein. The DUP promised us they were getting it right when they were getting it wrong, they heralded a fair deal and came back with a raw one. Diane Dodds will wheel out the same hollow rhetoric and empty promises in the run up to the European election but I urge the people of Lisburn to choose experience and competence over questionable name recognition. Vote for Jim Nicholson an Ulster Unionist MEP with 19 years experience and a proven track record of representing Northern Ireland at the highest levels within the EU.

DUP fails Victims

Many of us have been outraged by the suggestions contained within the Eames Bradley report. The suggestion that paramilitaries of any shade or opinion will enjoy equal status with innocent victims of terrorism is abhorrent to the vast majority of the population.
Also the idea that the pain and trauma of the families of victims can be given a monetary value is crude and distasteful. The sacrifice of innocent victims during the troubles must be honoured. These victims deserve to be remembered and their sacrifice honoured.
What saddens me most is that most of the mistakes of this scandalous report could have been avoided if the definition of victim had been correctly defined during the Victims and survivors debate last year. The DUP chose to dodge this crucial issue and no definition of a victim was included in the act. What is even more damning is that the DUP refused to support the Ulster Unionists Party’s repeated attempts to protect innocent victims by clearly defining who a victim was.
If the DUP had stuck to their guns during the Victims debate then the definition of victim would have been laid to rest.

Why can't google move on?

As a compulsive trawler of the NI political parties websites I am often frustrated by the Google blurbs beneath the party sites. Your initial thought must be "flip me Alex you are sad2 that is probably true but I also have a point.

For example

DUP
I won't hazard a guess at whether or not DUP members consider their party religiously fundamentalist "Religiously Fundamentalist" but the opposed to the St Andrews agreement is a bit of a blast from the past. Or perhaps this blurb is just the last glimmer of the DUP's conscience.


And now Sinn Fein

Now if DUPer MLA's arn't allowed to call the Shinners the political Wing of the IRA then perhaps google should restrain itself in the interest of fairness. So far it looks like Google are working fro Jim Alister


Now for the UUP


Nothing wrong here. We actually update our website occasionally.

Time for the Stoops


Now I am not sure whether the SDLP would consider themselves a "catholic party" but i suggest you read the SDLP Youths policy paper on LGBT Rights that might answer that question for you.


I would mention the Alliance but no-one else does so I don;t see why I should

Conservatives 10 points ahead

A Populus released today in the Times showed a 4 point increase in Conservative support taking them to 43%. When asked "How would you vote if there was a general election tomorrow" 33% of people replied Labour, 43% replied Conservative and 15% replied Lib Dem.

What is even more surprising is the change in what I consider to be the "big questions" Who do you trust most to deal with Britain's economic problems" Brown and Darling 38% Cameron and Osbourne 35%. On a scale of 1-10 Brown scored a 4.97 and Cameron scored a 4.94 on "How they reacted to the economic crisis". Finally on "the right leader to lead us through the recession" Cameron and Brown are tied on 37%. This is amazing as only 2 months ago brown led by 52% to Cameron's 32% on this question.

The "Brown Bounce" looks a little limp but this is unsurprising. Whenever we enter a time of uncertainty I believe that people are naturally inclined to prefer "the devil they know" however after 6 or so months of falling growth and rising unemployment I think we may have reached the point were people are prepared to take a risk and vote for the new faces. Another factor in labours falling support is undoubtably the huge cost and modest effects of their economic policy. When asked what worries you most about the downturn on a scale of 0-100 the fear of paying higher taxes to pay of browns debt was 72.7 and rising government borrowing was 4th with 72.5.

The Conservative Party obviously shares these fears. Yesterday David Cameron and George Osbourne launched a campaign to raise awareness about government borrowing. George Osbourne said,

“Britain’s debt burden will not be paid off by unspecified people at an unspecified date. It will be paid by us and by our children. It means families will have to work longer. It means, if Labour get their way, we will all pay higher taxes.”

That one certainly hit the nail of public opinion on the head.

It remains for us to watch this space and see if the conservatives can take th initiative on the economy. The real challenge the conservatives face is doing this from the opposition benches. Labours position in government will inevitably give them the initiative in the economic debate as they have the ability to act here and now. However my closing thought is that Labours past economic policy has empohasised spending and lots of it. This can only work in the short term and when the coffers are empty there will be a hell of a bill to pay

Bill of Rights is unworkable

On the 60th anniversary of the announcement of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights it is a pity that the rights agenda has been so feebly and ridiculously hijacked by Monica McWilliams and her Bill of Rights. The commission is split over the issue with Daphne Trimble and Jonathan Bell vocally dissenting against the bill and its easy to see why. If the assembly adopts this it would simply become the longest suicide note in history

Monica McWilliams had two choices when drafting this bill. Either she could make a sensible and moderate suggestion to cater the principles of the Human Rights Act to our special local situation or she could propose a ridiculously radical document in a feeble attempt to advance the human rights agenda in a way that would be utterly rejected at the ballot box.

For me there are 2 tests that the Bill of Rights has to satisfy before I can even consider supporting it. The First test is whether or not the Bill of Rights will move power away from democratically elected politicians to unelected judges. The second is whether or not proposals like this would be accepted in the UK.

The first test is failed in a style so monumental and grand that it brings to mind images of a lead titanic. Judges will be given a range of overarching powers including the ability to decide what constitutes a fair wage, they can strike down assembly or Westminster legislation. They can force the Assembly or Westminster to legislate on demand. In effect this Bill of Rights grants the Judiciary such vast legislative power that the NI Judiciary would effectively be the legislature. A Judicial dictatorship.

This would also undoubtably rewrite Northern Irelands constitutional position. With this acts passage the Act of Union becomes a legal fiction. Northern Ireland would become a place apart in the UK. The Bill of Rights grants Judges the power to rule whether or not a raft of UK legislation can apply to Northern Ireland. This is so disgraceful it is simply mindboggling.

There is also the issue of the effective devolution of social policy from ministers to the courts. Under the new bill (p33) ridiculously extends the grounds on which people cannot be discriminated on. These grounds are now (deep breath)

“race, membership of Irish traveller community, colour, ethnicity, descent, sex, pregnancy, maternity, civil, family, or carer status, language, religion or belief,political or other opinion, birth, national or social origin, nationality, economic status, association wit a minority, sexual orientation, gender, identity, age, disability health status , genetic or other pre-disposition toward illness. Irrelevant criminal record, property or a combination of any of these grounds, on the basis of characteristics associated with any of these grounds, or any other status (So judges can add to this list as they like).

It would be easier (and shorter) to just name the 1.7 million odd people in Northern Ireland.

Page 108 legislation must be enacted to recognise all the victims of the NI conflict and to ensure that their rights are protected". Erm bill of wrongs anyone

p. 116 - "everyone has the right to an adequate standard of living sufficient for that person and their dependents". Who decides oh yeah the judges. What is an adequate standard of living, what is sufficient.

P.121 - "everyone has the right to work, which includes the right to the opportunity to gain their living by work which they freely choose or accept". What does this mean for welfare reform? Will the government have to create a job for everyone who wants one?

P. 124 - "workers have the right to strike and the right to engage in collective bargaining". There is later clause which allows Judges to pick and choose which UK labours laws apply here. This would undo the trade=2 0union reforms of the 1980s which were maintained by Blair.

p. 128 - "everyone has the right to social security ..." Do we really want judges deciding on the balance that needs to be struck on social security issues? Have they any idea of budgetary constraints or the need for extra tax to be raised for it

I think the first test of whether it will de-democracise the exercise of power has been answered. My answer to the second test can also be easily found

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/nov/04/rights-bill-jack-straw
0A
Labour ministers have seen something not a million miles away from this to be introduced to Britain and they told Jack Straw to stuff it because it was undemocratic and gave vast powers to Judges. Case closed for me I’m afraid.

What they have done is stuck to a highly politicised agenda which doesn’t address issues specific to Northern Ireland. This Bill amounts to nothing more than a wish list by McWilliams for a “wouldn’t it be lovely NI” were everyone has a job and a reasonable standard of living but no provision has been given how this will be achieved or who will pay for it. Another result will be that a decade on Northern Ireland is no closer to a reasonable Bill of Rights that will be accepted by all sides. All this will do is increase political division in and already fragile assembly and result in the binning of 10 years of work.

Nick Cleggs Lib Dems shift to the right?

Gladstone once stated that 'The Labour movement is but the tail of the great Liberal lion'. Over the past twenty years the reverse was the case with the Lib Dems becoming a petal on Labours rose by adopting many Labour policies and indeed at times trying to portray itself as the left alternative to Labour. Since assuming the mantle of Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg has attempted and failed to offer the Lib Dems as a viable alternative by putting some distance between themselves and their rivals. Clegg has failed mainly due to little media coverage and a lack of interest among the general public.

At the recent Lib Dem conference Clegg had an opportunity to present his alternative, now that the dust has settled from the Labour and Lib Dem conferences I would like to examine whether Clegg has been able to manouver his party out of Labour's shadow.


The conference certainly seemed to mark a shift back towards the centre with a combination of populist causes (e.g. Gurkha's) and his headline grabbing commitment to tax cuts. Clegg certainly came out of the conference looking very much the classical liberal (that some Conservatives aspire to) and quite at odds withe the left in his own party or indeed the one nation toryism of Cameron. This caused Michael Brown to quip in the Independant "If Vote Blue, Go Green was the new Tory slogan introduced by David Cameron, is Nick Clegg's Liberal Democrat party now inviting us to "Vote Lib-Dem, Go Blue"? "


How has this gone down with the public - The August survey by ICM puts the Conservatives on 41%, down three points from last month. Labour is up three on 32% with the Liberal Democrats on 18%. Being the only party to pledge tax cuts at this stage appears not to have helped and unfortunately for Clegg he finds his Lib Dem's languishing in third and quite a distance off the other two parties. Again much of this could perhaps be put down to poor media coverage, some Lib Dem's certainly don't seem happy. Clegg and his revamped Lib Dems appears not to have been able to make a breakthrough at his only real opportunity (the party conference) to get a large amount of public support for their policy. Attempting to put clear water between themselves and Labour has not helped, perhaps bad timing is at fault as many Labour voters are looking around for an alternative to the current Govt. that many view as inept.

'Better to die than be a coward'

The above title is the motto of the Gurkha's. Taking a lead from Ormiston over on Redemptions Son I would like to highlight the plight of Gurkha veterans who are attempting to become citizens of the UK. Lets look at the facts-



-Gurkha's have served in the British Army since 1817
-They have received over 6,500 military decorations
-About 200,000 of them fought for the UK in both world wars, 43,000 were killed or wounded
-Gurkha's discharged before 1 July 1997 face the difficult requirement of proving 'close ties' to the UK
-Falklands and World War Two veterans have been refused citizenship
-Gurkha's who retired prior to 1 July 1997 get one quarter of the pension given to those retiring later
-There are Seventeen thousand applications to join the Gurkha's every year, only the top two hundred and thirty are accepted
-If the Gurkha's get what they are asking for it is estimated to cost only £200 million



Here is a link to the petition on the PM's website. Finally I would like to leave you with a quote from the website of this Pressure Group.


'As I write these last words, my thoughts return to you who were my comrades, the stubborn and indomitable peasants of Nepal. Once more I hear the laughter with which you greeted every hardship. Once more I see you in your bivouacs or about your fires, on forced march or in the trenches, now shivering with wet and cold, now scorched by a pitiless and burning sun. Uncomplaining you endure hunger and thirst and wounds; and at the last your unwavering lines disappear into the smoke and wrath of battle. Bravest of the brave, most generous of the generous, never had country more faithful friends than you.'

The words of Professor Sir Ralph Turner, MC, who served with the 3rd Queen Alexandra's Own Gurkha Rifles in the First World War.