Open Unionism


A forum to discuss new ideas and perspectives on Unionism…

Analysis: UUP choice for justice minister…

Newspaper reports suggest that the UUP  are poised to back Alban Maginness as Justice Minister. Slugger O’Toole has already pointed to an apparent anomaly in this. So what are the UUP trying to achieve? In the post below W B Maginess considers why the move might be clever politics…

By W B Maginess

Rumours abound that the UUP are going to back Alban Maginness for Justice Minister.  This deserves some analysis.

The principle that d’Hondt should be used to appoint Ministers is one that the UUP have stuck to throughout the debate around devolution.  The SDLP seem to have thought this meant that they would get first refusal at Justice because they have 11th pick in d’Hondt, but of course this is flawed.

Were justice in the mix in 2007, it is inconceivable that Environment or Regional Development would have been selected ahead of Justice.  As a result were d’Hondt to be used to appoint this Minister, all Ministers would need to cease to hold office and the entire thing run again.  The DUP’s argument was that this left it open to Sinn Fein, but of course that is totally disingenuous.  If Sinn Fein and the DUP had a pact not to take the post, then they wouldn’t.  Their aim in not running d’Hondt was to keep the UUP and SDLP out.

However the UUP’s support for Maginness might just rain on David Ford’s parade.

Putting Alban in retains the principle that if there are 11 Department’s, the SDLP should have two of them, even if the order is out of whack with what you could expect.  It also shows the UUP to be willing to share power, but also sensitive powers, with Catholics.  In that sense it is very clever politics.  It also leaves the DUP, Sinn Fein and Alliance in very tricky positions – they did not invisage this when cooking up their deal in March 2009 (for it was then when the real legislation went through for appointing a Justice Minister).

Sinn Fein have no choice but to back an SDLP candidate.  They could not possibly justify to the Nationalist electorate doing the SDLP over in a power sharing Executive in favour of the Alliance Party.  Their votes are being taken as read for Alban, and with good reason.

The DUP are expected to vote against him, but against UUP support for him, how can they justify this?  Can they say that can’t support the SDLP who believe in 50:50 recruitment?  Probably not.  While the Alliance have always opposed the quota too, the recruitment policy is ending next year, and it is not being devolved anyway.  So a Justice Minister whoever he or she is, will have no say whatsoever to do with it.  Alban’s nationalist rhetoric has never been particularly repulsive to Unionists, Alex Atwood he certainly ain’t.  So would the DUP really vote against him just because he is a Nationalist, or worse, a Catholic?

If they do, or even if they are perceived to have, how can David Ford brazen through that?  How can he justify to his members and voters taking the Justice Department on the basis of DUP patronage following their vetoing of a Nationalist backed by a section of unionism?

Should the UUP decide to back the SDLP for the position, they could prove to be the kingmakers from a position of weakness.  What whatever the outcome, Ford’s footsie with the DUP and Sinn Fein can only do him harm in the long run, and the UUP may have shown themselves to be worthy of government again.


Filed under: Uncategorized

3 Responses

  1. fair_deal says:

    Baldrickian in its cleverness

  2. bobballs says:

    Mmm…. and not such a clever comment either. Why not explain why you disagree?

  3. fair_deal says:

    The self-evident should not need articulated.
    1) It continues the UUP mishandling of the issue by making it up as they go along reinforcing the view even among those who agree with opposing P&J that the UUP is not doing it out of any conviction.
    2) It’s the continuation of a dead strategy ie cosying up to the SDLP and Alliance as some sort of alternative centre strategy. Alliance will soon be at the Exec table while Ritchie made it crystal clear that is not the direction she is going.
    3) It makes Sir Reg look bad – he was having apoplexy that it would a “non-Unionist” now the UUP is going a step further and backing a nationalist. Again reinforcing the view of an inconsistent position on the issue.
    4) The UUP in the past had made some decent running on 50:50 now it is backing a Justice minister who believes 50:50 should be extended for another 15 years.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 36 other followers

Open Unionism bookmarks

Our facebook group page

Party histories

Here's the history of the UUP.

Here's the history of the DUP.

Slideshow app for UUP & DUP flickrstreams

Follow this link for a great slideshow from the UUP flickrstream.

Follow this link for a great slideshow from the DUP flickrstream.

UK Parliament on flickr

%d bloggers like this: