Jon Burrows: UUP's newest MLA carries on tradition of men in uniform
Instead, the party went for the former Army officer Colonel Tim Collins, who failed to win the seat.He notoriously told the BBC at the election count that the people of North Down "don't want someone who doesn't live in Northern Ireland"."They're interested in local politics," he added."They're not interested in cutting VAT, they're not interested in international affairs. "They're interested in potholes and hedges."He had already complained during the campaign that he could insure his Rolls Royce in England, where he lived, for what it costs to insure a Ford Fiesta in north Down.But the recruitment of Jon Burrows to replace Colin Crawford, who lasted less than a year in the North Antrim Stormont seat, carries on a tradition within the UUP of seeking to attract oven-ready high(ish) profile representatives who are no strangers to uniforms.Three of the past four leaders of the UUP have been:Steve Aiken, a former Royal Navy submarine commanderDoug Beattie, a former Royal Irish Regiment officer well known for his service in Iraq and AfghanistanMike Nesbitt, a former TV news presenterIn addition, one of its nine current assembly members, Andy Allen, was seriously injured while serving in the Army in Afghanistan.Deputy leader Robbie Butler is a former firefighter.
The policy of bringing in high profile people from other walks of life is not entirely unique to the UUP.For example, Sinn Féin now has an MP, Pat Cullen, better known for her role as boss of a UK-wide nursing trade union.But the UUP unarguably is way out in front for bringing in candidates already well known in other fields. So why?"There is something that attracts seniority to the UUP," says former party staffer Michael Shilliday. "In the old days that was just "big house unionism". "Maybe it's still that."But really it is what the 'decent people' shtick from 2005 was all about."That's why these people see themselves reflected in the UUP."That is a reference to a disastrous 2005 general election campaign slogan: "Decent People Vote Ulster Unionist".
I remember being in the BBC office in Stormont one morning when the party press officer walked in introducing a man he said was a former Royal Navy submarine commander.In what seemed like no time at all, Steve Aiken, to use the hackneyed line, went from the command of one sinking ship to another.When he stepped down, he was replaced by Doug Beattie who promised a "union of people", before things soured.Overseeing the latest changes is Mike Nesbitt, another man who had no grounding in elected politics when he swapped his news anchor role at UTV for an even hotter seat at Stormont.After quitting the leadership the first time, following a disappointing assembly election, he is back.Partly because there was no other obvious candidate and partly because he represented the best chance of salvation for a party which is rapidly using up its quota of last chances.According to former UUP director of communications Alex Kane "it's a hangover from the 1920s when the Ulster Unionists saw themselves as the party of service". "They still do," he adds."Service to the people, service to the country and for them that is represented by a uniform."In a way, Mike Nesbitt is the same. "He was seen in people's living rooms on television each night and that is a form of service too. "The problem is times have changed."But it also reflects a lack of candidates from those already within the ranks who have the track record necessary to win elections and that, long-term, is a problem for the once mighty party of unionism.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
5 minutes ago
- The Independent
Reform's 19-year-old council leader risks contempt of court over rape case comments
A Reform UK council leader risks being found in contempt of court after making a number of statements about the alleged rape of a 12-year-old girl during a press conference in London. It comes after Ahmad Mulakhil, 23, was charged with the rape of a girl in Nuneaton last week. Meanwhile, Mohammad Kabir, also 23, was charged with kidnap and strangulation. Warwickshire Police has not released the immigration status of the two suspects. George Finch - the 19-year-old Warwickshire county council leader - risks having broken the law with a comment he made about the case. Contempt of court refers to behaviour that interferes with the administration of justice or undermines the authority of the court. The Independent is not able to repeat a number of claims Mr Finch makes in the press conference without the newspaper risking contempt of court. At one point during the press conference, Mr Finch acknowledged the risks attached to talking about a live legal case, saying: 'I was told if I released this, I'd be in contempt of court.' The youngest council leader in the country claimed there has been a 'cover-up' of details about the case. It came as Nigel Farage suggested police forces should release information including immigration status about people who are charged with crimes. The Reform UK leader said that he 'absolutely' believes that information should be made available by police forces. In a statement, Warwickshire Police said that once someone is charged with an offence, they follow national guidance, which 'does not include sharing ethnicity or immigration status'. Mr Finch told Monday's press conference that he was 'begging' for information about the two to be released in the wake of the charges. He said he had emailed the council's chief executive to say that he wished to speak to the police force and urge them to release information about the men's immigration status. Mr Finch also said he had later written a letter to home secretary Yvette Cooper and the chief constable of Warwickshire Police calling for the immediate release of the immigration status of the two. Mr Finch also claimed that Reform UK needs to 'change things' and is 'the last line of defence against the blob, the cover-ups'.
The Independent
5 minutes ago
- The Independent
Why has Kemi Badenoch fallen out with Liz Truss?
Dearie me, they're at it again. Former Tory leader Liz Truss and current Tory leader Kemi Badenoch are involved in another nasty spat, mainly about the infamous mini-Budget introduced by then Prime Minister Truss in September 2022. Badenoch has invoked that calamitous – and deeply Conservative – fiscal event in an otherwise routine attack on the government. Truss, ever ready to defend her record, because no one else will, has hit back and told Badenoch she's wrong and needs to do some more thinking, a particularly hurtful jibe when Badenoch thinks herself one of the brainier kids in the Westminster playground. Amusing and mildly diverting as it may be, this minor row also tells us some much bigger things about the Tory dilemma. What did Badenoch say? That Labour is even more incompetent than Truss was: 'For all their mocking of Liz Truss, Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves have not learnt the lessons of the mini-Budget and are making even bigger mistakes. They continue to borrow more and more, unable and unwilling to make the spending cuts needed to balance the books.' Is that new? Not really. Only a few weeks ago, the shadow chancellor, Mel Stride, evicted from ministerial office by Liz Truss when she formed her short-lived government, laid into the mini-Budget and apologised for it. Badenoch, meanwhile, has said she doesn't know whether Truss is still in the Conservative Party, and implied she doesn't really care either way. She's long let it be known she'd prefer Truss to just go quiet for a while. Badenoch has also been disobliging about the Sunak administration 'talking right but acting left'. But Sunak, like Johnson, May and Cameron, has, so far, preferred to ignore the present controversies and policy shifts, such as Badenoch's 'net-zero sceptic' stance. What's the Truss defence? The usual – her supposedly brilliant plan to turbocharge the British economy was thwarted by a terrible econo-bureaucratic blob and those, to the visionary Truss, idiots at the Bank of England. But increasingly she is having to adapt her line because of attacks from her own party (if she is indeed still in it), which means slagging off the administrations that came before her – Cameron, May, Johnson – and after, Sunak and now Badenoch's performance as leader of the opposition: 'It is disappointing that instead of serious thinking like this, Kemi Badenoch is instead repeating spurious narratives. I suspect she is doing this to divert from the real failures of 14 years of Conservative government in which her supporters are particularly implicated.' Er... weren't they both members of these dreadful governments? Yes. Truss continuously from 2012 to her ousting in 2022, and Badenoch from 2019 to 2024. Indeed, it was Truss who promoted Badenoch to the cabinet as international trade secretary. Neither showed much dissent, publicly or privately. Why are they scrapping? Neither wants to take responsibility for their own failures as a party leader, and that can inevitably lead to blame throwing for their disastrous showing at the election, and subsequently. But all politicians in all parties who find themselves thrashed by the voters are faced with this excruciating dilemma as they enter the wilderness of life in opposition: Do they denounce the record and policies of the government they were apparently happy to be a part of? Or do they defend their record instead? Do they agree with the voters' verdict or not? And if they want to, or have to, admit 'mistakes', are they going to be big or smaller ones? How to play it? By ear – there are no hard rules. Back in the 1970s, Margaret Thatcher, as leader of the opposition, did well out of renouncing most of what the Heath government had done because it ended in such chaos, and Thatcher was (like Badenoch today) a relatively junior cabinet member who could claim some innocence. In due course, because public opinion had shifted during the Blair years, David Cameron found that he'd have to criticise Thatcher herself, so he declared that 'there is such a thing as society' and told his fractious party to 'stop banging on about Europe'. Ed Miliband, after Labour's defeat in 2010, never seemed able to make up his mind about whether the Brown administration (in which he served) had failed, and, if so, how and why. Try as he might, Nick Clegg could never grovel sufficiently for what he did on tuition fees in the coalition government, and the Lib Dems were so punished at the 2015 general election that they were left with eight MPs compared to the 56 elected in 2010. At the moment, the Conservative-led government of 2010 to 2024 has few friends and many critics, the most vociferous being some of its leading lights. In this respect, the party is behaving more like Labour traditionally does after a defeat. Thus, after the 1974-79 Labour government fell from power, it was attacked by the Bennites on the Labour left for being too right-wing, and by the social democrats on the right for being too left-wing. Eventually, the long passage of time made arguments about pay policy, union power and unilateralism irrelevant. One day, when people have forgotten who Truss and Badenoch were, they may be ready to give the Tories a hearing. But, with Farage on their right flank, with no qualms about slagging off the last government, the Conservatives may not have the luxury of time to settle their differences and focus their attacks on him.
The Guardian
6 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Spotlight on Keir Starmer's recognition of Palestine
I'm puzzled by the conditions Keir Starmer has set for Israel to meet, failing which he'll recognise Palestine as a state (UK to recognise state of Palestine in September unless Israel holds to a ceasefire, 29 July). Why does recognition depend on Israel's actions? Surely it should depend on Palestine's: commitments to abjure terrorism, disarm Hamas, hold democratic elections and, of course, to release the hostages. As for Israel, UK policy should be to impose draconian sanctions: if Israel continues to act like a pariah state, let it be treated as one. Without sanctions, there would probably still be an apartheid regime in South Africa. The UK must act now, not half-heartedly in September; thousands of children in Gaza can't wait until MaughanDunblane, Perthshire Like so many people in the UK, I thought that my despair and shame over the situation in Gaza could not be deepened. Keir Starmer achieved that. How like this prime minister to obfuscate further and kick any sense of decisiveness into the long grass of contingency. One might think that Britain has some special responsibility for recognising the state of Palestine, whose population it abandoned to the predations of its neighbour in 1948. What will be left of Gaza, the West Bank and its people by September? A genocide? A diaspora? The UK doesn't negotiate with terrorists, just with war Prof Graham MortLancaster University Soon after the atrocities of 7 October 2023 I heard someone on the radio say, with respect to Israel's imminent invasion of Gaza, 'Beware of being goaded by your enemy into doing what your enemy wants you to do.' Nearly two years on, the Israeli government seems hell-bent on creating a moral equivalence between itself and Hamas. If you become like your enemy, then your enemy has won. Thus, despite what it says about recent moves to recognise a Palestinian state, the Israeli government, more than any other, is 'rewarding' Hamas for its terrorist actions. The Rev Rob KelseyBerwick-upon-Tweed, Northumberland It is impossible for us to know the depth of despair Palestinians must feel to hear western nations pontificating that we will not recognise them as a nation if their oppressors stop killing them. It seems this is the ultimate acknowledgment that they have no rights except those we deem to give them. We have expelled them from the land in which they lived to ensure that Europe didn't have the problem of resettling the thousands displaced by a European war. They are being attacked in Gaza and the West Bank with weapons supplied by western governments. They are being starved in Gaza to keep their oppressor-in-chief in office. And now our governments are praised for condescending to recognise the fact that they are a nation (that has existed for more than 1,000 years). How can we think we have any integrity left in our dealings with the oppressed?Michael McLoughlinWallington, London What will give greater weight to the call for a two-state solution is outlining the building blocks for establishment of a Palestinian state: for example, Gaza would be placed under UN control to allow for demilitarisation, the physical reconstruction and drawing up a basic law to guide the development of a constitutional WeirCape Town, South Africa Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
