Young
Unionists

This blogpiece was sent in by Young Unionist member Roger Da Costa.

With the polls narrowing between Labour and the Conservatives, a young unionist makes a speech suggestion for what David Cameron could have said at the Conservative Party Spring Conference in Brighton – view the UK from a new born child’s perspective, and announce a radical new policy on UK taxation.

“…lets call her Rosie. Her whole life is ahead of her.

Mummy’s taking her out in the Pram today. But what’s this bright new world she sees around her?

Outside her pram she can hear youths in the park. They’re shouting obscene abuse at her mother as they go past, drinking cider from cans and acting like feral cats. Apparently they give abuse to everyone. Why is noone doing anything?

Now Rosie and her mum are walking past her future school. Her mum knows its not a bad school, but she also knows it could be so much better.

Rosie and her mum are on their way to the shops. On the way they pass a queue of people at the Jobcentre, two closed down pubs and a slew of gaudy and badly thought out new buildings.

Rosie’s mum is having to economise at the shop. There’s less coming in than before.

On the way home, Rosie and her mum go past the local hospital. Its just been in the papers. Some people weren’t cared for like they should have been.

When they get home, the postie’s been round. More bills. Mum seems upset.

Rosie wants to know what she can do to stop Mum crying.

Well Rosie, I want to talk to you.

You don’t have to do anything Rosie.

You’ve you’re whole life ahead of you and your mummy loves you very much.

But there is something your mummy and your neighbours can do – vote for a new person to speak for you. Vote for a Conservative person to speak for you.

Because we’ll tackle those youths drinking cider – we’ll crack down on under-priced supermarket booze being sold to underage people. [applause]

We’ll give police and communities the powers they need to get tough on yobs.

[applause]

And we’ll ensure the people have the power to make the police do their jobs!

[applause]

We-will-not-let-the terrible case of Fiona Pilkington happen again!

[applause]

And Rosie, you don’t need to worry about your future school. Your mum’s right. It is a good school – but-it-could-be-so-much-better.

That’s why we’re going to let your mum, and your neighbours, take over that school if they want, or may be even set up a new school.

Because noone has your interests more at heart than your parents.

[applause]

Rosie, we’re going to do something for those people you saw without jobs too.

We’re going to cut the deficit, reduce waste, deliver more for less in our public sector and create an economy made to benefit businesses, growth and individual opportunity –

Not an economy made for public sector trade unions and narrow interest groups!

[applause]

Less jobs in quangos – more jobs in enterprise!

[applause]

And about that run down high street Rosie.

We’ll look after local areas and amenities better.

We’ll reverse Labour’s anti-pub, anti-community policies and we’ll reverse the centralization and bureacratisation of planning.

Local people will make the decisions that count!

[applause]

And that Hospital Rosie?

It’s a real shame what’s being happening there, but its been happening in other places too.

The staff work really hard and are very talented, but they’re busy chasing silly targets invented by silly men far, far away in a place called Whitehall.

[laughter]

Well we’re going to tell those silly men to go away.

We’ll let the Doctors and nurses, and the patients and public where you live decide what the targets should be.

[applause]

Finally, Rosie, I must say you’re a very observant young thing

[laughter].

Because you’re right.

Times are hard right now for your mother.

They’re hard for everyone.

But we’re going to do something about that.

We’re going to let more people keep more of the money they earn.

Which is why I’m announcing today, a new policy.

George and I have talked long and hard about this.

It’s a radical policy.

Its never been done before in Britain.

But the more we looked into it and the more we debated it, the more we realised it’s the right thing to do.

We’re going to change the tax system completely.

Completely.

Its worked in Hong Kong.

Its worked in Estonia.

Its worked in Serbia.

Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania, Georgia, and Russia.

And its going to work in Britain too.

We will introduce a Flat Tax system to the UK!

[applause]

The first £20,000 of evryone’s income will be tax free.

Free.

Neda.

Not a cent, dime, or penny.

Yes, you can keep it.

All of it.

You earned it for goodness sake!

And thereafter, you’ll simply pay 25p in the £ on what you earn.

And that’s it.

Simples, eh?

[laughter]

Even Rosie gets it!

[laughter]

Gordon Brown doesn’t like it at all though.

[laughter]

Neither do all those tax accountants.

[laughter]

Because it just might be that all of us can actually understand the tax system for a change!

Now wouldn’t that be something?

But it wouldn’t just be simpler – it will be a central plank in creating a fairer, better and more prosperous Britain.

One that Rosie could really quite like!

So come on Gordon Brown.

Bring on that election!

Bring it on!

Because the people of Britain face a clear choice.

More Labour failure.

More Labour over-spending

(Oh and do us all a favour Gordon Brown – stop calling it “investment” will you?)

[applause]

More Labour target setting, and more Labour nannying.

Or the alternative.

Tough action on Yobbishness.

More power to the people.

Less power for the Quangocrats.

A dynamic economy, with the proceeds of growth given back to the people who made it.

Opportunity, prosperity and growth.

Conference – lets do this for Britain.

Lets do this for Rosie!

[applause]

[knickers are thrown on to stage, etc]

Yet again we face the effects of Labour’s ill-conceived tampering with the constitution, as by this time next month the United Kingdom will have acquired a Supreme Court. The government in its wisdom has decided that the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, which has effectively carried out its responsibilities for one hundred and thirty years, is no longer sufficient. So at a cost of over £50 million, at a time when we have £800 billion of debt (it may not seem significant in comparsion, but as Tesco keep telling us, every little helps), the government is moving the Law Lords across the street to appearantly do exactly the same thing they are now. So why bother?

The Ministry of Justice claims that introducing a supreme court will, “provide greater clarity in our constitutional arrangements by further separating the judiciary from the legislature”. Therein lies a fundamental problem with the decision – Labour is trying to ensure a separation of powers where none exists. Take for example the anomalous existence of the Lord Chancellor, who as a cabinet minister, head of the judiciary and president of the House of Lords sat in all three branches of government – until this historic high office was abolished by our previous Prime Minister, that is. Under our constitution the executive, legislature and judiciary are deeply intertwined together in Parliament, which is sovereign. While the Law Lords were in the House of Lords, it is therefore arguable that the impact of their rulings on legislation was legitimate, as they were an integral part of the sovereign body. Now they are out of Parliament, the Law Lords, although they have exactly the same role and powers, could potentially undermine parliamentary sovereignty simply by exercising them.

Furthermore, there is the risk a supreme court will assert itself and overstep its powers. The threat of this is more real than you might think, when you consider that it is precisely what the U.S. Supreme Court did. Nowhere in the American Constitution is the court given the power to strike down legislation as unconstitutional, yet the justices awarded it to themselves in 1803 with their ruling in the Marbury v. Madison case. There is little chance any Prime Minister would dare to utter President Andrew Jackson’s response to the Supreme Court striking down his Indian Removal Act in 1832, “the justices have made their decision, now let them enforce it”. Given that the U.S. Supreme Court is still ruling on constitutionality, even Jackson’s stand was insufficient to counter the growth of the court’s power. Already this week we have had the Director of Public Prosecutions in England and Wales redefine the law on assisted suicide – what is to stop the Supreme Court from doing the same?

Why does Labour insist upon change for the sake of change? Our constitution and system of government works. It works well. Yes it occasionally needs tinkered with, but not to the lengths Labour has gone to and wants to go to. The government should be concentrating on the elements of the system that don’t work, such as benefits and welfare or the education mess in England. Then again, these problems require real leadership and determination – two things Brown’s government has consistently failed to provide.

Jeffrey Donaldson’s claim that the DUP are going to change the definition of a victim is nothing more than a political sham with a just sprinkling of public deception. They know that if they tried to introduce the amendment, Sinn Fein will block it without a second thought.

If the DUP had genuine victim’s interests at heart then they would start by admitting and then explaining why they failed to support the Ulster Unionists attempts to change it over a year ago.

At present the current definition of a victim includes all those who were injured, both physically and psychologically, due to an incident during the Troubles. That means the people killed and maimed in the Shankill bomb are victims; however it also means Sean Kelly, the terrorist who planted the bomb, is also a victim. Call it a hierarchy of victims if you want, but Sean Kelly is no more a victim than DUP are not panicking about next years General Election.

When the legislation regarding the introduction for the four victim commissioners was going Stormont the opportunity arose to change the definition of victim there and then. Indeed the DUP Ministers were co-sponsors of the Bill, even though they missed ball at the beginning they still had time to table amendments however they did nothing. The Ulster Unionists were then faced with the impossible logistical task of amending the Bill. However that doesn’t mean they didn’t try; they tabled a number of amendments (which unsprisingly didn’t even get past the Speaker’s Office) and then even brought it to their Executive colleagues.

So it’s a good thing that the DUP have at least started to pay attention to an issue which even a few months ago they tried to actively avoid.  We’ll see how far this gets, however the cynic in me sees this as cheap politicking instead of a genuine attempt to change the definition.

The below blog was written by UYUC Secretary, Stephen Goss.

During my recent travels in the United States, I came to realise we can learn a lot from our cousin across the Atlantic. America has every kind of diversity imaginable; regional, ethnic, religious, to name but a few. It is politically divided – you are either a Democrat or a Republican. Yet, despite all the differences, it is unquestionably one nation. While in Washington D.C., I began to realise why. It became clear to me that all these groups could be one people because it is very simple to be American. America stands for liberty, democracy and equality. If you think they are sound principles, you can be an American and this is how 300 million men and women of every conceivable race, religion and background are bound together.

A form of civic religion has developed to keep this diverse nation united; George Washington is portrayed as Christ-like – an infallable figure who delivered Americans to independence and freedom. The rotunda of the US Capitol depicts his ascension into heaven, while a 555ft obelisk memorial to him borrows from ancient Egyptian methods of venerating the gods. Other notable Presidents are worshipped in Greek and Roman style temples – both Jefferson and Lincoln are immortalised in structures more fitting in the forum than a modern capital. The ‘Charters of Freedom’ (Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights to the rest of us), are displayed like holy relics in what is tantamount to an altar sanctuary at the National Archives.

While these civic religious aspects are perhaps over the top, I do believe we can learn from the American example. What does it mean to be British? The identity was once based upon empire, Christianity and industrial might, but our factories are all but gone, the empire has been reduced to insignificant islands scattered across the globe and Christianity is no longer as popular or dominant as it use to be. Consequently, if we are to stop the UK slowly withering away, we need to redifine what unites us. As can be seen from America, it does not take very much – simply a few vague principles that can be acceptable to the inhabitants of all four constituent countries is enough.

In Northern Ireland the necessity of unifying ideals and concepts is all the greater. So far we’ve had eleven years of peace; it’s about time we started working on the next step – unity. Northern Ireland is neither Irish nor British; it is a fusion of the two and only a concept based on this understanding will bring us together. The people of Northern Ireland come together to ensure peace, we did it in 1998 and again following the recent dissident attacks, yet a desire for continued peace is not enough. We need to establish a Northern Irish identity. It could pehaps stem from a sense of community spirit, and borrowing from the Americans, faith in democracy.

No doubt many will be scathing or simply sceptical about attempts to nurture a new, blended identity, preferring to retreat into the comfort of firmly established ‘Britishness’ or ‘Irishness’. However, this sort of inflexibility is inaccurate and will get us no where in the long term. Whatever shape the identities of Northern Ireland and the UK as a whole should take, they will not be uniform, but will account for the diversity that exists. Although seemingly paradoxical, America demonstrates that unity from diversity is perfectly plausible. If we make the effort, just like them, we too can achieve ‘e pluribus unum’ – from many, one.

The TUC has called for an all out ban on members of the BNP working in the public sector.

Fair enough- why should prejudiced, political, aggravating and confrontational people ever be paid from the public purse? However that would mean that most of those within the TUC wouldn’t be able to work in the public sector either. Hmm maybe that’s not such a bad idea after all…

David Cameron addresses the UUP AGM

It wasn’t that long ago that Members of Parliament were judged by their work and not by the number of shiny suits the owned; they were rewarded with relatively modest salaries and almost non existent expenses. However that day is long gone now and we are left with a raft of MP’s in Northern Ireland who hold 3 or even 4 jobs simultaneously whilst claiming huge expenses for each. All 9 DUP MP’s are also members of the Northern Ireland Assembly. 5 are Minister in the Executive and most of them are members of their local councils.

Our First Minister Peter Robinson and his outspoken wife, Iris, have become notorious throughout the United Kingdom due to the widespread coverage of their huge incomes in this weeks printed press. The Robinson’s claimed a massive £570,000 last year alone between salaries and expenses; they also employ all three children and even a daughter’s husband. It is no wonder they are commonly labelled the Swiss Family Robinson.

However the DUP have now taken the daring step by hoping to add the Swiss Family Dodds to the scene. Councillor Nigel Dodds MP, MLA, Finance Minster and Deputy Leader of the DUP is now hoping that he will be joined on the expenses league table by his wife Diane. The European Parliament is even more open to exploitation than Westminster and since Nigel Dodd’s claimed by far more that any other Northern Ireland MP last year then it is not looking good. However this is all speculative the people of Northern Ireland still have the chance to stop this happening by going out and voting for one of the other candidates for the European Parliament.

It is clear the leaders of the DUP, whether they are the Robinsons, Dodds, Paisleys or McCreas, know how to line their pockets in these tough economic times, but I would really appreciate it if they would share some of their tricks with those who are genuinely facing the threats of financial hardship. But at least we can sleep well at night knowing that we have both put in an honest days work and that we aren’t dependent on ripping off the taxpayers for an income.

The Ulster Unionists are the only party calling for a ban on double, triple or even quadruple jobbing. Since they now have the full backing of the UK Conservative Party they may have the power to change the legislation in the near future under a Conservative Government and that won’t be a minute too soon in my opinion. But I don’t think the Robinsons and Dodd’s will have to think about remortgaging their second homes too soon; they will all retire on healthy pensions, again paid for by me and you.

This blogpiece was written by former Young Unionist and current Ulster Unionist Party member, Graham Truesdale.

Since its foundation in 1905, the Ulster Unionist Council had been closely linked with the Conservative Party. However, the Conservatives were out of office from 1905-15, so there was no opportunity for Unionist MP’s from Ulster to obtain government posts during those years.

1915 Coalition under Asquith

In 1915 the Conservatives entered a wartime Coalition under Liberal Prime Minister Asquith. Sir Edward Carson, the Unionist leader in the House of Commons at Westminster, became Attorney-General for England and Wales (although he was at that time MP for Trinity College, Dublin). John Gordon, Unionist member for South Londonderry, became Attorney-General for Ireland. Carson resigned from the government later in 1915 in a dispute over war policy, and Gordon became a High Court Judge in 1916.

1916 Coalition under Lloyd George

In December 1916 Asquith was replaced as PM by Lloyd George. Sir Edward Carson re-entered government as First Lord of the Admiralty, with a seat in the Cabinet. The next year he became Minister without Portfolio and a member of the War Cabinet – he resigned, again on an issue of war policy, in 1918. In March 1917 James Chambers, Unionist MP for South Belfast, became Solicitor-General for Ireland (he died on 11^th June that year).

1918 election

This election saw a redrawing of constituency boundaries, and an increase in the number of Unionist seats in the future Northern Ireland to 23. Denis Henry, John Gordon’s successor as Unionist MP for South Londonderry, became Solicitor-General for Ireland. James Craig, Unionist MP for Mid Down, became Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Pensions (1919-1920) and Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (1920-1921). In July 1919 Denis Henry was promoted to Attorney-General for Ireland, and Daniel Wilson, Unionist MP for West Down, replaced him as Solicitor-General for Ireland. Wilson became Recorder of Belfast in June 1921, and was replaced as Solicitor-General for Ireland on 12^th June by Thomas Brown, Unionist MP for North Down. On 5^th August 1921, Henry left office as Attorney-General to become the first Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, and Brown briefly replaced him as Attorney-General, before becoming a Northern Ireland High Court Judge himself.

The Stormont Era

Sir Robert William Hugh O’Neill, one of the Westminster MP’s for Antrim was Chairman of the Conservative Members’ (‘1922’) Committee from 1935 to 1939 – a post described as ‘a very influential figure He was Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for India and Burma from 11th September 1939 to 10th May 1940.

Sir Knox Cunningham, MP for South Antrim. Between 1959 and 1963 he was Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Prime Minister Harold Macmillan (a position refereed to as ‘a spare brain’ in the BBC fiction series about PM Francis Urquhart).  In Mr. Macmillan’s resignation honours list, Knox Cunningham was created a Baronet.

Rafton Pounder, MP for South Belfast was Private Secretary to the Secretary of State of Trade and Industry, 1970-1

Robin Chichester-Clark MP for Londonderry was consistently either a Front Bench Spokesman for the Opposition or a member of the Government of Harold Macmillan and, later, Edward Heath. He held the position of Assistant Government Whip, Lord Commissioner of the Treasury, Comptroller of the Household, was Conservative Spokesman for Northern Ireland and on the Arts, Shadow Minister of Public Building and Works and, ultimately, Minister of State for Employment. In 1970 he remained outside the UK government because of the Premiership of his brother in Northern Ireland. When Edward Heath suspended the Stormont Government and Parliament in 1972, he asked Chichester-Clark to go with William Whitelaw to Northern Ireland as Minister of State. Chichester-Clark did not accept but later joined the administration as Minister of State for Employment.

Ulster Unionist Peer

The 7th Marquess of Londonderry, Charles Stewart was a Northern Ireland Senator, 1921-9 and NI Minister for Education, 1921-6. From 1928-35 he was a member of every Cabinet which had Conservative representation, as First Commissioner of Works, Secretary of State for Air, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal

I first met James Leslie in 2002 when he was a Junior Minister at the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister.  From then I knew him as one of lifes good guys, an approchable, genuinly nice man whose Unionism was very close to my own.  I spoke to him last on the 9th of January at a dinner we both attended.

His death whilst on holiday is shocking to all of us.  He was a young man, whose political career was far from over, and who still had much to give the people of Northern Ireland.

He will be deeply missed, and our thoughts are with his family.