UUP conference: plans for recovery

On the eve of a key anniversary, the Ulster Unionist Party saw its conference as a platform for launching relevant policies. Opinions, though, differ on the party’s way ahead within unionism. Peter Cheney reports.

After a tumultuous first six months in post, Mike Nesbitt gave an assured first conference speech as UUP leader but many questions remain over whether his party can make the comeback he is aiming for.

The hand of Edward Carson loomed large over proceedings at Titanic Belfast. While the DUP and TUV also claim to be Carson’s true heirs, the Ulster Unionists have the closest historical link to the events of 1912.

Nesbitt deliberately started his speech by looking forward to how the current generation of unionism would be perceived 100 years from now. His pitch was a pluralist one, styling his party as “not a religious organisation” but open to Protestants, Catholics and others. This echoed Carson’s hopes for the Northern Ireland Parliament i.e. setting an example of “good government, fair government, honest government, and a government not for sections or factions, but for all”.

Stormont, of course, often governed in the best interests of unionism but Nesbitt set a balanced tone: social justice and the end of sectarianism. Compared to the DUP, he seemed more willing to reassure nationalists that they did not have to fear voluntary coalition.

“Let me nail the big misconception about our view on opposition,” he stated. “It’s not about the Ulster Unionist Party looking for a return to majority rule. I cannot see a time when Northern Ireland will not require a cross-community government.”

Nesbitt is clearly a confident speaker but his long speech had to cover a wide range of bases, to keep different wings of the party on board and outline policies on the economy, education, health, housing and culture (see box).

“Less input, more output” summarised the change in culture that he wanted to see. Fewer government departments, though, would not mean cutting civil servants: currently a workforce of 27,800.

He maintained that unionism’s open, liberal and progressive attitude had a long history, as far back as Scottish Enlightenment thinker Francis Hutcheson, born in Saintfield in 1694. On the more recent past, he pointedly stated: “Whatever needed fixed in this country in 1968 or 1969, no one needed to die.”

Ten years ago, DUP activists were predicting the UUP’s imminent demise. A single unionist party remains a long-term goal for Peter Robinson. Mike Nesbitt is keen to demonstrate UUP-DUP cooperation, particularly over the Covenant centenary, and his ambivalence over contesting the forthcoming Mid Ulster byelection has been interpreted as another step towards unionist unity.

The concept, though, is rejected by liberal unionists such as former deputy Assembly group leader John McCallister who fear that it would reduce every policy issue to a unionist-nationalist battle and inevitably be dominated by the DUP. Ian Paisley, interestingl y, is another critic, recalling how the Anglo-Irish Agreement campaign led to personality clashes.

As the Young Unionist debate on the day indicated, there is still support for taking the UUP into opposition. Inside the Executive, the party faces the problem of taking the blame for bad news while the DUP and Sinn Féin take credit for good news. However, most party members appear wedded to the idea of being a p art y of go vernment , especially aft er running S tormo nt bet ween 1 921 and 1972.

Delegates received the speech well, as expected after Nesbit t’s overwhelming win as leader earlier in the year. One observer detected less “fight” in either the UUP or SDLP, compared to the Alliance Party, and felt that Nesbitt was preaching to the converted rather than projecting a vision for voters beyond the hall.

The departures of David McNarry and Ken Maginnis have left the UUP with a smaller but p ote ntially more unit ed b l ock o f r epresenta tives. O ne of t he ma i n questions facing the party is whether it has a reached a baseline from which it can recover elec torally. In the 201 1 Assembly election, it polled 87,531 first preferences compared to 102,361 votes for the UCUNF pact in 2010 and 103,145 for the UUP in 2007.

Nesbitt has insisted on playing the long game rather than making sudden moves. If he decides aga inst cont esti ng Mid Ulster, his first electoral test is likely to be in June 2014, when the European and loca l g ov ern m ent p olls take place simultaneously. To make the most of that, he will need to keep an often divided party united over the next 18 months and also convince more voters that the UUP has relevant policies and the competence to deliver them.

Nesbitt’s key proposals

Economy

• Initially reduce the SME rate of corporation tax (currently 20 per cent)
• Increase infrastructure investment if lower corporation tax is unavailable
• Focus support on STEM, tourism, agri-food, creative industries and the social economy
• A more ambitious export strategy

Education

• Pupil bonus scheme with extra funding for pupils from low income families
• Streamlined system for dismissing under-performing teachers
• Make school inspections independent of the Department of Education
• Review free school meals as a deprivation indicator

Health

• Graduated minimum alcohol pricing
• Ban smoking in cars with children
• Opt-out system for organ donation
• Teach first aid in all schools

Housing

• Mortgage relief scheme
• Encourage mixed tenure and mixed income housing
• Separate Housing Executive’s strategic, regulatory and landlord roles
• Retain direct housing benefit payments

Culture

• Dissolve DCAL when Stormont is restructured
• Transfer cultural policy to new education and economy departments
• Maximise potential of genealogical tourism
• Transfer control of libraries to local councils