Owen Polley: The Ulster Unionist Party, and its new leader, have some big decisions to make
We still do not know whether the next Ulster Unionist leader will be decided by a contest or a coronation.
Understandably, that question has preoccupied the media since Mike Nesbitt announced his decision to step down.
Since then, the North Antrim MLA, Jon Burrows, has become the favourite to win any leadership election. UUP members are thought to favour him as their next leader and their voice is decisive.
To strengthen the former policeman’s chances, the Fermanagh and South Tyrone MLA, Diana Armstrong, who is likely to become deputy leader, has reportedly backed Mr Burrows rather than his potential rival, Robbie Butler.
It is certainly important that the UUP eventually chooses the right personality. The new leader will have to persuade voters to stick with the party, come back to it if they have drifted away or support it for the first time.
Even more important than his identity, though, as he takes on that task, will be the message he puts across.
When the future of unionism is discussed, the conversation often turns to the prospects of forming a single unionist party or realigning the existing parties. That is a valid debate, but, for now, the health of the UUP is critical to the overall unionist vote.
This newspaper’s editor, Ben Lowry, has argued persuasively that there is a significant part of the pro-Union electorate that will never vote for the DUP. Some of those voters might consider the TUV, but others do not like that option either.
If the UUP does not provide them with an electoral home, those votes will be lost to unionism.
For this reason, a good deal of the party’s internal debate, over the past 10-15 years, has centred on what these people want.
Are they basically Alliance-style liberals with pro-UK leanings, or do these voters crave a strong unionist message, without some of the baggage associated with other parties?
This may be the wrong question. It might be more relevant to ask, if the UUP is not certain what it stands for any more, why would voters bother to find out?
If a party describes itself as ‘unionist’, it should certainly not be seen to be confused on basic matters concerning the Union.
The last two UUP leaders were without question sincere and committed to public service. They also faced hugely complicated challenges. At the same time, they sometimes projected confusion on basic issues.
Doug Beattie clearly recognised that the Irish Sea border was a problem, but he believed that opposing it too vehemently could become counter-productive and might eventually undermine support for the Union.
He wasn’t necessarily wrong.
But it meant he was inclined to play down the sea border’s significance or even portray it as a potential benefit. He also had a habit of philosophising about British identity in a way that implied Northern Ireland’s Britishness would not be affected by diluting our economic and political links with the rest of the UK.
Some of those arguments were rather like the claims Alliance or nationalists made about the Windsor Framework and they had the effect of legitimising it, even if that was not the intention.
Meanwhile, Mike Nesbitt made some of his worst interventions during the period between his two spells as leader.
He told The Australian newspaper, in the aftermath of the Brexit vote, that Northern Ireland would not be worse off as part of an all-Ireland republic, later claiming his comments were taken out of context. He supported the De Souzas’ legal case against automatic British citizenship in Northern Ireland. And he co-sponsored an event at Stormont asking whether Irish citizens here (i.e. almost anybody who wants to claim that citizenship) should be entitled to a vote in European parliamentary elections.
None of these were difficult or complicated calls for a unionist. Nesbitt either aired un-unionist opinions (in the The Australian interview), or boosted campaigns that tried to put this province more at odds with the rest of the UK.
It may sound like a simplistic test, but if the new UUP leader asks himself whether any proposed policy a) helps Northern Ireland play a greater role in national life, or b) makes us more of an exception to the British mainstream, he could sidestep some obvious mistakes.
Meanwhile, at Stormont, none of the unionist parties have as yet properly made the case for implementing long overdue public sector reforms. Nor have they refuted the nationalist-friendly idea that our problems are mostly caused by neglect and underfunding by Westminster, rather than the executive avoiding difficult decisions.
There is an idea, even from representatives who believe we are too reliant on the public sector, that you cannot get elected making these kinds of arguments.
Yet, people in Northern Ireland are not stupid, and increasingly they are reaching the same conclusions themselves. They know that politicians are not telling the truth about public money and that makes them more cynical.
As it selects its new leader, the UUP could have a debate about whether it needs to be liberal or traditional, in order to best reflect potential voters’ views. Alternatively, it could concentrate on why it exists and what it wants to achieve.
I hope that includes Northern Ireland playing as full a role as possible in the UK and it does not involve portraying more public money as the solution to all our problems.