Letter: It is fanciful to think that a single unionist party offering a narrow vision will lead to an increase in the unionist vote
A letter from Alex Swan:
Having read Harry Patterson thoughts (‘Maybe there are too many egos involved but what a shame if unionism doesn't come together and form one united party,’ November 19), I feel compelled to offer an alternative opinion.
His view that a single unionist party offering a narrow vision of unionism will somehow lead to an increase in the unionist vote is fanciful.
In the 1970s many unionists were fearful that politicians in Westminster would do a deal with “Dublin” over their heads resulting in an united Ireland by stealth. This fear drove voter turnout, as electing as many unionists as possible was seen as vital by grassroots unionism – unfortunately I’m not sure this is still the case.
With the provision of a referendum being central to the Good Friday Agreement, could it be that as a consequence of the agreement, significant numbers of unionists are now happy to stay at home on election day? With the result that while opinion polls show consistent support for the Union, support for their political representatives is faltering.
Would a single unionist party with a narrow political and social outlook benefit unionism and address this issue? Would a single unionist party, a concept under strain in 1966, be fit for purpose in 2026?
It seems clear to me that to attract support, political unionism must be seen to deliver for its citizens, jobs, healthcare and infrastructure – and in doing so the Union will be strengthened and our lives enriched!