Posted by: unionistsnotconservatives | March 4, 2009

UUP and Tories standing under different names

here is the UUP response which highlights the growing chasm between them and the Tories of members of the Orange Order:

Membership of the Loyal Orders will not be a barrier

Following an inacurate statement by the DUP’s Peter Weir which stated that members of the Orange Institution would not be allowed to seek selection the UUP and Conservatives have said;

“Neither the Ulster Unionist Party nor the Conservative Party has any objection to members of any of the Loyal Orders either being members of, or seeking membership of their respective parties.

“Furthermore, when it comes to the selection of candidates to stand under the ‘Ulster Conservatives and Unionists–New Force’ banner, membership of the Loyal Orders will not be a barrier.

“The comments referred to by the DUP are the comments of an individual and are not the view of the UUP-Conservative Joint Working Group.

 

ENDS

 

I would just like to highlight one sentence:

Furthermore, when it comes to the selection of candidates to stand under the ‘Ulster Conservatives and Unionists–New Force’ banner

According to the Tories, candidates will be running as Conservatives and Unionists not “Ulster Conservatives and Unionists – New Force”.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. You are clearly either malicous or an idiot.

    1)The statement makes clear it is a joint statement. It is a Conservative Party statement as well as a UUP one.

    Secondly, Ulster Conservatives and Unionists–New Force is the banner which will be registered with the electoral commission. Accoring to one Tory member parlance will be Conservatives and Unionists, however that is not agreed.

    • do you agree with the tories then, for campaign purposes etc leaflets, posters etc candidtes will be under running as Conservatives and Unionists and not as a UCUNF

  2. *Post Deleted*
    Dont be abusive please

  3. Now that is hilarious…

    People can’t be abusive but you can spout potentially libellous claims about the Conservative Party’s membership policy?

    I suggest you tread a little more carefully about some of the things you are saying young man.

    • sorry who have i libelled? I would retract it immediatley please tell me

    • Is it not the case that one cannot libel apolitical party. ? of course i stand to be corrected.

      Maybe you can clear this up then. Are candidates running under the UCUNF banner or will they be running as Conservative and Unionists?

  4. Candidates will run under the UCUNF banner- that is the clearly agreed line as laid out in the report of the Joint Committee.

    You have claimed that the Conservative Party would reject people based solely on their membership of a certain legal institution. The Conservative Party would find themselves in horrible legal territory if they did so. If you have any examples of them doing so then please let me know. Otherwise, any suggestion that the Party, in its official capacity, would do such a thing (ie that you are openly telling people the Party have and will engaged in such a practice) is a complete and utter mis-representation of the membership policy of the Conservative Party. Making such statements without any back-up is incredibly, erm, dodgy.

    I should also note that my use of the word libel was completely and utterly wrong! On that I apologise.

  5. CUU and Nobby: I would take a guess that you pair are currently in the pay of the UUP; and if so, probably have been for quite a while.

    Membership of the Loyal Orders in my views is purley a matter of choice and conscience for an individual, according to their particular religious beliefs. Aside from the well known religious background of the Orange Order, I see the Institution in action as a powerful cultural outlet and a force for good in many communities; with many members and Lodges active in organising and funding community and charitable activities.

    The point of my contribution is this. From my point of view, being an active community and charitably orientated member of the Orange or other religious order should count in a candidates favour, rather than (in my party’s words) being considered a potential barrier. To be ‘assured’ that being a member of these Institutions ‘will not count against’ me or others is little comfort. I am disappointed by the choice of language here and that my party nor our Leader (Reg) could have taken this opportunity to quash DUP and other attacks by defending and reiterating the many benefits of membership of the Loyal Orders.

  6. Nobby all I have done is repeat what some in the Tory party has said, In Fact all I have done is refer to a DUP statement issued today. It is the statments from Tory members that have generated this story. You state members will run as UNCUF yet as the statement below , made on teh Conservative NI website shows, UCUNF will not appear anywhere on the campaign material

    “Editor, on March 1st, 2009 at 7:40 pm Said:

    Steve I have a certain empathy with your position. Let’s see to what extent the UUP become Conservatives in the near-term and then we can judge. But I repeat that Conservatives and Unionists is the only branding (complete with Conservative colours and logo) that will be used for election purposes and is the only logo that will appear on the ballot paper against C and U candidates.”

  7. JT

    I am not in the pay of the UUP nor have I ever been. I just want it to be perfectly crystally clear that any insinuation that the Party’s official policy, and I stress the word official, is to discriminate against members of the OO is not based on fact and people should be incredibly careful in what they say. On your wider point regarding members of instiutions like the OO being potentially better qualified on account of their community work, I actually agree!

    I stress again, if there are examples of the Conservative Party enagaging in this type of discrimination then let me know. If not, then this discussion today is wholly without foundation.

    • Nobby here is a quote from the DUP statement:
      Jeffrey Peel, who is on record describing the Orange Institution as a “backward-facing, history obsessed, parish pump society”, had this to say:

      ‘[It] is clear that we do have to address the issue of whether members of the Orange Order – or other sectarian organisations – should be permitted to join the Party…”

  8. So the Tories in London will next ban Freemasons from being parliamentary candidates? That would lead to the deselection of a lot of their MPs and a fair few Shadow Cabinet members…

  9. While I believe Jeff should not have said this, the version of the quote used by the DUP is also very selective. It should actually finish by saying that this is a matter for the central party.

    That membership and or candidacy is a matter for the central party it matters not a jot what Mr Peel’s views are on the subject.

    His views are his personal ones and not ones the rules of the Conservative Party presently defend.

  10. Also, there may very well be a case that the Party should reconsider its membership rules (not that I believe there is).

    However, as present rules stand, there is no foundation in the DUPs claim that the Conservative Party would consider such discrimination.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: