With a litany of issues plaguing all facets of Unionism and a pressing need for serious introspection, it is disheartening to see that the key priority for many Unionists—led by the controversial Loyalist Community Council (LCC)—appears to be opposing an Irish language nursery and primary school in East Belfast. In light of this narrow focus, it is little wonder that many are turning away from Unionism. My own journey as a Unionist has been exhausting and frustrating, witnessing a series of humiliations and yielding little in return, leaving me to question whether this movement is—or ever can be—fit for purpose.
In a previous article, I highlighted the growing sense of isolation that many Unionists in the west feel, largely due to their leaders focusing efforts on the eastern parts of Northern Ireland. This was particularly evident during the recent election, where most of the attention was directed towards areas like North Down, East Belfast, and Lagan Valley. Meanwhile, Fermanagh and South Tyrone (FST), a constituency seen as winnable and fielding a single Unionist candidate, was largely overlooked. Doug Beattie, the then leader of the UUP, made only a brief appearance in Moygashel, and I am aware of several letters of complaint from constituents sent to UUP headquarters highlighting the lack of interest from the party’s hierarchy.
From early on, it became clear that, despite FST being a contest between the UUP and Sinn Féin, Unionist infighting would be the decisive factor. The UUP took pride in outmanoeuvring the DUP by announcing their candidate first, forcing the DUP to fall in line behind them. Meanwhile, the TUV candidate was withdrawn at the eleventh hour by party headquarters, against the wishes of the local office and on election day many TUV voters stayed at home. The UUP, satisfied with having “bested” the DUP, admitted to running a lacklustre campaign, claiming it was designed to avoid “spooking” Sinn Féin.
Additionally, the UUP locally expressed its reluctance to continue being the standard-bearer for Unionism in the west, stating this would be their last attempt if they lost, as the seat would no longer be winnable. The towel was well and truly thrown in before the polls had opened. Eastern Unionists appear to agree with the UUP’s assessment and have now deemed FST unwinnable, adding it to a growing list that includes West Tyrone, Mid Ulster, North Belfast, South Belfast, South Down, and, undoubtedly, East Londonderry will soon join this list. For a movement that often regurgitates the mantra of “no surrender,” Unionism is very quick to declare seats as being unwinnable once they’re lost.
In FST, a range of issues contributed to a poor showing for Unionism. While boundary changes didn’t help, I have spoken to many Unionists who didn’t vote for various reasons, including infighting, lack of support from the eastern hierarchies, disillusionment with Unionism, lacklustre campaigning, candidate selection, and a failure to effectively sell their case (where have we heard that before?). Further disgruntlement has arisen in FST following the election with the elevation of Diana Armstrong to the Assembly, with some feeling that the election was merely used to raise her profile rather than a serious attempt to win the Westminster seat. The loss of Tom Elliott from frontline politics—one of the few genuine big hitters in the west—has also led to disillusionment among many western Unionists who fear their voice will be further diminished.
However, from a Unionist perspective, the main takeaway from FST is that the UUP triumphed over other Unionists by selecting their candidate first, and when all is said and done, that’s all that matters.
After speaking with several Unionist candidates who ran in the recent Westminster election, a common sentiment emerged, particularly among western Unionists: a feeling of being left to “fend for themselves.” A variety of reasons were cited for this, ranging from the obligatory infighting within Unionist parties to a lack of resources, compounded by the belief that certain seats were deemed “unwinnable.” Many candidates expressed frustration, noting that not only had their party leaders failed to communicate with them during the campaign, but that party leadership seemed disconnected—so much so that some felt the party hierarchy would struggle to locate their constituencies on a map.
There is a growing sense among Unionists that, outside of areas like Lagan Valley, East Belfast, Bangor, Donaghadee, Ballymena, and Newtownards, the rest of Northern Ireland is of little concern to the main parties. On election night, the DUP candidate for West Tyrone, Tom Buchanan, was notably mentioned by a BBC reporter as “feeling confident.” However, this confidence was only in retaining second place in West Tyrone—a rather dismal position, being 16,000 votes behind Sinn Féin and just 973 votes ahead of the SDLP. In 2001, the UUP held this seat, but today, Unionism’s goal in the region has been reduced to merely clinging to a distant second place and even that looks precarious.
West Tyrone generated minimal interest within Unionism during the campaign. Three Unionist candidates were fielded in what was nothing more than a vanity parade under the pretence of offering voter “choice”, yet reports indicated little active campaigning or engagement and this saturation of unionist candidates with minimal campaigning across constitutes was a notable theme. Tom Buchanan himself was reportedly seen canvassing alone on several occasions. Given how starkly western Unionists feel forgotten, it’s unsurprising that voter turnout has declined and that some Unionists are reconsidering their constitutional preferences or simply staying home. However, Tom Buchanon topped the Unionist league in West Tyrone and when all’s said and done, that’s all that matters.
A recent incident at the South West Acute Hospital in Enniskillen further illustrates this sense of neglect. Health Minister Mike Nesbitt was heavily criticised by local politicians during his visit to the hospital for failing to meet with them, despite repeated demands for such a meeting from both the public and political representatives. The presence of a high-profile Unionist so far west in Northern Ireland is a rare sight—almost akin to spotting a snow tiger. Therefore, perhaps Mike Nesbitt should receive kudos for his whistle-stop visit. However, he remains extremely unpopular with the UUP’s Fermanagh branch following his botched management of the 2015 co-option, which resulted in Neil Sommerville becoming a short-lived MLA and Kenny Donaldson leaving the party. Another UUP councillor, Raymond Farrell, also departed from the party due to Nesbitt’s management. Farrell’s departure was criticised by UUP headquarters with Farrell citing, “They’re (the people of FST) not really worried about someone sitting in a little office in Belfast who is out of touch.”
Mike Nesbitt has returned as leader of the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP), seemingly by default, with all other alternatives exhausted. It came as no surprise that Doug Beattie stepped down after a lacklustre election campaign. However, the party remains as divided and directionless as ever, unsure whether it wants to be liberal or conservative, a softer version of the DUP, or a moderate alternative like the Alliance Party.
Despite the DUP’s significant losses in the recent election, the UUP struggled to land any meaningful blows. The sole bright spot was Robin Swann’s victory in South Antrim, which can largely be attributed to his personal popularity and a protest vote against the DUP incumbent, rather than a genuine resurgence of UUP support. Talks of “shrinking to grow” within the UUP continue, but with the party now even smaller than when Mike Nesbitt last led it, this strategy is increasingly untenable. The UUP needs to find a clear purpose for its existence, as it currently struggles to express itself without constantly referencing either the DUP or the Alliance Party.
The party’s rhetoric is often bogged down in buzzwords like “positive,” “progressive,” “visionary,” and “Union of People,” but its actions tell a different story. The campaign in North Down revealed a particularly negative side of the UUP: when they felt they were in striking distance of a seat, they aggressively targeted independent Unionist Alex Easton, with some members ridiculing his appearance and intellect on social media. Some activists deleted their offensive posts when called out but it was notable that the party leadership remained silent on the issue, continuing to promote empty buzzwords instead.
This type of contradiction is nothing new for the UUP. In Lagan Valley, they highlighted the need for a homegrown candidate, but in South Antrim and North Down, they parachuted a candidate in. Tim Collins, in particular, seemed to know very little about his constituency. They were against pacts but demanded a free run in North Down, FST, and Lagan Valley. Their stance on multiple issues, including the Protocol, has been varied; regarding the Irish language nursery and primary school mentioned at the start of this article, members of the party attended protests against it while others took to social media to support the school and nursery. It is absolutely impossible to pin down the UUP on any position. Like many Unionist parties, it struggles to handle criticism. For example, the party repeatedly ignored concerns about the unsuitability of Tim Collins as a candidate, brushing off his gaffes. Some UUP members even circulated false polling data claiming Collins was leading in North Down, despite it being clear he was not. Such actions damage the party’s credibility, especially when some of the same individuals use similar arguments to defend Northern Ireland’s place in the UK—undermining the Unionist cause when their track record is exposed.
The UUP party conference was rather stale and again became littered with meaningless buzzwords. Mike Nesbitt has opted to revive his previous idea of a “prosperity economy,” emphasising getting up in the morning with a sense of purpose and going to bed with a sense of fulfilment, there’s nothing wrong with this but what does it mean? Having questioned several people in the UUP about what this means in real terms and how they can achieve it, I have yet to receive a substantive response. In no other field, other than politics, could such meaningless platitudes be promoted with impunity, and the UUP is far from the only culprit in this regard. Given the problems facing the UUP, it should have cancelled its conference. Reporters were left to report on how stale and poorly attended the event was with a greying membership, and there were several audio and technical issues and procedural problems, including the ratification of Mike Nesbitt as leader. This does not bode well for a party that boasts about being the party of “common sense.”
At its core, the UUP remains a loosely connected consortium of people with varying degrees of commitment to the Union. It prides itself on being “better mannered” than the DUP but less “woke” than the Alliance Party. In 2024, however, this vague identity is unlikely to be enough. The UUP still suffers from the hangover of having once been Northern Ireland’s ruling party, even though it has not held that position since 1972. Mike Nesbitt will improve the presentation but what meaningful change will be bring?
One of the few bright spots for Unionism in the recent election was Gavin Robinson’s comfortable return as MP for East Belfast, triumphing over a formidable opponent in Naomi Long and despite facing two additional unionist challengers. Robinson benefits from significant goodwill, partly due to the circumstances in which he assumed leadership within the DUP, and his personal popularity often extends beyond that of the party itself. However, this goodwill is not indefinite. To maintain and expand support, Robinson will need to be seen as a reformer, bringing change across the board within the DUP.
Lee Reynolds, a former DUP special advisor, recently wrote an insightful article on the internal changes the party urgently needs, many of which resonate with my own views. Currently, the DUP is synonymous with religious fundamentalism, incompetence, scandal, and corruption, and these negative associations are unlikely to fade without significant reform. A name change alone, though necessary, will not suffice. Without substantive reform in how the party operates and who holds power, rebranding will be a futile exercise. The DUP must overhaul its internal processes, leadership, advisors and engage with a broad section of the public if it wishes to survive politically. Like the UUP, it should have cancelled its party conference. Having a party conference booklet with a glaring grammatical error on the front cover is indicative of the continued missteps of the party.
It has been suggested by some that the loss of seats in the election did not send a clear message to the DUP as the benefactors came from three separate parties, but in reality, the message was unmistakable. Take, for example, Ian Paisley, who has been embroiled in multiple scandals. At no point has the DUP taken meaningful action to discipline him or remove him from his position. Ultimately, voters grew tired of his repeated controversies and took matters into their own hands by voting to remove him. This voter-driven accountability should not have been necessary. The DUP needs to establish clear, transparent mechanisms for addressing disciplinary issues internally, and it must be seen to take decisive action when necessary. Gone are the days when scandals can be brushed under the carpet or dismissed with sentiments like “Ian will be Ian.”
The loss of Paul Girvan in South Antrim was a harsh wake-up call for the party. Privately, many within the DUP anticipated this outcome, attributing it to Girvan’s invisibility both in his constituency and in Westminster. This sentiment was frequently echoed by constituents and capitalised on by his opponents. If the DUP was aware of these concerns, why did it fail to act? The party must conduct an internal audit to assess the effectiveness of its local constituency offices and its representatives across Northern Ireland. Issues must be addressed proactively, rather than waiting for the electorate to intervene.
Lagan Valley was always going to be a challenging seat for the DUP, especially following Jeffrey Donaldson’s departure and the nature of the accusations surrounding him. The charges Donaldson faces cast a long shadow over both the DUP and Unionism more broadly. The DUP will struggle to distance itself from this, and Donaldson’s legacy will likely affect the party for some time to come.
Compounding the individual issues within constituencies is the fact that the DUP faces a profound trust deficit. A spate of scandals over the years has exhausted the public and it’s always a case of when and not if the next one will appear. Its inability to acknowledge its mistakes—particularly in the handling of Brexit—and its persistent tendency to shift blame onto others only serves to further alienate voters. The party needs to take responsibility for its failures, clearly outline how it plans to address the significant challenges facing Northern Ireland, and present a cohesive vision that people can support. The DUP cannot expect other Unionists to rally behind it while it appears directionless and perpetually in crisis mode. The lack of new talent coming into the party should also raise alarm bells but this is an issue that
While Gavin Robinson maintains a level of popularity, he needs to raise his profile further and be seen leading on key issues affecting both Unionism and Northern Ireland. Several immediate issues beyond the DUP’s focus require attention, including the spate of attacks on the East Belfast GAA club and the controversies surrounding the building of an Irish language school in East Belfast. Although there has been some online condemnation, there is a growing sense that on these issues, and many others within Unionism, there is a power vacuum. This space is often filled by individuals like Jamie Bryson, who has much to say on many topics but a horrendous track record in terms of success.
Bryson’s work as a “McKenzie Friend” has seen numerous people he has represented hit with significant legal costs. He has been involved in countless legal disputes and seems to have an endless list of cases moving through the courts, including a challenge against Ards and North Down Council regarding their Union flag policy. This is compounded by a Twitter feed that focuses more on antagonism than constructive Unionist activism, with many tweets contradicting his previous statements and any perceived “victories” short-lived, all dished out to a rapidly depleting appreciative audience.
While I don’t seek to deny Jamie Bryson his right to free speech, I have serious concerns about the platform he enjoys, particularly the disproportionate airtime on the BBC, the connections he maintains within various Unionist parties, and the damage he inflicts on Unionism. His tweets and messages seem solely aimed at causing division, attacking individuals, and contradicting almost every topic he touches upon. Bryson continually attacks the violent wings of Republicanism, yet is happy to defend loyalist paramilitaries, even appearing on the BBC defending the East Belfast UVF. He lambasted the UUP as weak sellouts leading up to the 2023 council elections before publicly voting for them. A staunch defender of British values, Bryson has also openly mocked many British soldiers, including Doug Beattie, and while he voices concerns over the erosion of Orange parades across Northern Ireland, he insists on having more but rarely, if ever, attends them and certainly doesn’t participate within them. Instead, he prefers to tweet about them from the comfort of his home.
Unionists, myself included, are guilty of allowing Jamie Bryson unlimited airtime to promote his views as if they represent mainstream Unionism. In doing so, we have allowed Unionism to be mocked, derided, and caricatured, and frankly, we deserve nothing else. Unionism urgently needs new representatives across all media platforms, including TV, radio, newspapers, and online forums.
Another lone wolf in Unionism is Jim Allister. While politically very capable, Allister revels in being the antagonist to progress. He has the luxury of being able to oppose everything, as he will never be in a position of power and probably wouldn’t want to be anyway. While he does have some good points to make at times, his message is undermined by an overwhelming tone of negativity and defeatism. His brand also leaves Unionism open to caricatures while accentuating much of the infighting and toxicity that exists within the movement. Ironically, his electoral success will result in his platform being reduced. With less speaking time in Westminster—often to an empty chamber—Allister will now rely more than ever on his BBC appearances to get his message across. I still feel that when he retires, so too will the TUV.
Jim Allister speaking to an empty or disinterested chamber in Westminster is something all Unionists have faced, and it cannot be ignored. If having a voice in Westminster is so important, Unionism will need to demonstrate why.
The lack of civic Unionist forums in Northern Ireland to discuss and collaborate on Unionist concerns remains a glaring issue. While a few small online groups exist, they lack real-world engagement and have little presence. In contrast, the nationalist camp boasts multiple groups, widespread engagement, and numerous forums dedicated to furthering their cause. Unionism is poorly organised at the grassroots level, evident in the absence of clear leadership among loyalists, who are instead represented by figures like Jamie Bryson and the Loyalist Communities Council (LCC). The LCC itself is extremely controversial. Its goal was to transition loyalist paramilitaries away from violence, but with these groups still active, it is clear the LCC is failing. Worse still, the LCC now acts as a spokesperson for these paramilitary groups, meeting with the Education Minister to oppose the construction of an Irish language nursery and primary school. The LCC’s role has become a major problem within Unionism and needs to be addressed, potentially to the point of disbandment.
Unionism, and by extension loyalism, has become obsessed with what it opposes, pouring the majority of its energy into resistance. Rarely, if ever, is a positive case put forward for the Union, leaving opponents to easily point out that there is none. Unionists oppose the Irish language school but do little to address the significant educational underachievement within Unionist communities. They heavily criticise IRA commemorations; yet, this criticism is undermined when the same Unionists (including politicians) attend loyalist paramilitary parades or negotiate policies with active paramilitary groups. They oppose people like Leo Varadkar advocating for Irish unification but fail to present a counter-case for the Union. Unionists oppose unification while, ironically, doing everything possible to make it possible. Unionism must start driving forward messages and initiatives of its own rather than latching onto everything it opposes, which usually ends up being implemented anyway.
If I were a Nationalist, I would be advocating for a border poll immediately, especially given the current disarray within Unionism. A referendum now could catch Unionism off guard, and it would certainly struggle to present a unified, positive, and substantive message. The only crumb of comfort for Unionism is that Nationalism has yet to deliver a compelling case, but this could change, and a referendum will eventually be called. Unionism, in its present form, is unfit for purpose; it hinders the Union and will continue to decline on its current trajectory. It has nothing of substance to contribute on key issues like the economy, immigration, healthcare, and education etc. Instead, it reacts to events and crises and engages in constant firefighting, remaining perpetually on the back foot. There are no clear signs that Unionism is prepared to listen and take corrective action, which could lead to a realignment. Unfortunately, its main priorities appear to be personalities, division, toxicity, infighting and pettiness. Realistically, what’s more important than who tops the unionist mini-league in West Tyrone at the next Westminster election? Unionism is truly in a sorry state, and whilst I am not currently on a constitutional road to Damascus, Unionism is doing everything possible to change that.
Choyaa is a Fermanagh Orangeman
Discover more from Slugger O’Toole
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
