Why are there no liberal unionists? Not Liberal Unionists, as in nineteenth century politicians (mostly English) who were Liberals but supported the Union and opposed Gladstone's home rule policy. No. Unionists who are even a teensy bit left of centre, not way out on the left wing drowning, not waving goodbye.
Last year people wondered at the meaning of the strange rash of flags fluttering at the interfaces of impoverished loyalist and republican urban districts. Fenian districts favoured Palestinian flags and Prod districts Israeli. The first questions a lot of people asked were, where on earth people bought them and who was the genius of a salesman who had persuaded scores of eejits to part with their money to buy flags of places thousands of miles away? Like, what dope bought the first Israeli flag and the first Palestinian one? You can see a stream of dopes copying just to annoy the other side, but who started it?
Sorry, a digression. The real question quickly became why republicans supported Palestinians and loyalists the Israelis. It transpired the line of support was true of nationalists and unionists in general and it was put down to oppressed people versus siege mentality, planter versus native, imperialism versus liberation and so on.
Fair enough. But why does it transfer to everything else? Schools are back this week. There is incontrovertible evidence that the present transfer system has done terrible damage to children of working-class Protestants. Only a vanishingly small number pass the 11 plus and go to grammar schools, even fewer to university. Yet you will not hear any spokesman from either of the two main unionist parties demanding a system which would benefit the majority of their voters' children. Indeed, only people from the unionist micro-parties fronting for the UVF and UDA even mention the problem.
Yet on the other side of the fence Sinn Féin and SDLP are unanimous in advocating change. Why should this be so?
Read any of the policy documents of the UUP and DUP and have a look at their economic proposals: it won't take long. Woefully short on specifics as they are, they still make Lady Hacksaw sound like Che Guevara. Look at the pamphlets produced by unionist ginger groups if you can bear it; if social or economic issues are mentioned at all, they're viewed from a right-wing perspective. Why do unionist MPs tend to gravitate towards right-wing Conservatives at Westminster?
That's not to say that SF and the SDLP are full of radical socialists. On the contrary, economics is an issue both parties are happy to equivocate about. There are plenty of green Tories in both SF and the SDLP but they keep quiet. Not much point splitting the party on something you have no control over. So SF now claims Martin McGuinness and Bairbre de Brun had no control over the public/private finance systems they introduced to education and health as ministers. Just like sitting in Stormont. They're agin it but they have to do it. Hmm. Then of course we'll be in a united Ireland when their grand-children are paying back the costs of PPP won't we, so they can abolish it. But isn't Bertie at it too?
Look at societal issues. Unionists have opposed every social reform in the last 40 years: from abolishing the property qualification for local government voting, establishing a fair points system for housing, the Housing Executive itself, right through to the Fair Employment Commission, they've been against them all. Now they're attacking the Equality Commission, surely a suicidal tactic for a political party in any normal society? They exult at a chance to wreck the Human Rights Commission before it wrecks itself. And so on and so on. Why?
Yeah, sure, it's obvious that unionist politicians feel threatened by mere equality just as poor white trash in Alabama does. Isn't that why the north was set up? Everyone knows that. It still doesn't answer the question why there are no left-of-centre unionists. There must be. Do they all hold their nose and vote in ethnic solidarity for a party with repugnant social and economic policies? Are they all waiting for Labour to organise here before they vote? Don't bet on it. It's because no unionist leader will admit the truth of the Rev John Dunlop's argument, namely there's no security or justice for unionists which does not embrace security, or justice for everyone. They won't admit that all the changes they oppose are for unionists' benefit too. So they teach their supporters to be reactionary. Being liberal is a non-unionist activity like being a communist in Alabama is un-American.
