Cameron's unionist problem

Tom Griffin (London, OK):Most commentators may see it as a straight fight between Labour and the SNP, but that didn't stop David Cameron making his presence felt in the Glenrothes by-election yesterday: 

"I think it is better for all of us to be in the United Kingdom. However, we won't solve it by frightening the Scots that they cannot make it on their own. I do not believe that. It won't win the argument. One of the first things I will do as Prime Minister is arrange to meet with the First Minister, whoever that may be, and work to further the benefits of the Union for people in Scotland."

Cameron has shown in recent months that he is determined that the Tories should be more than an English party. One aspect of this strategy has been to offset weakness in Scotland through a new relationship with the Ulster Unionists. There are signs that plan may be unravelling.

Frank Millar reported last week that Cameron remains committed to the idea:

However, some previous Conservative backers have confirmed their doubts in light of reports this week of talks between Sir Reg and Traditional Unionist Voice (TUV) leader Jim Allister about a possible unionist voting pact in next year's European election.

"The whole point was to move away from sectarian and tribal politics," one well-placed Conservative told The Irish Times yesterday.

"He certainly won't want to be seen working with anti-agreement unionists.

Alex Kane explained the thinking behind the UUP-TUV talks in the Newsletter:

Unsurprisingly, one of those areas was about the need to secure two out of the three Euro seats. There is a simple reality involved: if there are three or even four pro-Union candidates in the contest and if the supporters of each don't cast second, third and fourth preferences for the other pro-Union candidates, the chances of retaining two seats are greatly diminished.

That argument got short shrift from Liam Clarke:

The Tories are effectively being asked to participate in a transfer pact based openly on the rivalry between the unionist and nationalist communities. That is precisely what they thought they had avoided when, on the urging of David Trimble, they agreed the July article with Empey.

The concern is that it may not even stop at Europe. Some senior Ulster Unionists, like David Burnside, have suggested a voting pact with the DUP at Westminster too. The aim would be to take South Belfast off the SDLP and Fermanagh & South Tyrone from Sinn Féin, by fielding only one unionist candidate in each of these constituencies. This risks making any future Conservative government look hopelessly partisan. 

Over at Three Thousand Versts, Chekov makes an eloquent plea for the Tory-UUP talks to come to fruition:

Read the statement which Empey and Cameron endorsed again. It is about taking Northern Ireland beyond communal politics, involving Northern Irish politicians in national issues, rejecting Ulster ‘nationalism’, forging a broad pan-Union, pro-Union coalition which encompasses the whole United Kingdom. It offers a blueprint for secular, constructive, modern unionism which can transcend traditional divisions and help edge the entire framework of Northern Ireland’s politics away from the constitutional issue. In short, it is the most exciting opportunity presented to civic minded unionists in a generation.

Why are we no longer hearing rhetoric which matches the ambition of the plan which the two leaders put forward? 

The danger for Cameron is that rather than overcoming the sectarian divide, the Conservatives will be sucked into it.