Members of Fermanagh TUV have decided not to contest the forthcoming by-election for a seat on the local council. According to Jim Allister they came to this decision because they did not want to split the Unionist vote and thereby hand an additional seat to Sinn Fein. This was the correct decision, made for the right reasons, born of a sound understanding of electoral procedures. It is to be welcomed and I want to congratulate Fermanagh TUV for making this decision and putting the Union ahead of party.

This commendable decision on the part of Fermanagh TUV raises some very serious questions of their Upper Bann colleagues. TUV Upper Bann Secretary, Cllr Mark Russell has stated publicly:

"On the accusation of vote splitting (something that cannot be done in a PR election) let me make clear that my family and I… now refuse to (vote DUP) because they treacherously accepted SF/IRA into government." (Lurgan Mail, April 1 2008)

He further stated in the same publication a week later:

"Those opposed to the TUV and traditional unionist principles frequently talk about the TUV splitting the vote. However, in reality this argument has no merit. By contesting elections the TUV will be giving anti-agreement unionists a party to vote for and will therefore be maximising the unionist vote rather than diminishing it."

These statements were made in defence of the Upper Bann TUV publicly stated policy of splitting the Unionist vote in the full knowledge that this course of action risks handing Sinn Fein an additional Westminster seat, additional Assembly seat and additional £1 million.

So my questions are: why is it that the TUV regard a DUP held council seat in Fermanagh as being of greater strategic value to the Union than a DUP held Westminster seat or a UUP held Assembly seat? Why is it unthinkable that Sinn Fein be gift wrapped an additional council seat and the few quid in expenses that this would bring but that an additional Westminster seat, Assembly seat and £1 million is acceptable? Why is it that the TUV in Fermanagh accept (correctly) that in a PR election the vote can be split, but the TUV in Upper Bann (erroneously) believe that it cannot?

Perhaps these are the wrong questions; perhaps the real question is whether or not Upper Bann TUV are out of step with the rest of their colleagues.

EDITOR'S NOTE:- the publication date referred to was actually April 3, 2008.