The more the UUP advocates change, the more it stays the same - The Irish News view

It is too early to say if Mike Nesbitt’s second coming as leader of the Ulster Unionists represents a new beginning for the party, or if it just reflects the persistent lack of direction which has pervaded unionism generally in recent years.

Either way, Mr Nesbitt faces a massive challenge in trying to increase support for the UUP, which currently stands at about 12 per cent.

Once the dominant force in northern politics, it is not even a major force in unionism today and even unionism itself is now of secondary importance in the north.

So where does Mike Nesbitt go from here? His first speech as leader might have been expected to offer some sort of policy or plan for the UUP’s future. However, it contained little in the way of new ideas.

Newton Emerson: The Treasury tap is back on – but does more money mean more problems for Stormont?

Brian Feeney: Why do unionist leaders say the future can be the same as the past?

Indeed, party deputy leader, Robbie Butler was of the opinion that there was not “a whole lot of difference” between Mr Nesbitt’s speech on Saturday and the one he made when he was elected leader in 2012. Mr Butler supportively interpreted this to mean that ”Mike has unfinished business”.

Others might suggest that offering the same sort of speech 12 years later is unlikely to produce improved electoral results for the party. This lack of fresh thinking was also reflected in Mr Nesbitt’s statement that the UUP needs to be “a party of common sense”. The theme of the party’s conference in Armagh in 2011 was common sense government.

The more the UUP advocates change, the more it stays the same.

Its annual conference offered no sense of ambition, strategy or tactics. It remains stuck without a clear sense of purpose, beyond pointing out that it is not the DUP. That was of little help when the DUP suffered losses in the recent general election. The UUP won only one seat and that was largely due to Robin Swann’s personal popularity.

Mr Nesbitt’s challenging role as UUP leader is matched by the challenges he faces as minister of health. It will therefore be difficult for him to balance his ministerial duties with his plans to rebuild the UUP. However, he must put the health of the people above the health of his party.

Of course, it would be unfair to judge the new leader on the content of his first speech which was delivered remotely because he is currently suffering from Covid. However, as it stands, the UUP is largely directionless, divided and lacking a distinctive identity.

With the next Assembly election three years away, Mr Nesbitt has time to overcome those challenges. Whether he has the political ability to do so, remains to be seen.