The dust has settled on the general election. What was predicted to be a predictable and boring outcome proved anything but.
Whilst the headline figures of unionism and nationalism did not shift hugely from 2019, something needs to be considered and debated within unionism over the coming years, and that is a new approach to Westminster.
Far be it from this Irish nationalist to mark the homework of unionism, but to save us all from another dead-end conversation on unionist unity, there is some merit in considering something totally new, and part of the answer lies with the separatist movement in Quebec.
Have you ever heard of the Bloc Quebecois? Formed in the early 1990s, it is a separatist party that fights elections for the Canadian parliament only.
At the provincial level in the Quebec National Assembly, it works with host parties that are either nationalist or outright separatists. Quebec separatists have a plurality of choices at the provincial level but just one at the federal level.
Why does this work? The Bloc Quebecois is a completely different party with its own leadership team. It makes its own decisions about how to vote in the Canadian parliament and works openly with different parties at the provincial level.
Unionist politicians regularly argue that ‘divided unionism cannot win seats’. In places like Lagan Valley, this proved to be the case, and it was almost the case in East Derry and East Antrim.
But if those who shout the loudest about the cause of unity are serious, then they have to propose something better than ‘unity on my terms only’.
A new party that only contests Westminster elections, on the terms as the Bloc Quebecois do in Canada, is the only viable way forward for this idea.
Creating a big tent that can accommodate Alex Easton, Jim Allister, Gavin Robinson and Robin Swann will be challenging. Still, it is also the only realistic option for those who are serious about making it happen.
For the first time since 1997, unionism has elected three parties to represent it on the House of Commons benches. Whether having these various strands of unionist opinion represented by three different parties and an independent is effective remains to be seen.
But hard choices lie ahead about what to do in key constituencies at the next general election. If the unionist vote declines and there is a divided field, there is a potential for just six pro-union MPs to be returned.
Creating a new political force is neither a panacea nor a cure for all the political ills plaguing the pro-union cause. However, there is broad acknowledgement amongst them that some form of new thinking is required going forward.
The former DUP special advisor Lee Reynolds has made this very case about looking at Quebec. Achieving this requires starting this conversation seriously now.
This will entail a significant sacrifice for the DUP, UUP and TUV. For the DUP, it means vacating some prime real estate at Westminster that it has occupied in a leading position for two decades. For the UUP and TUV, it means giving up the spot in the House of Commons that you’ve worked so hard to gain.
Yet these are the sacrifices Robinson, Allister and Beattie must consider if they want something new to happen. None of it is easy to contemplate, but the alternative could be worse.
A new party that only contests Westminster elections, on the terms as the Bloc Quebecois do in Canada, is the only viable way forward for the idea of unionist unity
Gone are the days when unionism could confidently rely on winning 10 seats without breaking much of a sweat. As of today, they hold eight, and some of them are on shaky ground.
The low turnout on July 4, particularly within some heartland unionist areas, should give all of the parties some pause for thought about the public’s enthusiasm for what is currently on offer.
Over the next few years, we will see the true appetite for unionist unity and whether the DUP, UUP and TUV could contemplate life as parties content with sitting in the Assembly and local councils.
The Bloc Quebecois demonstrates how this model can work, and it might well end up being the only real option that they have left.