It was time to beat the Shinners at their own game.
So, since his party can't beat any Shinners he prefers to consider supporting someone who might not beat one but at least with the help of unionists could stop one being elected.
The 12.25% that the Shinners polled refers to their first preferences.
The defence forces meet the major costs of this protection (chalk one more social debt to the Shinners and their gangs).
Or could it be concern that the Shinners may be making gains that will, some day, challenge the supremacy of those elite who think they, and only they, have a right to govern?
I'm not sure why I thought that, because I've never really tried bouncing the Shinners but you know it's a terrible risk standing up to them on decommissioning because they have a lot of guns.
Why, instead of playing the Shinners on Shinner turf, did they not try to construct the choice facing the nationalist portion of the electorate as between them and the mafia?
It's a surprise, therefore, to find that the Shinners are enthusiastic supporters of the latest taxi-fare increases.
On the one hand, if you get six or seven Shinners elected, plus a posse of wild and woolly independents, the public demand for a stable government will be very strong.
Given this, it would seem that there is a real challenge in not talking to the Shinners and simultaneously giving that section of the community some stake in the running of the state.