Slugger O'Toole

Conversation, politics and stray insights

The beginning of the end?

Mon 15 May 2006, 8:48pm

My thoughts on this morning’s proceedings are now up on the Guardian site. The atmosphere was polite and light. The Assembly staff glad to see the old place filled with activity again. What it means will not be obvious in any short term outcomes, but there’s no one talking about pressing ‘nuclear buttons’.

Share 'The beginning of the end?' on Delicious Share 'The beginning of the end?' on Digg Share 'The beginning of the end?' on Facebook Share 'The beginning of the end?' on Google+ Share 'The beginning of the end?' on LinkedIn Share 'The beginning of the end?' on Pinterest Share 'The beginning of the end?' on reddit Share 'The beginning of the end?' on StumbleUpon Share 'The beginning of the end?' on Twitter Share 'The beginning of the end?' on Add to Bookmarks Share 'The beginning of the end?' on Email Share 'The beginning of the end?' on Print Friendly

Comments (12)

  1. Pete Baker (profile) says:

    I suspect the atmosphere may have a lot to do with the simple realisation, by everyone bar the overly-optimistic, that the next six weeks is all about the optics.

    Their eyes are on November and avoiding any potential blame for now.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  2. Keith says:

    It certainly seemed that it was a day of going through the motions, even the slight controversy of Ervine didn’t upset the waters too much.

    What do you think?
    Judge it
    (Log in or register to mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  3. missfitz says:

    Something like the ‘Stormont Shuffle’ Pete?

    Sounded very touchy feely, and I think there is little doubt that the Ballymena murder had a sobering influence on people.

    Who knows, maybe it wont last, but the future is sectarian if we cant nip it now.

    BTW, was not impressed by Suzanne Breen’s piece on Talkback. She was on the other day saying she hadnt slept in days as she lives in the Holyland. She sounded grumpy as f@*% and wanted nowt to do with a Stormont government or any other government come to that! Worth a listen, if you get a chance.

    What do you think?
    Judge it
    (Log in or register to mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  4. Pete Baker (profile) says:

    Something like that, missfitz.

    SF are boycotting the proposed debates on everything bar the nominations to an executive.. where I’d suggest they’ve already secured the rights to the footage of Ian Paisley saying ‘No’ in response to Gerry’s proposal – and I’d expect that footage to re-appear in future election broadcasts.. the UUP might even have slot for it.

    So, no public shows of dissent and/or slips in the rhetoric from SF within the chamber.

    Possible stormy exchanges between the Unionist parties though.. even with everyone on best behaviour for the cameras.

    Tight PR control is the standing order for the foreseeable future – i.e until the deadline really starts to close in.

    Coming to Stormont in September – The Hain Assembly : Mission Impossible II

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  5. missfitz says:

    Iandiana Paisley and the parliament of doom?

    Or is that trying too hard?

    What do you think?
    Judge it
    (Log in or register to mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  6. Pete Baker (profile) says:

    Maybe just a little bit ;)

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  7. Rubicon says:

    “Their eyes are on November and avoiding any potential blame for now.”

    Did somebody forgot to tell Reg that?

    What do you think?
    Judge it
    (Log in or register to mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  8. Rubicon says:

    Interesting piece Mike – particularly, “Party insiders claim the party was compelled by the assembly house rules to name him now, at the beginning of the assembly (when there is little prospect of an executive any time soon).”

    If this is what they thought then they were badly advised.

    The rule of party counts being locked to the seats declared on the 1st day of the Assembly applied to the “old” Assembly – but not to the Hain-Assembly. The Hain-Assembly allows for new groupings/parties to form at anytime between now and Nov. 24th once the First & Deputy First Minister is elected and Ministers appointed (using party strengths at that time). This change was made to the NI Bill 2006 (now Act) during its passage through the Lords (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds06/text/60508-13.htm).

    Now – here comes the REAL HOWLER – the government accepted the amendment that was tabled by Lord Maginnis of Drumglass!!

    What do you think?
    Judge it
    (Log in or register to mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  9. Alan says:

    I’m sure the UU’s thought it better to get the flak over Ervine out of the way now, rather than in the 72 hour Assembly session on the 25 November.

    What do you think?
    Judge it
    (Log in or register to mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  10. Rubicon says:

    I doubt that Alan – Mike’s information seems more plausible. Reg need not have waited until the 11th hour – but he could have consulted with his Council and grassroots before making this jump. It smacks of many things – and being hurried is one of them.

    As it stands it doesn’t the ‘pact’ doesn’t even appear to have been communicated to their own peers. What kind of party does not keep an eye on NI legislation as it passes through Westminster? Having failed to do this they also failed to read the Standing Orders of the Assembly.

    What do you think?
    Judge it
    (Log in or register to mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  11. Rubicon says:

    I’d no write-off the existence of sexism among UUP MLAs – it most certainly is there. I’m not sure it was the reason behind not including Sylvia in the consultation since it would appear that UUP peers in the Lords weren’t consulted either (http://www.sluggerotoole.com/index.php/weblog/comments/the_beginning_of_the_end/).

    It seems clear that Reg ignored what was happening in Westminster.

    There was no reason for the UUP to form a “group” with the PUP at this time. If the motive was to put pressure on the UVF to cease its armed campaign by tempting them with improved representation in the political process (as Reg has again claimed this morning) then it was senseless to make the deal now.

    If Reg was pressured by the media as to the TIMING of his decision we’d be closer to learning the truth; a cack-handed attempt to gain power (without gaining it), done for the wrong reasons, done in the wrong way and at the wrong time.

    What do you think?
    Judge it
    (Log in or register to mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  12. Rubicon says:

    Sorry – just posted the above on the wrong thread!

    What do you think?
    Judge it
    (Log in or register to mark as offensive)
    Commend 0

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Copyright © 2003 - 2012 Slugger O'Toole Ltd. All rights reserved.
Powered by WordPress; produced by Puffbox.
49 queries. 0.332 seconds.