Not unexpectedly, Peter Robinson has been elected leader of the DUP with Nigel Dodds as deputy leader, the BBC reports they were officially proposed by Sammy Wilson and Arlene Foster. RTÉ report
Assembly members unanimously agreed a joint nomination of Mr Robinson and Mr Dodds and will go to the party’s 120-member executive committee on Thursday night to have the nominations formally ratified.
Adds Mark Devenport quotes the leader-designate – “Stalin is not dead”
Writer Christopher Hitchens has died aged 62. He was as contrary as he was brilliant. Here is a brief In Memoriam from Vanity Fair (his outlet of choice since 1992) and, here, a longer tribute from his friend Christopher Buckley Stanley in The New Yorker. Better, perhaps, though to post one of Hitchens’ own writings in [...] read our review »
Not according to metallurgists Tim Foecke and Jennifer Hooper McCarty whose research has suggested that dodgy Harland and Wolff rivets were at fault for allowing the Titanic’s hull to be ripped apart by the pressure of the iceberg impact. With six of the hull’s chambers exposed to the Atlantic waters, the “unsinkable” ship lasted less [...] read our review »
Are you confused about ‘dissident’ Irish Republicanism? Anxious about its existence and its seemingly increasingly deadly capabilities? Martyn Frampton’s new book, Legion of the Rearguard: Dissident Irish Republicanism (Irish Academic Press, 2011) serves both as a primer on active dissident groups and a timely analysis of their historic significance and contemporary capabilities. This book clears [...] read our review »
What would you have the new DUP leader do differently? Any clues about what sort of place you want Northern Ireland to be in the future or just more abuse for Paisley because of what it was in the past?
God knows, your sceptical, challenging attitude towards authority is so screamingly obvious it’s a wonder, Dr FYI, how anyone could ever have doubted it, and mistaken you for one of the lesser pigs in Animal Farm. Still, Old Major, sorry, I mean, Papa Croc has cursed you with one final defect – spacecadetry. Or, to put that another way, ‘Any chance of answering my questions instead of personal abuse?’ Dr FYI asks, save, erm, for the tiny, teeny problem that he never actually asked me any questions. Feel free. Unlike you and the whole, unfortunate why-do-call-Paisley-Dr-when-he-plainly-isn’t-one? business, I’ll do my best to answer any you care to ask me.
Um, Dr FYI, tell us more about the Northern Ireland that was so bad in the past? Other than the Provo terrorism, the worst thing I remember about the ‘old’ Norn Iron was Paisley’s canting sectarianism. Still, it’s been wonderfully illuminating that all afternoon you haven’t dared even once challenge the fact that Paisley was and is a sectarian bigot. That would have been fun, but still, careful, careful, careful, eh? – there are ambitions to pursue and people to suck up to. Poor old Dr FYI, it’s a lonely little furrow he’s been manfully ploughing today. I may soon have to promote him to Prof. FYI for his repeated act of Squealer-like valour.
Ahem
What would you have the new DUP leader do differently? Any clues about what sort of place you want Northern Ireland to be in the future or just more abuse for Paisley because of what it was in the past?
Ahem : Um, Dr FYI, tell us more about the Northern Ireland that was so bad in the past? Other than the Provo terrorism, the worst thing I remember about the ‘old’ Norn Iron was Paisley’s canting sectarianism
And you are boolocking FYI for being myopic? You just took a share of the throne of Hypocracy
Ahem
Interesting that someone who apparently left the UUP over the link up with the UVF cites Paisley alongside Provo terrorism as the worst of the old days in Northern Ireland. Says a lot.
“The Watchman
What do you want the DUP to do?
Posted by FYI on Apr 14, 2008 @ 04:56 PM”
Your question has already been answered in Tandragee on 25 April 1998. I forget by whom, but I believe he was once arrested in Clontibret and had to hand over a lot of punts:
“The hapless fools who ask what our alternative is to such a process are implicitly suggesting there is no alternative to a united Ireland process. They are not entitled to make that claim as there are many alternatives to Dublin Rule. Complete and total integration within the United Kingdom is one such alternative and the fashion of devolution given recently to Scotland within the United Kingdom is another. However, these pint-sized political thinkers are not really asking “have you got an alternative?” They are implicitly asking “what alternative have you that the IRA will accept?”
Kindly answer the questions out.
What would you like to see the DUP doing differently?
How would what you want to see the DUP doing differently strengthen the Union?
put, not out
As it happens, learned rev. Dr Prof FYI, I have complete confidence that the new leader (who I support, remember) will start, indeed, has started doing what I want. Namely, stop chuckling. Start remembering, as both Paisley and Trimble forgot as they revelled in the old PM’s office they found themselves in, that the settlement isn’t static, it’s fluid. That as the Provos will constantly try both to undermine it, and ensure that either way it flows in their direction, we need to get our blows in at them first – they are *not* our reconciled partners in peace, they’re murdering terrorists whose ‘military’ campaign bankrupted them, leaving them no option but to come to whatever terms they could get. Terms we should still further reduce (something Paisley failed utterly to do). And starting the needed work to move national political discourse to outrage at the blatantly undemocratic nature of mandatory ‘power sharing’ is another key task for the new leader. As (and here you’re not going to be much use) is encouraging both Unionist unity *and* unionist turnout.
The problem with you – and it is a problem with you personally, unfortunately – is that your credentials as an interlocutor are terminally undermined by your inability to concede past error. If, for example, you too want secretly to applaud ‘an end to chuckling’, how can you when you are, as this thread has tediously demonstrated, seemingly biologically incapable of conceding that Papacroc ever made a mistake? That’s the problem with having been in a cult all your political life – now that the reprogramming has begun, you’re liable to more than a little incoherence.
I’ve answered your questions already for flip’s sake! So I’ll repeat myself one last time: unrepentant terrorists in possession of a private army should not be in government. Remember that position? It was what the DUP fought elections on, and over which it destroyed Trimble and the UUP. It was what the DUP believed before it sold out and you know it as well as I do. Stop making yourself look ridiculous, FYI. The only people who have changed are the power-hungry DUPers, the traditional unionists haven’t.
Didn’t know Robinson had repented over the arms he brought in!! There you go. Can you provide a link saying that he did? Otherwise, you look a little bit hypocritical Watchman! (oh, and if you think he didn;t, then Gerry was never in the ‘Ra either!).
Watchman:
And this from a man who used to make a virtue of his own honesty against those shifty Glengall Street types.
The fundamental crux of your argument seems to be that Paisley had a reputation for being trustworthy up until the process that led to the St Andrew’s Agreement.
Paisley has welched, backtracked and screwed up so many times it’s hard to know where to start. He exploited other people for his own ends and pushed other people out of the way for no reason other than to get himself into the top spot. Is it really credible to say that he is a trustworthy leader or a qualified negotiator ?
The other idiots in this game are the unionist voters who slavishly voted for anyone who said “no” loudly enough, as per your Robinson quote from 1998, without stopping for five seconds to think about the hypocrisy of it, or of the likely outcome of such sheer intransigence. They have allowed themselves to be led up the garden path. It’s time they stopped and began thinking outside of the box. If Unionism had used the ample opportunities to build alliances and forge relationships with the British and Irish governments as well as address the perceptions of inequality, this sorry mess never would have arisen. The word “no” has no record of delivery for the unionist electorate.
So I’ll repeat myself one last time: unrepentant terrorists in possession of a private army should not be in government. Remember that position?
What, you mean like Vanguard and the UUUC who were voted in by the unionist electorate and won all but one of the Westminster seats ? Oh, sorry, I forgot. Prods with private armies are allowed. Maybe you mean like the UVF/Hugh Smyth who was Lord Mayor in 1993 after the DUP abstained in the vote ? Oh, sorry, I forgot. Loyalist paramilitaries in local government are allowed. I think you’re going to have to explain more clearly what the rules are, and why you think the DUP (and their contemporaries) did not violate them until recently.
By the way I’m absolutely not dead, I’m very much alive. Quite what that has to do with anything I’m not sure.
lead up the garden path…. nae way, more like the Grand Ole Duke of Yorke
Ahem
Don’t underestimate the DUP. They have two Drs you know – Paisley and McCrea.
Yes unionists fighting amongst themselves. How original and indeed beneficial. I’ll get on with actually taking the fight to the shinners instead thats more important.
“As someone who supported Ross for years, one of the most work-shy UUP MPs (and that is some stretch) you’re in no position to lecture others about their talents or lack of them.”
Well actually my MP for a long time was Clifford Forsythe, who was admittedly less than inspiring. But as for Ross- or indeed Molyneaux, who has alos been criticised in the past for lack of effort- I am quite happy to say they weren’t work-shy. Each did the job he was actually elected to do i.e. go to Westminster and try to have the government make as few laws as possible, beyond strong borders and a strong pound- and did it to my satisfaction.The fact that we rarely had either is due to the shortcomings of others.
I want my MP to be on the green benches in Westminster fixing problems with NHS dentists, not wittering on the Steven Nolan show about his constituents’ teeth being precious to him. How long before our MLAs- so filled with their own self-importance become media gadflies like Nick Clegg? Do you really want Nigel Dodds telling you how many times he pulled at university?
If you think an MP should be a social worker more fool you, as it encourages the bastards to interfere and regulate our lives. Arlene bloody Foster wants to stop me smoking in my car for heaven’s sake! More law is never good law, as the 1970s UUP group understood well- even Harold McCusker and occasionally John Carson.
Some of the most pointless human beings on the planet are MLAs (from all parties), reading speeches they don’t really understand, prepared for them by staffers in the assembly, or sending out the same press release with only the name changed to different regional newspapers.Have you never watched Stormont Live ( a breach of the Trades Description Act if their ever was one)
Oh yes, the DUP have 3000 offices or more, about which they boast at length, as if they perform some great service to the community. Well in some cases they may, but they are processing centres for grievances, and could just as easy be run by the Saint Vincent de Paul or Sally Ann- for a lot less money.
The MLAs of the type you seem to favour have failed to take any political decisions of significance on any matter whatsover in the current assembly-at least the Shinners last time round in abolishing the 11 plus and moving children’s hospital care to the Royal took controversial decisions. Give me Forsythe, Ross and co any day.
“has started doing what I want. Namely, stop chuckling.”
Agreed
“the settlement isn’t static, it’s fluid. That as the Provos will constantly try both to undermine it, and ensure that either way it flows in their direction, we need to get our blows in at them first”
Agreed
“they are *not* our reconciled partners in peace, they’re murdering terrorists whose ‘military’ campaign bankrupted them, leaving them no option but to come to whatever terms they could get.”
Agreed
“Terms we should still further reduce.”
Agreed
“And starting the needed work to move national political discourse to outrage at the blatantly undemocratic nature of mandatory ‘power sharing’ is another key task for the new leader.”
Agreed
“encouraging both Unionist unity *and* unionist turnout.”
Agreed
I said at the start of this discussion that Paisley laid a good foundation, now Robinson can build on it. Fair deal but not the final destination?
Well, that has been one of the spikiest confrontations for some time.
As for:
It would be instructive to hear from these great politcal intellects what a truly-democratic settlement might mean.
Might I suggest, for the sake of discussion, a couple of points from the Better Government of Ireland Act of 1920:
Surely, neither can be denied by a true loyalist: both are the declared wish of the Imperial Parliament; and look at what it says here, “Le Roi le veult.”
Then, “democracy” might be applied to the realities of life:
Now that would be a truly worthwhile thread.
Malcolm,
Not being difficult but as I suggested in the Uncivil War blog; the render onto Caesar comment has a number of interpretations.
It can be understood as you say. It can also be that since everything is God’s then actually nothing is Caesar’s. Remember that the context of the question was that if our Lord had opposed giving taxes to Caesar he could have been arrested by the Romans; had he backed taxes by the Romans he might have lost public support.
An analysis I understand is that Jesus was actually saying that you should have loyality to God not Caesar but did it in such a way that the Jews understood he was saying that, yet it was impossible to arrest him.
“encouraging both Unionist unity *and* unionist turnout.”
there’s no prospect of Unionist unity under Punt. His squabble with Reg Empey- for which neither is blameless- means neither has the breadth of vision to risk party advantage for community benefit.
Watch the pointless rows about F & ST versus South Belfast start up all over again. Remember it was under Robinson that the DUP jeapordised Powell in S Down in 1979, and of course lost Cooper the F & ST seat with proxy candidate Jim Dixon. Likewise Molyneaux nixed Allister in East Antrim and others for selfish ends
Both parties should just be honest and fight all the seats, but not pretend they would have been generous if the other lot had only shared their vision.
As for increasing Unionist turnout- Trimble’s constant goal- the volte face of the DUP last year disillusioned many traditional supporters. So they’ll naturally be pleased that we have a home in TUV, right? I’ve never voted for a pro-Agreement candidate, and I’m certainly not giving my vote to the DUP to exploit again.
Of course Trimble had limited success in encouraging the garden centre prods out to his moderate approach- hence the careers of Sylvia Hermon, James Cooper, and Dermot Nesbitt, yet far from welcoming the liberal vote to the total, Robinson and co attacked them for being liberal! Alliance type Unionists aren’t going to vote for Willie McCrea type candidates. So that’s just more cant from FYI
Paisley didn’t lay your foundation, Trimble did. As one voter said to Dodds in Dromore recently, “When next I see David Trimble I’m going to apologise to him , for at least he was an honest traitor!” You may object to the terminology, but your foundation stone was GFA, and giving the building a lick of orange paint ain’t ever going to change that
Posted by The Watchman on Apr 14, 2008 @ 05:37 PM
They are implicitly asking “what alternative have you that the IRA will accept?”
No they weren’t. Robbo was wrong about that and so are you. They are implicitly asking “what alternative have you that the British Government will accept?” You lot never got it and still don’t.
Certainly for me the biggest coming failure (good to get the negative Nelly act going good and early, eh?) of the Punt’s leadership of Unionism is that he hasn’t effectively reached out to old skool, current or ex-UUPers. Why hasn’t there been a staged defection of a UUP MLA, or even a few non-entity cllrs whose seats are about to be abolished and would quite like to be re-selected? And why haven’t the sotto voce discussions – ‘you’ll get a cmte chairmanship’, ‘well, there is the Strasbourg seat to fill …’ &c;- been better handled?
If the DUP stays too ‘Paisleyite’, it’s going to continue alienating the plentiful snob Unionist vote who can’t any longer vote UUP, but equally aren’t quite there yet in terms of voting for the DUP. I fear a definite, post-Paisley missed opportunity is a afoot – chiefly because, as Darth says, of a failure of vision. But also because there’s a silly, unforgiving quality to the the Punt. Who is, let us not forget, hardly young enough to learn too many new tricks.
As the poet almost had it
Which is to say, even if you have shown the nous to cling on for half a century and finally get the top job, and then install your cronies in all the key places, it’s not, as Gordon shows you on a daily basis, necessarily going to be enough. Think bigger than you’ve been used to doing. Try some optimism and some uplift. The middle class snobs *will* vote for you, but you do have to make the effort to get them. And they are the biggest single floating demographic out there left for you to be able to gobble up.
Whenever the report is published at Westminster about MPs’ expenses: i.e. the “John Lewis” List it will be fun to read how the former estate agent uses public monies – who has one house for example and his wife has another in London – etc etc
For the record Robinson did not serve his leader well at all:
If there where ‘back channels’ to the IRA do you think both the leader and him new nothing?
It has been suggested that information about Paisley’s son was leaked from within the party itself thus to damage the father. Who give authorisation?
Who runs a PR cell full of ex-UUPers instead of traditional DUPers thus giving the impression thus foregoing principle for power.
Who give permission for Jeffery Donaldson to become junior minister, thus becoming senior to more long standing DUP MLAs? What is the relationship between the incoming FM and JD?
our new national anthem
“The wondrous world of punt” by Therion
You can google it, I’m too old to work the link
BTW, I see the FAIR poll has now been removed from their website. Didn’t like what way the result was going, then caught out messing around with it. Jeepers-oh, a field trip to Zimbabwe called for – at least they know how to rig a poll!
Turgon @ 10:19 AM:
Not being difficult but as I suggested in the Uncivil War blog; the render onto Caesar comment has a number of interpretations.
Indeed. That’s why it’s theology. And why I did a degree that required some degree of consistency, coherence and stability.
My cryptic meaning was that democracy assumes that the elector is individual and sovereign, and has independence of mind and choice. I’m not going to debate here that modern democracy grew out of Calvinism. However: vox populi, vox dei.
That is what sticks in my craw when the elector is effectively ordered down a particular path, which is usually to support a limited one-issue campaign, not a full mandate. Yes, I include both Humanae Vitae and “Save Ulster from sodomy” there.
There is a world of difference between:
[1] the teaching of our Faith is that X is right and Y is wrong;
and
[2] from this pulpit I instruct and direct you to vote for X and against Y.
Then I’m a wishy-washy pinko, a recovering near-alcoholic, Norwich City supporter, and Marxist [read "recovering" as a verbal-adjective governing all three substantives]. As I repeatedly have said to my wife, I wish I was as certain of anything as she can be of everything.
And now I am summoned to garden duty.
I always thought Malcolm was one of the cleverer posters on this site and then I read “Norwich City supporter”……
Darth
I have really truly and utterly come to the conclusion that no matter how articulate you right you really do talk the biggest load of bollocks.
“Each did the job he was actually elected to do i.e. go to Westminster and try to have the government make as few laws as possible, beyond strong borders and a strong pound- and did it to my satisfaction.The fact that we rarely had either is due to the shortcomings of others.”
“I want my MP to be on the green benches in Westminster fixing problems with NHS dentists, not wittering on the Steven Nolan show about his constituents’ teeth being precious to him”
Now really is that the best response you actually have to come up with?? I can honestly say that for someone who has some wit and knowledge I saw through that pretty easy. I would of course love my local MP to be on the green benches fighting for the pound and the NHS but as an NI MP what exact changes do you think they would get from a government who has a 120+ majority and can basically do damn what it pleases?! Of course you will point to the fact that there has been rebellions and defeats, however on the social and economic welfare issues they have largely all stuck to one large block.
The reality is that the only way we can achieve results for ourselves is by making our own good fortune in stormont and actually stopping the rot of concessions that poured out of Downing St towards IRA/SF. Now I may have been in short trousers during the “Never Never Never” days but quite frankly any response along those lines is void by the rank of concessions that every British govt and the UUP has given the SF. By criticising the DUP for not giving them their demands that would weaken the structures of the NI economy and its status, you are merely looking past all that you have been cheated out of before. Realise that you are in the 21st Century and that the days of shouting Never! from a milk float are long behind you and that it takes a little more tact in order to win this battle with republicanism.
“As one voter said to Dodds in Dromore recently, “When next I see David Trimble I’m going to apologise to him , for at least he was an honest traitor!””
Right now that is interesting. Funny how you provide no evidence of how you even know of this statement. That would be useful. A nice try to blacken a DUP MP who you otherwise have very little to grumble about.
“Oh yes, the DUP have 3000 offices or more, about which they boast at length, as if they perform some great service to the community. Well in some cases they may, but they are processing centres for grievances, and could just as easy be run by the Saint Vincent de Paul or Sally Ann- for a lot less money. ”
Yes in an ideal world they SVDP and the SA could do this work and for free. A real capitalist you are. Unfortunatley for many people who have problems that needed sorted an MLA or MP is in the best position to do so and can help in solving issues that, while you may think are trifling, are actually extremely important in people’s lives. I would be quick to pour contempt on other people’s problems but of course that is easy to do shielded behing a keyboard.
“at least the Shinners last time round in abolishing the 11 plus”
Yes because afetr McGuiness’ speech it all was abolished wasn’t it?!
I actually don’t favour keeping the 11+ exactly and think the test should be more rounded but still with selection in place. Something the shinners don’t want but ultimatley they will have to settle for.
O Dear
“Whenever the report is published at Westminster about MPs’ expenses: i.e. the “John Lewis” List it will be fun to read how the former estate agent uses public monies – who has one house for example and his wife has another in London – etc etc ”
Mick can you have a look at this statement as i think it could be very libellous.
BP
yes I am a capitalist and generally libertarian in my views- which puts me at odds with some of the positions of the old style UUP MPs I was praising.
To be fair they deserve criticism for their failure to create a Unionist movement capable of standing on its own two feet during the 1970s and especially post 1985- but then noone had after 1914; they grew lazy on the back of being the establishment, and couldn’t break the mindset post 1972; and because of the fear of Paisley they wouldn’t ditch the dead wood (like the “secret weapon” Cecil Walker who single handedly strangled any rival with ability and handed the seat to Dodds)
“Funny how you provide no evidence of how you even know of this statement. That would be useful. A nice try to blacken a DUP MP who you otherwise have very little to grumble about.”
I wasn’t aware I was being cross-examined, but since you ask the exchange was reported to me by a man who overheard it, and it has been posted on slugger before without challenge. And the point wasn’t a dig at Dodds, who I respect, but his erstwhile leader
I appreciate you probably work for an MLA and so are miffed by my dismissing their efforts. I’m sure you help a lot of people. Good for you. But why should my taxes pay for one – forgive me- state apparatchik to write to another in the DRD or council , also employed by me, to write back with my stamps on my notepaper-thus creating two jobs in the bloated state sector when a cull of such pointless jobs would slim it down, give us more of our own money and more responsibility? If there were fewer civil servants making wrong decisions there’d be less need for lobbying to correct them.
Tax freedom day this year is already early June
Your main point seems to be that Unionists need to have some power, and who they share it with on what terms is of secondary importance. The inexorable logic of that position has been posted elsewhere- namely why not hook up with a hitherto successful economy, in a majority rule parliament where we would hold the balance of power more often than not, with an unashamed culture of pork barrel politics to milk the exchequer for usuns? Pragmatic, Punt style politics, but is it Unionism?
“I appreciate you probably work for an MLA and so are miffed by my dismissing their efforts”
I actually work in the private sector and have an economics degree so you should be proud of my capitalist efforts! I understand your logic from the point of view that it creates an awful lot of red tape. Having seen the work and talked to some MLA’s it is apparent that some times the only way to get the DRD or the council to do something is by going to a politician. Basically because they listen to them (some anyway who are competent) and they can basically raise the grievances with their superiors and get an issue highlighted that would otherwise go unnoticed. Something no charitable organisation would be able to do. You may think the system is crooked, maybe so, but don’t hate the player hate the game.
“Your main point seems to be that Unionists need to have some power, and who they share it with on what terms is of secondary importance”
No not at all. If you read fair_deal’s latest post, which I fully support, devolution has worked in unionists favour by making sure there is no shrine to the hungerstrikers at the maze, no Irish Language Act etc etc. The only real faux pas has been the victims commissioners, which still isn’t sorted. Leave aside Paisley, who is now on the way out, I do not think it has gone too badly. However as fd’s blog points out there is serious room for improvement.
“why not hook up with a hitherto successful economy, in a majority rule parliament where we would hold the balance of power more often than not, with an unashamed culture of pork barrel politics to milk the exchequer for usuns?”
Well to be honest that would be nice but the reality is that that idea has not been on the cards for a very long time and probably with hindsight Sunningdale looked very good but I’ll not take any flak for that considering I wasn’t even alive at the time. We need to realise that we are where we are and that a majority unionist bloc ruling over the heads of all others is long gone.
Plus when you consider all the British/Irish govt has given to Republicans and was going to introduce with RPA, the Maze, ILA etc I would have thought that you would have been pleased that unionists have been able to stop these things at stormont. The alternative in a TUV world would have been to have things implemented by the two govts with unionists standing outside complaining.
“Pragmatic, Punt style politics, but is it Unionism?”
What is unionism in the 21st Century? Certainly not what it was in the 20th and that is why all unionists need to come together to work at a way forward that will strengthen our position. I believe we can start down that route but it requires everybody to come on board and provide constructive ideas, not the bickering and infighting that unionism is used to. Only republicans gain from that.
New wording of FAIR opinion poll! Very balanced:
Traditional Unionist Values (TUV), do we need another party?
1. Absolutely, the DUP have let us down.
2. No, I support the DUP sitting with terrorists
3. I just dont care!
4. I vote UUP
5. Nothing to do with me, Im a Nationalist