“Bubbling beneath the surface..”
Along with the Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams’ statement this afternoon, UTV’s Ken Reid reported [below the fold] that, along with Northern Ireland’s deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness, Gerry Adams will be heading to Downing St tomorrow to meet Prime Minster Gordon Brown.. who might have other things on his mind. It’s not quite what Jonathan Powell had hoped for.. although he did mention a particular addiction. Earlier today on Stormont Live the BBC NI Political Editor, Mark Devenport, was describing the “political game of chicken” [below the fold] that seemed to be developing [What? Again? - Ed], but the UUP’s Danny Kennedy and, particularly, Sinn Fein’s Willie Clarke had some interesting views of the potential crisis. The DUP’s Lord Morrow was also in the studio later and gave his reaction [also below the fold]. Willie Clarke said he thought people on the ground would be “amazed” if an election was brought about.
Mark Devenport set the scene earlier today.
And the DUP’s Lord Morrow gives his reaction to the “bizarre” potential crisis.
And, by this evening, Ken Reid’s UTV Live report.
Absent from the discussion is that Ard Fheis motion..
Lets ask the appropriate question to one of the nutters
Turgon
If Sinn Fein force this election and look capable of taking the first ministers office, would you vote DUP to ensure a unionist victory?
BP
let the electioneering go, if I know one thing about this site its that people have very entrenched political opinions and aren’t likely to be swayed by your obvious pandering of the DUP. Just how long have you been a member?
Ian, I think we’re coming from the same place.
It is true, as peteb painfully reminds SF that P&J;is for the Assembly to mandate.
Ian,
Any DUP u-turn (real or percieved) has been well played out and the effects of it have been well debated in the media – nearly to the point that its old hat now. Also, quite a lot of the concern within unionism which I detected was quite personally attached to Ian Paisley. It was more about how he could go into Government rather than the DUP as a party.
With SF (as usual) there’s been little or no discussion about what effect their actions have had and I believe that the problems they’ve been facing have been significantly underestimated. Many of the stagemanaged meetings they’ve had haven’t went nearly as smoothly as the usual Shinner ‘consultations’ and that says nothing about the other unpublicised and un-stage managed meetings they’ve had around the country.
Surely within unionism it isn’t actually a timetable issue – its about the details of any devolution of P&J;. I’d be happy for it to be devolved in the morning, providing it was in the right circumstances.
SF mightn’t be too keen on an election in the morning (or near future) if the analysis continues that they’ve just been s**t all over by the DUP since St Andrews. That combined with an unusual set of circumstances where they are the people pulling down devolution instead of calling for it to be restored will be a strange set of conditions for many of the supporters (old and new) to get their heads around.
“Any DUP u-turn (real or percieved) has been well played out and the effects of it have been well debated in the media – nearly to the point that its old hat now.”
A major development like going into a power-sharing arrangement with ‘SF-IRA’ is not ‘old-hat’ until such time as an election has validated it (or otherwise) after the fact.
“Surely within unionism it isn’t actually a timetable issue – its about the details of any devolution of P&J;.”
I’d agree with you there; I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. The real issue not yet agreed is the ministerial model to be implemented. PeteB’s constant focus on the date misses this crucial point.
SF want the Justice ministry to be filled via the d’Hont mechanism. DUP oppose this as it will mean they will feel compelled to take it as their first choice, thus handing the Finance & Personnel ministry to SF (who will also take the junior ministry in Justice if they get their way).
SF were all set for an election before Christmas before Brown took cold feet. The DUP have been too scared to even hold a party conference in good knows how many years. If anyone here thinks the Shinners are bluffing you are seriously mistaken. The nationalist electorate want SF to stand up to the DUP and the issue on the door will be their intransigence over P&J;. An election now will be a good opportunity for SF to consolidate ahead of the FF takeover of the SDLP.
Steve
I am not electioneering, I would be very suprised if anything changed their opinions based on what I say. However what I am trying to do is show how the comments made by SF, SDLP and Martina Purdy will play fine for the DUP when they go to the polls and face other unionists. If truth be told I think this is the best possible platform for them to fight an election from, as the TUV are unable to answer why anyone should vote for them whenever SF are having a miserable time at Stormont. The same with the UUP where the DUP will simply state that we are forcing SF into corners that you could not have done in your wildest dreams.
Believe it or not I am not actually a member. It is something I keep meaning to do but giving the fact that I am very shy I am afraid I may not fit in. Maybe observer or interested could give me some advice on that front?
Jeffrey Donaldson appointed Director of Elections for the DUP! That’ll swing it now. DUP in electoral meltdown, loosing 12 seats with their candidates topping the poll in 6 others with triple quotas. LMAO…
Steve
As one of the nutters, I’ll gladly answer the question you posed to Turgon: Would I vote for the DUP if SF look capable of taking the FM office? Simple answer – No.
Peter Robinson once told me that if the situation ever came around that SF could become the largest party then “the electorate would get what they deserved”. Robbo might just end up being the one who gets what he deserved. Having been a member of the DUP until 8th May 2007, I would not vote for them again, having been disenfranchised the last time. Fooled me once – shame on you; fooled me twice – not on your life!
Posted by Mick Fealty on Jun 03, 2008 @ 12:00 PM
Briso,
Voluntary coalition is history. It can only come back into play when: 1, SF says it does; or 2, when their vote drops below current SDLP levels. In other words, I would not hold your breath.
VC is not history, and believe me, it’s not me holding my breath on the matter. I can’t imagine such a scenario ever flying, but if the current system can’t work, and thanks to the factors I mentioned in my previous post I don’t believe it can, it is doomed. I predict VC will re-emerge in short order as a live proposal and we’ll see what happens.
Posted by Bigger Picture on Jun 03, 2008 @ 11:57 AM
“We had a workable mandatory coalition where ministers had autonomy to MAKE DECISIONS”
I am sorry but no form of government should work under that model, especially in a mandatory coalition, where a political party can run a party to whatever marxist agenda they may have and hold the people of NI to ransom over it. A truly shocking way for a country to be run and you are the first person on here to even suggest that we should go back to that ludicrous system of working.
I know BP. SF implementing policies. Horrifying. Better an FF led United Ireland than that. Ask Turgon.
Posted by Bigger Picture on Jun 03, 2008 @ 12:07 PM
Just in from Alisdair McDonnell
“They built their trap themselves and they walked into it. Sinn Féin will cut a deal very soon, but let there be absolutely no doubt, it will be Peter Robinson’s deal. It will keep Sinn Féin in power, perhaps with some personnel changes, but it will not be a good deal for nationalists.”
Vote DUP 1,2,3
This is what disappoints me about the SDLP. I thought at the time Durcan saw this coming, but he whispered it. Let them walk into the trap indeed. Hard for the SDLP to maintain they were acting in the interests of their electorate rather than their party….
Please God let there be an election. I’d like to just watch one for a change without having to be involved and I’ve already thought of a great way to spoil my ballot.
That said I think SF would be mad to collapse it. Having an election as a result of a declaration of their inability to get delivery on a raft of issues would be very risky and they’d just face the exact same inability to deliver the other side.
It’s a bluff but whoever pitched it seems to have made very big news of SF’s absolute failure to deliver anything in the Assembly – not the smartest of strategies to me.
“I know BP. SF implementing policies. Horrifying. Better an FF led United Ireland than that. Ask Turgon”
I will indeed but he isn’t replying to me at the moment so I may be a while in coming back to you with his response. The point about the above post is that a coalition government is BASED on mutual opinion and cabinet responsibility. You didn’t get that under a previous form of the gfa assembly and you don’t get it now in the new STAA assembly. Therefore better to have a voluntary coalition as it will be more stable as parties can agree as to the policies they want and implement them. This is better than the old system. Under the old system Ruane could simply abolish acdemic selection tommorrow even though the majority of people do not want it. However now she cannot do that and the issue must be ok’d by her executive colleagues. What part of a coalition executive therefore do you have a problem with? The part that simply doesn’t bow to evry SF demand?
“TUV are unable to answer why anyone should vote for them whenever SF are having a miserable time at Stormont.”
That sounds like Trimble’s “we’re going in to confront Sinn Fein” argument, which ultimately failed.
There’s a solid rump of the unionist electorate who still believe that SF shouldn’t be in Stormont full stop – whether they’re having a miserable time or not. That rump used to vote for DUP until March 2008, and will now presumably either abstain or vote TUV. The size of the rump has not yet been tested in a NI-wide election.
… whoever pitched it seems to have made very big news of SF’s absolute failure to deliver anything in the Assembly – not the smartest of strategies to me.
Insofar as it harks back to the ‘bad old days’ of unionist hegemony, and the unionist veto, it probably strikes a chord with many nationalist voters. The longer the DUP refuses to agree any nationalist-friendly policies to be enacted, the more like the bad old days it seems. And since Sinn Féin has well and truly won the propaganda battle about pre-1972 Stormont, it may not be such a bad strategy at all if they collapse ‘son-of-Stormont’.
longer the DUP refuses to agree any nationalist-friendly policies to be enacted, the more like the bad old days it seems. —
So Unoinists should roll over and do what SF says, Not a chance. The UUP may have done that the DUP wont, and now that you havent got your guns to threaten us with youre whistling in the wind
BP
‘I have no problems working with the SDLP.’
That’s not what the UUP or DUP or NIUP (apart from Brian Faulkner were saying in 1974 . In return for their failure to work with the SDLP then ,they now in recompense get to work with SF.
If they can’t work with SF now then who who will they work with in 2016 ? FF ? FG or do they expect a potential new Conservative British Government to do a ‘heath’ on the Assembly and integrate NI into the UK a la Stevenage or Finchley ?
There won’t be any voluntary coalition not for a generation if ever. SF will want police & justice devolved and are probably now pushing for a definite date . The DUP can hold out only so long on this issue . An election would do less harm to SF than to the DUP . Might not do any harm for Mr Robinson to seek a new mandate say before Christmas ? He could of course run the risk of becoming the shortest reigning FM in Northern Ireland’s political history losing to Paisley’s year in office by 6 months ? Could he survive politically with McGuinness as FM ?
The glass is falling hour by hour etc etc etc .
BP
However what I am trying to do is show how the comments made by SF, SDLP and Martina Purdy will play fine for the DUP when they go to the polls and face other unionists
I agree with you it will play fine to the DUPers but they don’t need to play to the DUPers they need to play to the TUVers and as Delta Omega states above nothing from the DUP will play to the TUVers.
As for taking votes off the UUP, only guessing here but as the UUP have morphed into the moderate unionist party its not likely their votes will jump to the hard line parties unless they jump all the way over to the TUV. People that change allegance tend to swing all the way over and not stop in the middle
By the way Delta Omega when I called you nutters it was just a carry over from an earlier posters description
Direct rule for a while wouldn’t be so bad. Especially if we got that lovely Caroline Flint as secretary of state until Lord Trimble takes over.
“There’s a solid rump of the unionist electorate who still believe that SF shouldn’t be in Stormont full stop – whether they’re having a miserable time or not.”
Jim Allister bases his attacks on the DUP as delivering to SF’s all Ireland agenda by working with them at Stormont. Sinn Fein have very helpfully shown that to be rubbish and in fact they are not achieving their aims. I am more than happy to enter into a debate with any unionist who would rather see direct rule instead with Gerry and Martin running to HMG for concessions rather than sit in Stormont where the Shinners have spelt out that the DUP has them by the balls. I am more than happy to go into an election on that basis.
Steve
And I have pointed out that the TUV will get votes because some people will just never be satisfied like Delta and Omega no matter how illogical their position becomes. The fact that I have directly pressed him on this issue twice already today and he has not replied shows that he does not have a coherent answer to give that could possibly justify not continuing to press SF in the assembly.
“Direct rule for a while wouldn’t be so bad. Especially if we got that lovely Caroline Flint as secretary of state until Lord Trimble takes over.”
I believe Brown’s preferred option is ‘Plan B’. Might save him a few shekels as well.
observer,
‘So Unionists should roll over and do what SF says, Not a chance.’
Wonderful -reminds me of the good old days of Mr Craig and his Vanguard stormtroopers . Not an inch they said to the SDLP and it’s well spoken nice ‘uncle tom’ catholics like Austin Currie ,John Hume etc etc .
‘The UUP may have done that’
The problem was that the UUP did nothing for so long re irish nationalist demands that by the time they came around to doing it -it was too late .
‘ the DUP wont,’
Then they’ll go the same way as the UUP did .
‘ and now that you havent got your guns to threaten us with you’re whistling in the wind’
They don’t need guns . They have a veto and a whistle and they can blow the house down if and when they choose to . Call it parity of vetos if you want.
The DUP will have to concede to some (not all) of the SF demands and vice versa . If neither party is up to this then the Assembly will collapse and DR will be back and ‘repartition’ may begin to look like a better proposition for good government for Irish nationalists in Northern Ireland than a never ending series of stop start NI Assembly fiascos !
observer,
So Unoinists should roll over and do what SF says, Not a chance. The UUP may have done that the DUP wont, and now that you havent got your guns to threaten us with youre whistling in the wind
That sounds suspiciously like a return to majority rule. It didn’t work very well last time (and unionists actually were a majority then … ).
If you are representative of the DUP, your comments imply the deliberate blocking of all nationalist proposals just because you can! That is pretty bad politics, and isn’t going to win unionism any friends in London or Dublin. One day you might need those friends, so a more thoughtful party might decide that compromise is not necessarily always a bad thing.
A frustrated nationalist electorate will have no reason to buy into the GFA as a ‘settlement’, and if its aspirations continue to be blocked it may look for the one certain de-blocker – a border poll. Not this year, not in 2016, but not long thereafter there will be a nationalist voting majority. You only have half a generation to change its mind, and you haven’t started very well!
The DUP will have to concede to some (not all) of the SF demands and vice versa
- No they dont. You mistake power sharing for normal government, its not
A frustrated nationalist electorate will have no reason to buy into the GFA as a ‘settlement’, and if its aspirations continue to be blocked it may look for the one certain de-blocker – a border poll. Not this year, not in 2016, but not long thereafter there will be a nationalist voting majority. You only have half a generation to change its mind, and you haven’t started very well!
Posted by Horseman on Jun 03, 2008 @ 02:12 PM
- back to outbreeding Prods, beats killing them i suppose
observer
The DUP will have to concede to some (not all) of the SF demands and vice versa.
- No they dont.
In fact I think they will. If not now, then certainly after the next election. Do you really think Sinn Féin is going to agree any Programme for Government or budget in the future that does not include clear nationalist aspirations?
Bigger Picture: “The fact that I have directly pressed him on this issue twice already today and he has not replied shows that he does not have a coherent answer to give that could possibly justify not continuing to press SF in the assembly.”
Keep taking the tablets as you seem to be approaching the delusional. Contrary to your claim you have not pressed me twice on anything today. The only question that you asked was if I was on another planet recently, and crap like that doesn’t justify a response.
Ask what you will directly and if I can give you an answer, I will.
observer,
- back to outbreeding Prods, beats killing them i suppose
As a democrat, I assume you have no objection to being out-bred?
If you show that there is another way to achieve nationalist objectives, then people may not need to dump the whole separate Northern Ireland thing. So far, though, you are not showing any alternative.
If you show that there is another way to achieve nationalist objectives, then people may not need to dump the whole separate Northern Ireland thing. So far, though, you are not showing any alternative.
Posted by Horseman on Jun 03, 2008 @ 02:22 PM
Why should we help nationalists achieve their objectives? We`re unionists. Its like asking Gordon Brown to adopt Tory plans. It aint gonna happen.
observer,
Why should we help nationalists achieve their objectives?
Several reasons:
(1) Power-sharing. Remember that?
(2) Mutual vetoes. Just wait till the DUP really really really want something.
(3) Basic fairness. Oh, yeah, you’re unionists, I forgot ….
Well if you happened to look at the post above you would see my question and the point I am making, I will repeat it again, as I may be delusional but you clearly need your eyes checked.
“Jim Allister bases his attacks on the DUP as delivering to SF’s all Ireland agenda by working with them at Stormont. Sinn Fein have very helpfully shown that to be rubbish and in fact they are not achieving their aims. I am more than happy to enter into a debate with any unionist who would rather see direct rule instead with Gerry and Martin running to HMG for concessions rather than sit in Stormont where the Shinners have spelt out that the DUP has them by the balls. I am more than happy to go into an election on that basis.”
So therefore what is the TUV’s message going to be in any election? We have the moral high ground never mind that it will actually allow SF off the hook?
What we have here is a bad dose of ‘recalcitrant indecisiveness’: http://tinyurl.com/6acze8. It is, as Henry hinted earlier, in the interests of these two parties to get things sorted out. That includes the P&J;thing. I’ve no doubt that the DUP will concede that issue in time and (probably) in return for something else (de-mob of the Army Council is the one most frequently cited by their politicians). They have already bagged that PR victory when a ‘deadline’ became just a ‘missed schedule’ last month.
The point about mandatory coalition is that it is, by its very nature, a conservative beast. The additional checks and balances from St Andrews are not foolproof – just look at the free ride home that Margaret Ritchie took on CTI – but it is proving difficult for parties to effect ‘change’ that does not have buy in across the piste. In short, the power to conserve is much greater than that to make change. That is unless there is political consensus.
Mick
What exactly was the “free ride home” Ritchie took on the CTI?
When was the scheme stopped?
Bigger Picture and others,
My apologies for my enforced absence. I had to do a lot of work this morning. I know this is utterly unacceptable and promise to try hard to avoid it in future.
In answer to Steve. Of course I would vote TUV. There would not be much point being in a political party if one does not vote for them. I kept on voting UUP long after I should have stopped because I had some loyalty to my then party.
In terms of what is happening here I am still unsure how serious SF is about all this. I suspect if they pull back from a crisis now they may have a little egg on face unless Brown gives them something. If it continues, however, the risks to them of pulling back are greater. They could even box themselves into a position of having to collapse the executive.
I wonder if they might refuse to nominate and then after one week nominate and present it as a warning shot across the DUP’s bows?
SF’s ability to threaten the DUP is of course all tied up with the TUV. BP is of course correct to say that the DUP are seeming to hold firm at the moment and could go into an election pronouncing themselves as having annoyed SF a great deal.
Tactically that would play well for the DUP. However, I keep coming back to the DUP in general and indeed Robinson’s personal failure to think strategically.
If I were doing a TUV manifesto I would go back to the chuckle brothers and point that up. I would also point out that we are in a completely chaotic impasse over education. I would point up the fact that we are stuck in mandatory coalition with SF, that the army council is still there and this could all be a smoke screen so that SF make a supposed concession by continuing with power sharing and as such can defuse pressure over the army council etc.
I would highlight the fact that the mutual veto is still a significant problem, that the ludicrous compromise of the victims commissioners was forced on us.
I have no doubt that Robinson is playing his tactics quite well, indeed as well as can be expected. However two things: will he have to make some compromises or will HMG give SF something. Secondly strategically we are still in the problems I have highlighted.
remember the Battle of Jutland (92 years ago at the weekend): the Germans had something of a tactical victory, they sank 3 British Battlecruisers to the British one (and two massively damaged). However, it was a strategic defeat: the Germans knew they had done as well as they could have done and still the Grand Fleet ruled the North Sea. For one period of about 15 minutes the whole Grand Fleet was firing accurately on the German front: their T well crossed. Scheer knew he could not win and turned and fled.
Robinson has done quite well but SF are still in the mandatory coalition, have the veto as well as the DUP, still have the army council (although as I have said before that may be a bargaining chip).
Well as Robinson has done we are no closer to a complete renegotiation of the agreement.
By the way would anyone like a blog on Jutland, I think it an interesting and often forgotten part of the First World War?
…. the power to conserve is much greater than that to make change
And therein lies the seeds of Northern Ireland’s failed future.
While the rest of the world speeds up decision-making, flattens hierarchies, and reacts as quickly as possible to changing circumstances, Northern Ireland will be locked into its deadly total conservatism.
If Belfast was as attractive as Venice or Bruges then such stagnation might have a small benefit for our great-grandchildren. But it isn’t, so stagnation will lead to economic decline, backwardness and long-term unhappiness.
Thanks DUP!
OK Bigger Picture – let me clarify my position for you.
Firstly I am not a member of TUV so I have no idea what their message is going to be going into any election.
However, if a party presents a manifesto to me that indicates a democratic form of government rather than the mandatory coalition that we currently have, then I’ll at least feign some interest. If that manifesto goes on to state that the democratic form of government will not include criminals and murderers while they retain their weaponry, army council structures, bank robberies, drug running, general criminality etc, then I’ll read on. Other key issues for me are maintaining the union, providing a good education for my kids, respect for law and order, recliaming a lost level of morality of the nation and protection of family values. Show me this, and prove to me that you can do it, and that party will get my vote.
Your final remark of having the moral high ground should stick in the throat of any DUP member. I sat in the public meeting where Peter the punt promised that the DUP would never enter government with SF until they had recived support for the police, total verifiable decommissioning, dibandment of the army council, protection of academic selection, removal of the water tax, a financial package for NI etc. It was on that basis that they got my vote the last time around. The only pledge that was delivered on was SF support for the police, before the lure of position, power and money overtook the DUP morals. That is why I view myself as being disenfranchised. That is why I’ll never vote for that bunch of liars again. If you think that gives you moral high ground, then the heights of your morals are significantly below a snakes belly.
Delta, youre asking for much more than Jim Allister. He is on record as stating that the removal of the army coucnil is his litmus test for SF in government. That is coming very soon.
The moral high ground remark refered to the TUV not the DUP. I have never said that it was a moral decision to be there in the first place, only that it was necessary to take the fight to SF, which thankfully they are doing vis a vis their statement. It may be not what you or even the DUP think but that was my basis for voting for them anyway.
Will reply in full later, other things to get on with!
Observer
That may be the case and that is why I haven’t joined the TUV yet.
BP:
“I am more than happy to enter into a debate with any unionist who would rather see direct rule instead with Gerry and Martin running to HMG for concessions rather than sit in Stormont where the Shinners have spelt out that the DUP has them by the balls. I am more than happy to go into an election on that basis.”
Okay so why not apply the same principle to the P & J ministry? What’s to stop the Secretary of State implementing criminal justice policies suggested by SF?
observer,
- No they dont. You mistake power sharing for normal government, its not
If you have ever read any of my posts you would know that I have never held the view that mandatory power sharing is normal government . It is’nt and it can’t be . The salient point being you can’t have ‘normal government in an abnormal state . This is precisely why there has to be mandatory power sharing . This is the lesson that has been learned from the 50 years of Unionist one party misrule 1920-1972 through Sunningdale and from all the failed attempts at power sharing since then .
The only question is how long can the present ‘stitch up’ last and will the band aid last one -two or five or ten years . The question is not if DUP or indeed any unionist party will have to concede to some of SF demands but when and how and on what issues . If you believe any other political route is open than you’re not paying attention.
delta omega ,
‘ ‘I sat in the public meeting where Peter the punt promised that the DUP would never enter government with SF until they had recived support for the police, total verifiable decommissioning, dibandment of the army council, protection of academic selection, removal of the water tax, a financial package for NI etc. ”
But at least he did’nt throw in the kitchen sink as well ?
Politics remember while being a dirty business is a necessary business and is also the art of the possible . If you can’t understand that best not to get involved in the game .
‘ The only pledge that was delivered on was SF support for the police, before the lure of position, power and money overtook the DUP morals.’
Jaysuz wept how can one be so naive ? Morals and politicians go together like ice cream and cow shite .
‘That is why I view myself as being disenfranchised.’
Well let that be a lesson to ye !
‘That is why I’ll never vote for that bunch of liars again.’
Not to worry there’ll be another bunch of liars to choose from soon enough . Unionism has an excellent track record of producing ‘liar’ politicians for every generation and constitutional situation . They had to – to stay in power in the past – and now they need to -in order to share power in the future. It doesn’t much matter whether it’s the DUP or UUP or TUV or some other brand . They will all have to share power if the want any themselves . The name of the game is D’Hondt.
observer .
‘Jim Allister is on record as stating that the removal of the army council is his litmus test for SF in government.’
First chink in the armour then . When I carry out a litmus test I like to see the litmus before and after . How will Allister know one way or another whether the army council is ‘removed’ or not ? Not much of a test then from Allister is it ?
Mick
I recall years ago you giving the sage advice that there were some matters best sorted out amongst nationalists, and others best sorted out amongst Unionists. Now you say this is best sorted out between SF and the DUP. Is that some sort of progress?
I suppose we’ll see if it is. They have to be able to do deals but for the DUP in particular the less cordial it looks the better their voters seem to like it. After the frigidity of the Trimble Mallon relationship I thought the Chuckle Brothers were great.
But in both cases what you saw reflected the actual dynamic. I think it will be difficult for anyone to get away for too long with pretending it’s not going well if it is. And I think it’s going to go well. Robinson and Adams/McGuinness are too smart to throw away the political advantages they have.
Policing & Justice is an easy one. The question is about political timing not about what is going to happen. I would understand if Robinson had indicated he needed to win an election first. And I could also understand if Sinn Fein were saying, “that can be arranged”. But neither really want one now.
Sinn Fein need it to sink in with nationalists that Fianna Fail aren’t really coming. Why let the SDLP fight an election pretending they are?
And for the DUP why let TUV point to instability in the institutions. Much better to fight them after a full term when they would be arguing against successful institutions.