Sammy Wilson was a great education spokesperson for the DUP – he wiped the floor with the minister, but he was not a good committee chair if you go by the criteria outlined by Mick. He was too quick to grandstand and his domination of the committee didnt help meetings run well or enable other committee members to really contribute.

Mitchel McLaughlin does a really professional job every week in DFP and has marked the minister and the department well.

The only other committee chair who received as mucha attention as Sammy was Iris, but her harassment of the gimp was so childish she had to get thrown out of Stormont. Cringe.

http://tn3-2.deviantart.com/fs10/300W/i/2006/160/e/1/Empty_Chair_by_chrishon.jpg

How do people think Jeffrey performed as Chair of Assembly and Executive Review Committee?

Are we excluding the Ad Hoc Committees?

Mervyn has been taking a bit of stick recently for his ‘Young Earth’ science stance; two days ago he moved into Un Earth mode but it seems the DUP publicity machine can’t tell the difference between a magnate and a magnet

I’d also like to say a big thank you to the senior civil servant who changed his mind by treating my request for a ‘missing in action‘ on-line PDF file as normal business rather than an FOI one. [Apologies for glitch in the blog ]

Just throwing it out.

Keep it legal,keep it decent yes, but otherwise….it’s beginning to worry me.

tut tut

The only Minister who has been under any real pressure since the Executive was established is Ruane, and whilst she can be her own worst enemy, there’s no doubt that her woes have been down in no small part to the role Sammy Wilson played as the Committee Chair.

He managed to keep her under almost continual pressure whilst keeping on the right side of being seen to attack her simply because of her own political and social prejudices. Despite the Minister’s regular claims that all these nasty attacks were all because she was either a woman, a republican or there was a R in the month, her claims never really held water because it was clear that the Chairman was totally on top of the subject, and actually probably knew a lot more about the details than she did.

To sum it up – none of the other Committee Chair’s managed to put the Minister under such pressure that they walked out of the Committee.

What about an attitude that seeks to question? Is that “negative” too? What about an attitude that is “candid – and often critical” to use your own phrase? Will that be deleted, too?

If you can dish it out you should be able to take it on the chin.

They also took a swift decision on the inquiry into child poverty, and his questionable humour keeps the tone constructive.

Any specific reasons you can give us would be helpful.