Monday, February 05, 2007
DUP letter “draconian”
It has emerged that the DUP has required Assembly Candidates to sign up to their own enforced resignation from the Assembly, if the Party Officers decide their services are no longer required. “Draconian” should be a familiar word to at least one such candidate.
It raises several questions. Would the Speaker accept resignations not directly signed by the member? Could he/she? Also, how much dissention and on what issues are the DUP oligarchy expecting?
Michael Shilliday @ 05:06 PM
Apology for the double post.
Posted by on Feb 05, 2007 @ 05:11 PMIt just smacks of totalitarian control.
So this is how the DUP planned to unite the Party then…
Interesting how this document came out after most candidates have now been selected to run for the DUP.
Wonder how many now wish they hadn’t bothered…
Posted by on Feb 05, 2007 @ 05:17 PMThe resignation letter bit isn’t new but I can’t remember what the previous conditions were (if any). The old explanation was if the DUP wanted to quit the Assembly en masse in its opposition to the Belfast Agreement this was to stop someone refusing to go.
AFAIK and perhaps an interesting note, they apparently had such a letter signed by Paul Berry but never used it. This maybe sheds some light their likely effectiveness.
The 1998 NI Act says:
“Resignation of members. 51. A member of the Assembly may at any time resign his seat by notice in writing to the Presiding Officer.”I don’t know if this has been amended or not in subsequent acts.
Maybe the legal eagles can enlighten us.Posted by on Feb 05, 2007 @ 05:23 PMUtter joke. So the Doc could resign one of his dissidents after consultation and not agreement of a majority of the Party Officers and slap them with a 20K fine.
Leadership’s that working, Ian.
Posted by on Feb 05, 2007 @ 05:31 PMBarbaric and very undemocratic!
If one breaks with a party line they should be disciplined. However this goes too far!
Can one not repent from their actions!?
Mind you thats how the party has got to where it is in showing a united front, unlike those UU’s.
I’d be cautious of any detail and would like to see it, but I think one can regard this as going too far with party discipline.
Although it’s crucial that Unionism shows a united front at this point.
Posted by on Feb 05, 2007 @ 05:36 PMHas it occured to any of youse lot that this may not actually be a factually accurate report?
Posted by on Feb 05, 2007 @ 05:39 PMMy Goodness the Punt would surely have made some difference if he had been in Cunningplan house in 1998.....
FD makes a very important point re Berry.
Posted by on Feb 05, 2007 @ 06:07 PMNo doubt the DUP hierarchy, having looked into its own avaricious heart and seeing what it sees there in the hearts of its members, is anxious to forestall the possibility of them showing more loyalty to the half crown than the crown. It’s the story of unionism really - unionist politicians have always been more interested in feathering their own nests than in serving their cause. This is an explicit admission of the DUPlicity at the heart of the DUP
Posted by on Feb 05, 2007 @ 06:23 PMMichael could I please have your Address so I can post a Valantine?
Posted by on Feb 05, 2007 @ 06:25 PMMaybe it’s to stop a party member from doing the same as Jeffrey Donaldson did when in the UUP?
Maybe it’s in case they believe the leopard doesn’t change its spots?
Posted by on Feb 05, 2007 @ 06:43 PMNorthern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) Act 2006
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/20060053.htm
Posted by on Feb 05, 2007 @ 07:02 PMFair deal
I am not a legal type but ”A member of the Assembly may at any time resign his seat”.
There is a big difference between signing a letter and having it waiting and actually posting it. I would imagine that the party does not in fact have the right to forward such a letter without your express permission at that time. I can’t imagine that you can sign over that right to others and therefore change the clause above.
A court case around these letters and contracts could do real damage to the DUP.
Posted by on Feb 05, 2007 @ 07:17 PM“The resignation letter bit isn’t new...”
This is true. I was told by a close relative of a DUP MP about this back in 2002. I remember thinking at the time that it was a bit unbelievable. Well was I wrong ...
Posted by on Feb 05, 2007 @ 08:30 PMTo the point raised above, is this accurate, or are people ventilating off the back of a Chinese whisper? - absolutely valid point. But, it’s one for the DUP to deal with. Let’s say that the precise detail of this letter concerns the party whip (rather than, say, membership of Stormont itself, which patently obviously someone else cannot ‘resign’ on your behalf - such f*cking stupidity ...). Okay then, the DUP can do what they want with their own internal structures, and are subject just to the usual provisions any court these days will enforce as to fair and proper procedure. The huge own goal however (if the ‘resign [sic] from stormont because peter chucks you out’ is false) lies in the inadequacy of the DUP’s spin effort: for where’s the rapid rebuttal putting us all straight?
If this story is as has thus far been reported, it’s not as Cartman would say, hella-stupid, it’s so bad it’s Trimba-stupid. And stupid as I’ve said elsewhere because there is no worse mistake in politics than saying you’re going to do something unpopular which it then turns out you can’t in fact do. You just look equally weak and foolish. Obviously if the detail does prove to be wrong, and it only ever concerned, say, internal stuff like management of the assembly group, then it’s been a shoddy day out by the press team. Either way, hardly an awe-inspiring afternoon.
If this isn’t closed down by tomorrow, it’s going to end up with traditional unionists who’ve finally had enough of the UUP being so unenthused by Paisley that they’ll just stay at home. We’ve done it before and we can do it again. Way to go peter getting the biggest total vote out - or is that a stat you’ve stopped caring about?
Posted by on Feb 05, 2007 @ 09:06 PMEveryone has tried this (including the UUP for those posting so self righteously and some might say hypocritically) because no unionist party trusts their elected representatives as far as they can throw them. So far though no-one has made it stick or far that matter tried to enforce it…
Posted by on Feb 05, 2007 @ 09:14 PMTo be fair Peter, you and I have both seen the various mutations over the year thats the form handed to would-be UUP candidates for Stormont and Westminster contains. Never - for the obvious reason that it’s absolutely legally unfeasible - has that form suggested that the party leader has the power to compel an eelcted representative to resign his or her seat.
Posted by on Feb 05, 2007 @ 09:20 PMErratum: “years that”, ideally.
Posted by on Feb 05, 2007 @ 09:21 PMNorth Antrim did have a signed undated resignation letter in 2005 but we never attempted to use it - I thought DUP had had them for years as that was where the idea came from. The UUP old rules undertaking actually said that they would resign if they resugend the whip but I’m not too sure what the new rules say....
Posted by on Feb 05, 2007 @ 09:31 PMTurtly, er, totally - the UUP rubric boiled down to the hope/forlorn expectation that a renegade [sic] UUP elected bod would do the day-sent thing and, er, resign himself his seat. Nowhere was there ever foolishness profound enough to say, never mind what you might want to do, Robinson can resign your seat for you whether you want to or not (because it’s peter’s seat after all).
Posted by on Feb 05, 2007 @ 10:05 PMThis says to UUP possible voters DUP will deal.
Empey must be rather worried.Posted by on Feb 06, 2007 @ 12:32 AMFD:
AFAIK and perhaps an interesting note, they apparently had such a letter signed by Paul Berry but never used it. This maybe sheds some light their likely effectiveness.
Not to defend the DUP, but surely this depends on the wording of the contract that the DUP candidates sign. If the contract is intended to keep people from knocking the leadership in public and says that the letter will only be used if this happens, then it could not be used in Berry’s case as he did not speak out against party policy.
Mr Shilliday’s attempts to spin this are a bit wide of the mark. Yeah, I’d regard it as draconian too, but then again I’m not in the DUP. I doubt it is a matter of party officers deciding that an MLA’s “services are no longer required”; the BBC article quoted indicated that there is a procedure laid out which involves the party leader taking the decision with consultation from other members of the leadership. I am sure that the contract stipulates the conditions under which the resignation letter may be used.
Posted by on Feb 06, 2007 @ 12:56 AMPete Whitcroft
It’s time for the DUP to come to the electorate and be straight with them and say a definative yes or no to going into Govt with SF on 26th March - it’s not difficult.
Leadership is about having balls and clearly the DUP don’t have any at present…
Posted by on Feb 06, 2007 @ 12:58 AMAnti DUP
There’s an election on.Posted by on Feb 06, 2007 @ 01:36 AMIndeed and during an election you make committments to the people in a bid to be elected.
To date St Andrews has shown that the DUP have let the people down in terms of their ‘fair deal’ committments of 2003 and 2005…
Now in 2007, the latest plan for the DUP is to get elected without making any committments!
Come on Pete, its a no-brainer, the DUP just don’t have the balls or the brains…
Posted by on Feb 06, 2007 @ 01:39 AMThey will stand over the fence, but the candidate pledges if true, tell the tale.
Posted by on Feb 06, 2007 @ 01:53 AM
