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 @ 04:06 PM
“Indeed and during an election you make committments to the people in a bid to be elected”
See for example UUP 1998 - 2003
No guns no government (a catch phrase from 1999 on but the principle(sic) was always there)
Broken commitments = electoral catastrophe
No reason why the DUP wouldn’t want to follow that lead then?
Posted by on Feb 06, 2007 @ 01:02 AMIndeed and during an election you make committments to the people in a bid to be elected.
Clearly you’re new to this whole “politics” thing.
The DUP are at the top of the table and they have been told that the alternative is to do the deal or face joint authority. Do you think permitting joint authority to go ahead is the best way to secure their objectives ? I don’t think so.
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…
I think the DUP’s propaganda about forcing the IRA to disarm and SF to sign up to policing is plausible to unionist voters.
Now in 2007, the latest plan for the DUP is to get elected without making any committments!
No shit sherlock.
Posted by on Feb 06, 2007 @ 08:01 AMPaisley has made a career out of playing on people’s fears and sniping from the ditch. It is cheap politics. In the end he will do the deal for what are his alternatives? He has neither the skill or ability to come up with a coherent alternative path and never had. His skill is limited to criticising others without offering alternatives.
It is a pity that he hadn’t more sense 30 years ago. To a large part, because of this man and his obstinacy and that of those he stirs up we have delayed political progress for 30 years and lost thousands of lives. History will not look kindly on him. A son that Ulster would have been better without.
Posted by on Feb 06, 2007 @ 08:55 AMCrataegus
Very true.
We seem to have arrived in 2007 where we could have been in the mid 70’s if Sunningdale hadn’t been brought down. The main instigator of course being Paisley.
So many lives have been needlessly lost and so much time wasted.
To be fair, Paisley isn’t the only son that Ulster would have been better without.
I am a moderate Catholic and I now live abroad. However, my honest opinion is that, far from being the Unionist hero he likes to think, Paisley has been damaging Unionism for 40 years and is largely responsible for it’s poor image and lack of support outside NI.
Posted by on Feb 06, 2007 @ 09:22 AMI’m surprised that no one has commented on the implications behind the letter, ie, that the number of dissidents within the DUP is larger than we’ve been heretofore led to believe. One interpretation of this action, therefore, might be that the party hierarchy are behind power-sharing with SF and that they are trying to stymie further maverick statements or actions which fly in the face of HQ strategy.
Posted by on Feb 06, 2007 @ 09:37 AMThe DUP will not be going into any executive come March 26th.
Posted by on Feb 06, 2007 @ 10:29 AMObserver,
so they’re willing to bring the whole thing crashing down and deny the people of NI the devolution that we all want and we all need…
Great Leadership, thanks DUP
Posted by on Feb 06, 2007 @ 10:49 AMFair deal is no deal. But yet the DUP still beats the banker!
Posted by on Feb 06, 2007 @ 10:53 AMI dont see how a no deal benefits anyone.
no deal = joint partnership arrangements
But if thats what the DUP want…
a dreadful indictment on their ‘leadership’
Posted by on Feb 06, 2007 @ 10:59 AMYou don’t win elections by telling the truth. You win elections by compromising on the truth!
Posted by on Feb 06, 2007 @ 11:08 AMBilly
However, my honest opinion is that, far from being the Unionist hero he likes to think, Paisley has been damaging Unionism for 40 years and is largely responsible for it’s poor image and lack of support outside NI.
True
Disgusted
The DUP are incapable of coherent leadership. Their brand of politics is based on that which you get at speakers corner in Hyde Park. They are a collection of soap box politicians who play to the crowd. So with that in mind lower your expectations.
Posted by on Feb 06, 2007 @ 11:09 AMKeep it simple:
[1] The BBC report does not claim that Martina Purdy had seen the contract. Indeed, the final paragraph has the DUPlicity boys on the back-pedal: the contract is still under consideration (so , how can it be, firmly, two-pages?).
[2] The contract and “fine” are self-evidently not capable of legal enforcement (though, other “persuasion” may be applied by the outer fringes of DUPery).
[3] Lest we forget:
“ ... it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinions high respect; their business unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasure, his satisfactions, to theirs—and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own.“But his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure — no, nor from the law and the Constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”
[That’s Eddie Burke, you philistines!]Posted by on Feb 06, 2007 @ 11:18 AM‘The DUP will not be going into any executive come March 26th’.
ObserverSo, are they going to force Hain to pull the plug on the election?
There’s no point in having one if there’s not going to be an Executive.
Posted by on Feb 06, 2007 @ 01:07 PM’The DUP will not be going into any executive come March 26th’.
ObserverThere won’t be rain in Ireland in February.
Keep repeating to yourself Observer, and maybe you’ll start to believe it.
A bitter lesson is being learned here within the DUP and among a section of its support: there are no suchs things as absolutes and moral certainties in politics.
The compromise is being made, otherwise known as the great sell-out by those now engaged in it.
Posted by on Feb 06, 2007 @ 01:21 PMPaisley is about to do the very same thing he criticised Trimble for doing years ago.
Posted by on Feb 06, 2007 @ 01:28 PM.. and the Judas> Molyneaux ....
What i meant to say on the other like topic was this. In 1998 the breakdown of the unionist partys were strait forward. In the Pro-Agreement camp was the Alliance (UUP lite), UUP (DUP lite) whereas in the Anti-Agreement camp was the DUP (UKUP lite) and the UKUP. Now the DUP has wearing UUP clothing and is Pro-Agreement. It doesn’t matter how they dress the St. Andrew’s Agreement for it’s just window dressing for the GFA of 1998.Posted by on Feb 06, 2007 @ 01:35 PMTommyrot: in 1998, and for a long time afterwards, if you wanted to look at the UUP and see your own anti-agreement stance, for example, reflected back at you, it was perfectly possible. What changed Unionist politics, and permanently it seems, was Donaldson’s deaprture. Or to be more precise, what wrecked the UUP oddly enough was Trimble & his clique’s success in driving out our biggest individual vote winner. Well done David.
Posted by on Feb 06, 2007 @ 01:53 PMOr to be more precise, what wrecked the UUP oddly enough was Trimble & his clique’s success in driving out our biggest individual vote winner. Well done David.
KR, what’s the difference between where the DUP sits now, and where the UUP sat in 1999/2000 ?
Posted by on Feb 06, 2007 @ 07:45 PMComrade Stalin,
I know the question wasn’t directed at me but IMHO there isn’t a radical difference between where the UUP were at in 99/2000 and where the DUP are now. However there is a difference where SF are at now from 7 years ago. The fact that the DUP resolutely refused to countenance sharing power with SF until certain conditions were met is enough of a difference from Trimble/Empey for me and may I suggest many 10’s thousands of unionists. But that prognosis will get its test in a few weeks.
Posted by on Feb 06, 2007 @ 08:23 PM
