Friday, November 24, 2006
DUPes speaking with two heads?
Michael Stone’s bungled assassination attempt apart, the news from Stormont today included a seemingly contradictory response from the DUP to the ‘other’ business being conducted at Stormont. Following on from the ‘Nomination’ process in the Chamber this morning, 12 DUP MLAs- including four MPs- hastily agreed a public statement denying that their party had taken part in any process to nominate a team to head up a future power-sharing administration. The statement contradicted the earlier indication from DUP leader Ian Paisley, and is being taken as the first public indicator of a potential rift within the party.
Chris Donnelly @ 03:22 PM
I don’nt believe the DUP will split in the way the UUP did, their structure was more flexible allowing the pressure to build and escape through a split, the DUP is made of cast iron by compassason, no movement, then bang!!!!!!!!
Posted by on Nov 24, 2006 @ 04:45 PMIan Paisley withheld his name from nomination and said it was because of the lack of movement on policing etc. 12 DUP MLA’s say the same thing. The contradiction is?
Posted by on Nov 24, 2006 @ 04:49 PMWhy did the 12 come out with the signed statement then Fair_Deal?
At best, it seems they think their leader has been less than clear.
Posted by on Nov 24, 2006 @ 05:00 PMWhat Paisley said in the chamber
“There can only be an agreement involving Sinn Fein when there has been delivery by the republican movement, tested and proved over a credible period in terms of support for the PSNI (the police), the courts, the rule of law, a complete end to paramilitary and criminal activity and the removal of terrorist structures,” he said.
“Clearly, as Sinn Fein is not yet ready to take the decisive step forward on policing, the DUP is not required to commit to any aspect of power-sharing in advance of such certainty.”
Posted by on Nov 24, 2006 @ 05:08 PMGeorge
Simple a few people in government haven’t been listening.
Posted by on Nov 24, 2006 @ 05:10 PMfair Deal
You really have to take those blinkers off.
Pete Baker had a favourite mantra a little while back (I’m glad he stopped, it was driving me crazy)
Tick TockWell the clock is ticking also both politically and physiologically for the old Boy and people are startng to set out their stalls.
Down to Robinson or Doods, methinks, since baby doc is no Terry Malloy.Posted by on Nov 24, 2006 @ 05:12 PMjoecanuck
Show me the contradiction between what Paisley said in the chamber and the press statement of the MLA’s?
If there is one I will revise my position.
PS Ken Reid has just been on the UTV news and he said the DUP Assembly party has endorsed what Paisley said this afternoon.
Posted by on Nov 24, 2006 @ 05:18 PMAnd what he said this afternoon, outside of the chamber, was that he would be accepting nomination if SF delivered.
Posted by on Nov 24, 2006 @ 05:22 PMWho do we think he was targetting? If MM copped one that may well be counterproductive to his supposed cause, mayn’t it?
Posted by on Nov 24, 2006 @ 05:24 PMAnd don’t contend that only what he said in the chamber matters since, of course, the press statement was also made outside the chamber.
Posted by on Nov 24, 2006 @ 05:25 PMThe 12 MLA’s said nothing to contradict that.
Posted by on Nov 24, 2006 @ 05:36 PMFair Deal,
I would say the question is less ‘what’ was in the statement and more ‘why’ was there a separate statement at all.Posted by on Nov 24, 2006 @ 05:52 PMI think with the confussion up at Stormont there has been some mix up, there was no condridiction with what Paisley said and the statement by the twelve which turned out to be another statement by the 32 all in agreement later on in the afternoon. All the partys have said there was Nomination!
Posted by on Nov 24, 2006 @ 05:59 PMThe split deepens, battle lines drawn, Jim Allister MEP is completely lost to those in favour of the SAA.
In his strongest rejection yet he raises his newest objection, over Article 8and calls for united opposition.
Posted by on Nov 24, 2006 @ 06:33 PMIf the DUP start doing politcis like the UUP then that would be electoral suicide.
I smell a rat when I see the likes of Nigel Dodds signing a press statment that hasn’t went through the party press office.
Posted by on Nov 24, 2006 @ 06:34 PMAny details on who the dissenters are? I assume David Simpson and Willie McCrea are among the ringleaders?
Posted by on Nov 24, 2006 @ 06:41 PMNigel Dodds,Willie McCrea, Gregory Campbell, David Simpson,Lord Morrow, Diane Dodds, Paul Girvan, Stephen Moutray, Nelson McCausland, Mervyn Storey,Tom Buchanan and Jim Wells all signed the statement.
Posted by on Nov 24, 2006 @ 06:46 PMThe dissenters:
Nigel Dodds, William McCrea, Gregory Campbell, David Simpson, Morrow, Diane Dodds, Paul Girvan, Stephen Moutray, Nelson McCausland, Mervyn Storey, Tom Buchanan and Jim Wells.
Posted by on Nov 24, 2006 @ 06:48 PMHave none of you got the report of Paisley clarifying his position (post plenary) that went further than what the NIO could have expected? I was still drying off when the reports started to come in - reported on Sky TV I think.
The list of the “Stone faction” are now well known Notbymight and include the 2 names you mention.
Posted by on Nov 24, 2006 @ 06:56 PMFair Deal - I’ve not yet got Paisley’s post plenary statement as was reported in the media - do you have it or know of it?
Perhaps Paisley was poorly reported - it wouldn’t be the 1st time, but I’m a little confused as to why you’ve not attended to it. Is the DUP communication machinary breaking down?
Posted by on Nov 24, 2006 @ 07:06 PMWhat happened today in the DUP far outweighs even the Michael Stone story.
Paisley faced massive internal dissent at this morning’s DUP assembly group meeting - Campbell and others left and slammed the door when Paisley refused to let his Assembly group see the text of his speech.
Paisley then omitted a line in this morning’s Assembly speech with would have given a much clearer outline of his intention to nominate as First Minister.
It was because of this omission that Eileen Bell’s statement that “both parties have agreed to nominate” sounded so, frankly, weird and out of tune with that Paisley said.
(Bertie Ahern referred to the omission of this line which had been agreed with the Govts in the early hours of this morning.)
Blair and Hain then try to finesse/fudge the situation by claiming that what Paisley said was actually enough to move forward.
The Paisleys, the Robinsons, Donaldson, Foster and other pro-Agreement DUPpers retired to the Stormont Hotel after the bomb scare.
The 12 DUP MLAs and 5 DUP MPs then, incredulously, attempt to bounce their own Leader off the deal by making their statement that they had signed up to nothing.
Paisley, furious at this assault on his leadership, issues a clarifying statement, through Press Association and the BBC (Dan McGinn & Devenport) stating, *clearly and unambiguously* that it is his intention to nominate as First Minister once SF delivers on policing.
The afternoon statement was far clearer than anything we had previously heard from Paisley - i.e. if Paisley had made his afternoon statement in the morning to the Assembly there would have been no confusion and it would have been quite clear the DUP intended to nominate.
——
Reading between the lines, it would seem that Paisley, trying to hold his party together, omitted the line from his speech this morning.
However, once the statement from the 12 MLA and 5 MP dissidents was released, it became clear that he could not hold his party together without sacrificing the St Andrews deal.
Paisley then shows true leadership and spine by accepting the split in his party, facing down his dissidents - including half his Parliamentary team - and issuing his unambiguous clarification statement.
Which leaves the 12 MLAs and 5 MPs with a lot of explaining to do - how could they stab their leader in this way, and where do they stand in the DUP now that their Leader has so clearly rejected their position.
Posted by on Nov 24, 2006 @ 07:29 PMThanks MonkeySee for that very interesting analysis.
Posted by on Nov 24, 2006 @ 07:40 PMWhen you see Campbell getting nervous, it is a very bad sign for the DUP. I have always believed him to be loyal to the leadership and if he is slamming doors then there is a problem. I would like to know why Sinn Fein have to wait until the summer to have an Ard Fheís on policing. Perhaps Chris Donnelly will enlighten us.
Posted by on Nov 24, 2006 @ 08:42 PMRubicon
Follow this link (realplayer reqd)
LinkThe footage is 6 minutes 40 secs It shows Paisley clearly stating that:
“The circumstances have not been reached where there can be a nomination or designation this day. I have made clear my aim hope and desire for the future. Throughout the DUP consultations we stated if and when commitments are delivered the DUP would enter government. At that time there will fall to me a judgement consistent with the policy with delivery on the ground as the basis for moving forward. Here I stand.”The lack of a nomination was got round by the ambiguous statment from the speaker that:
“subject to the outcome of the election and other necessary conditions being satisfied”
Also the SDLP, UUP and Alliance leaders are of the view Paisley’s words did not indicate a nomination.
Monkeysee
“Paisley refused to let his Assembly group see the text of his speech.”
Wrong Paisley’s speech was read to the Assembly group meeting this morning. The speech is also a composite of what he said in Westminster during the SAA debate and the party resolution on the SAA.
Posted by on Nov 24, 2006 @ 09:10 PMCato,
The normal SF Ard Fheis happens in Feb/Mar and policing can be discussed and positions changed then without the need for a special Ard Fheis.
Posted by on Nov 24, 2006 @ 09:15 PM