Friday, October 19, 2007
“I do not see any reason whatsoever why we [the Executive] forced this issue…”
As mentioned earlier in the comments, Reg Empey told Talkback that he backed Margaret Ritchie, in that he was not prepared to pass the disputed minutes. He is critical of the late delivery of the minutes. The production of four (action?) points unseen before the meeting during an ad hoc discussion (ie, only added to the agenda at the last minute).
“Normally when someone has a problem with a minute it is deferred until they can produce evidence of inaccuracies or until they can talk to the First Minister or Deputy First Minister to sort it out. This happens regularly. There was no requirement for that minute to be passed yesterday, sometimes minutes are months behind. I was puzzled by that. I was asked if I would go down to my department and my home to see if I could find any notes that might help, and I said no I am not in the middle of a meeting like this. What’s the urgency of this?”
His recollection, he said, was closer to Ritchie’s than that of the minutes. He also confirmed that his understanding was that Ritchie had sought guidance, but had been told that it was her ministerial responsibility.
Mick Fealty @ 11:05 AM
Mick,
There also have to be questions asked about this growing tendency of the DUP and Sinn Fein Minister to ask for a break during committee meetings to confer with one another. Nothing illegal about, nor necessarily unethical. But we are seeing a very clear split between those who have been conferring, and those who haven’t.
That’s the real world of politics. The big players confer, the small ones get asked when their vote is needed.
Posted by on Oct 19, 2007 @ 04:33 PM<i>As for amatuerish. Martin’s ‘losing the run of herself’ comment was in response to a supposed statement that she never actually made.
I can tell you straight that the press think it is Martin that’s rattled, not Margaret.<?/i>
Mick what is the press saying?
Posted by on Oct 19, 2007 @ 04:54 PM“But when this all goes to court the SDLP and UUP will have egg on their face.”
“Costs money to go to court. Will the UDA (a proscribed organisation by the by) be footing their own bill or applying for legal aid?”
Posted by tweedledee on Oct 19, 2007 @ 05:15 PM
No the UDA won’t be taking anyone to court. But Farset might be taking the Minister to court for breach of a letter of offer from DSD for funding.The court of public opinion is a strong one, but this may the technicality that catches Ms Ritchie out - which is a shame, because when you’ve got Marty and Adolf…I mean…Peter…on the hop, it would be a shame to get caught like that.
Posted by on Oct 19, 2007 @ 06:01 PMDear tweedledee and dear tweedldum. Everyone i have worked with this week from different parts of town back margaret at last we all agree someone got it right fek the niceties and the dup and the shinners hears my vote margaret.
[Play the ball - edited moderator]
Posted by on Oct 19, 2007 @ 06:07 PMupdate sluggers
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7053408.stmIs code something of an Enigma?
Posted by on Oct 19, 2007 @ 06:13 PM“PS: Which ministerial code did Margaret Ritchie break, if any?
It seems the new executive hasn’t got round to agreeing a new ministerial code.
So, if she did break a code she broke the one which applied during the lifetime of the first executive.
The same executive which DUP ministers at the time, including Peter Robinson and Nigel Dodds, refused to attend.”
Nice one, Jim. It appears Peter has forgotten that Castlereagh Council is down the road and NOT the big white building with the steps and pillars.
This is turning into a lesson in control-freakery. Perhaps Pete the Cobra and Midshipman Marty need to remember that the control they wield in their respective parties does NOT extend beyond their own party boundaries.
Posted by on Oct 19, 2007 @ 06:18 PMUlster Unionist leader Sir Reg Empey now supports Ms Ritchie’s story and has gone further, suggesting the minutes were altered for a particular purpose.
“It’s about creating the circumstances where people can claim that she broke the ministerial code,” he told BBC Radio’s Talkback programme on Friday.
This is explosive stuff.
It means the SDLP and Ulster Unionists are suggesting a conspiracy involving Sinn Fein and the DUP to discredit and possibly hound from office an executive minister.
To what end would they wish to do that?
Where are the D’Hondt experts when you need them?
Posted by on Oct 19, 2007 @ 06:21 PMtweedledee: “To what end would they wish to do that? “
Gee… I dunno…
Given that this is the, what, third or fourth alternate approach to derailing the defunding of the UDA’s “jobs for the boyos” program of sinecure for muppets and ex-hardmen, that it might have something to do with it.
Ritchie has made SF and DUP look light a band of pygmies, what between SF’s spinning like a wheel of fortune and DUP’s sudden and very public support for paying off the UDA. Neither group has a grand tradition of accepting defeat gracefully.
The end, as it were, should be obvious, even to the oblivious…
Posted by on Oct 19, 2007 @ 06:28 PMDread,
Gee… I dunno…
Sometimes it’s best to wait and see in that case, rather than get all paranoid about it.
Ritchie has made SF and DUP look light a band of pygmies,
Indeed.
The ‘conspiracy theory’ couldn’t possibly be the SDLP and the UUP playing party politics with the issue themselves though. God forbid any politician would let that evil thought cross their minds.
Posted by on Oct 19, 2007 @ 06:38 PMThe ‘conspiracy theory’ couldn’t possibly be the SDLP and the UUP playing party politics with the issue themselves though. God forbid any politician would let that evil thought cross their minds.
Posted by tweedledee on Oct 19, 2007 @ 08:38 PM
If they are they’re doing it a damm sight better than the ‘other two’, Reg is coming across all stateman like, Robinson a bully
Posted by on Oct 19, 2007 @ 07:01 PMtweedledee: “Sometimes it’s best to wait and see in that case, rather than get all paranoid about it. “
Then why, pray tell, are you so busy posting, declaring it all but a done deal, Tweedledee? It might be best for you to accept a bit of your own advice.
Frankly, though, given individual track-records, the SDLP isn’t exactly the party of skilled skull-duggery and political payback, compared to some others…
tweedledee: “The ‘conspiracy theory’ couldn’t possibly be the SDLP and the UUP playing party politics with the issue themselves though. God forbid any politician would let that evil thought cross their minds. “
Given the relative positions, I’d wouldn’t say it couldn’t be party politics, but I’d suggest it is unlikely. For starters, the only gain the UUP could have would be moral capital and, given who is in charge at the moment, we can see how valueless that is.
As for the rest, I confess most of my opinion is simply a mix of counter examples to your posts and occam’s razor based on prior performance of the political parties in question.
For example, who benefits from the alleged change in wording—why, SF / DUP. Who has the power to ensure that their preferred wording is enshrined as the offical wording? Why, SF / DUP. Which two parties have the grandest tradition of political payback? Why, SF / DUP.
Now, am I saying that it’s a “conspiracy?”
No.
Am I marvelling at this rather convenient set of circumstances and coincidences?
Yes.
Last, before you suggest that I am an SDLP partisan, I can honestly say that as someone who is right of center, voting for the SDLP has never been something I’ve considered in the past.
Posted by on Oct 19, 2007 @ 07:03 PMtewwdledee
isn’t it obvious that SF and the DUP are playing party politics; your spinning is not impressive.Posted by on Oct 19, 2007 @ 07:04 PMParci,
Only that the Deputy First Minister attacked Ritchie on the basis of something she did not actually say. Why would he do that? I mean put fake words into another Minister’s mouth? It does not give him an advantage. In fact quite the opposite. And it is certainly not like Sinn Fein to get a crucial detail like that so badly wrong.
The conclusion: there are nerves within the camp.
The question is why?
Posted by on Oct 19, 2007 @ 07:33 PMparci,
isn’t it obvious that SF and the DUP are playing party politics; your spinning is not impressive.
They seem to be. It seems to me so are the SDLP and the UUP.
As it happens I agree with Ritchie’s decision. But in doing so I also recognise that it probably won’t stand up to a legal challenge. Some things are worth fighting about regardless.
Unfortunately, instead of staying focussed on the issue, Ritchie allowed herself to be distracted by her detractors, and has levelled accusations of misconduct, at a minimum, against civil servants, among others, where it could simply be a case of misunderstanding, misinterpretation and differing recollections.
Having said that, it occurs to me to also ask why if she thought she was to pass on to the FM, DFM and Robinson the legal advice she received, what she believed to be the purpose of that.
Posted by on Oct 19, 2007 @ 07:48 PMthanks for that Mick
why indeed?
seems like the wolves SF/DUP won this week, with Ms Ritchie as dinner.
I’d like to think you’d give MMcG a yellow for not playing the ball.Posted by on Oct 19, 2007 @ 07:49 PMThe question is why?
here is my take on why there are nerves in the SF camp: because they pure and simple got this one wrong, and they are hearing that in the street, in the constituency offices, and in the Culterlann. they got it wrong. The Deputy First Minister (remember the “I am the boss” stuff pre eleection?) has now begun to shout and insult when he longer has reason on his side.
SF Ministers offered her ‘no comment’; maskey condemned her for not stopping the money 60 days ago; Anderson condemned her for stopping it at all, as did Gibney; now they are trying to hide their mistake behind procedure.
Its very entertaining!
Posted by on Oct 19, 2007 @ 07:56 PMteweedledee
where it could simply be a case of misunderstanding, misinterpretation and differing recollections
not if the minutes were altered, that would imply something much more deliberate, and planned .
As SF/DUP have the majority vote, what’s to stop them engaging in some underhand tricks.What a different week it would have been if she’s been backed up!
Posted by on Oct 19, 2007 @ 08:03 PMparci,
not if the minutes were altered, that would imply something much more deliberate, and planned .
And therein lies the problem for her. She has provided no evidence that is the case. All she had to do was what I posted earlier, move to table the adoption of the minutes, tell Thompson when he was interviewing her she didn’t agree with the minutes, and the others had refused to table the motion, and go ask them why they refused to do so. Then she could have gotten on with her primary focus. It puts the onus on them to explain themselves, she’s home dry. Instead she’s made accusations that the minutes were altered, and if she can’t prove that ...
Posted by on Oct 19, 2007 @ 08:13 PM“All she had to do was what I posted earlier, move to table the adoption of the minutes..”
Minutes that SF and the DUP actually wanted to adopt - to support their case that Ritchie was supposed to consult the Executive before making any decision on this funding?
And why do you suppose, according to your argument, that SF and the DUP would have refused to adopt minutes that they actually wanted to adopt?
Or are you just getting confused?
Posted by on Oct 19, 2007 @ 08:25 PMOr are you just getting confused?
Nope, no confusion on my part. It’s a procedural device that could have been used, and then in the interview she could have shown how reasonable she was, how she was willing to consider misunderstandings, misinterpretations, seek further clarity, etc, etc, the others weren’t, go ask them why they weren’t willing to hold off for clarification, rather than rush into accusations that she may not be able to substantiate.
The whole argument is now focussed on their procedures, the minutes of their meetings, and so on, and there was an opportunity that went to waste.
Amateurs the lot of yis, to be honest.
Posted by on Oct 19, 2007 @ 08:37 PMSo, tweedledee, you’re suggesting Ritchie should have tabled a motion to accept minutes she believed were fraudulent.. and then use SF and DUP ministers refusal to adopt those minutes as evidence of their fraudulence?
Except.. why would those ministers, who ultimately wanted to adopt those same minutes, not do so at if such a motion was tabled?
And how, having tabled a motion to adopt those minutes, could she then claim that those minutes were fraudulent without being criticised for being hypocritical?
It may seem a tactical stroke of genius to you.. but it doesn’t seem like a stroke of genius in the cold-light-of-day.. nor a proposal based on any principle at all.
You sure you’re not confused here?
Posted by on Oct 19, 2007 @ 08:50 PMPete,
You sure you’re not confused here?
Positive. But my apologies. I was posting under the assumption there was an understanding what tabling an item meant. A motion to table means move the item for discussion/vote at a later time/date, normally done when more information is required.
Posted by on Oct 19, 2007 @ 09:07 PMtweedledee
Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the UK meaning of that phrase - rather than the US, or Canadian, meaning.
Posted by on Oct 19, 2007 @ 09:20 PMall sorts of unlikely bedfellows today agreeing with each other, phew…. glad its half-term.
Now for my horlicks.Posted by on Oct 19, 2007 @ 09:37 PM“tweedledee” - do you understand what you are saying? i think you are as confused as the DUP/SF/UDA axis
Posted by on Oct 19, 2007 @ 09:41 PM
