Monday, February 05, 2007
Increasing the price of disloyality within the DUP…
It has to be said that internal cohesion has not historically been a great specialism of Northern Ireland’s party system. Sinn Fein has long since been famous for its command and control structures, and often been unfairly judged against wider standards that look almost laissez faire in comparison. But they are no longer the only ones looking to assert control from the ‘centre’ over the ‘edge’. The DUP’s central party headquarters is now demanding their MLAs sign a two page contract (with accompanying letter of resignation which apparently can be triggered automatically)… Martina Purdey:
“Another clause, which has also caused upset, asks candidates to sign a letter of resignation which could be invoked by the party leader Ian Paisley if the member is in serious breach of his or her obligations under the contract,” she said.
“These obligations include regularly attending meetings and obeying party policy. Under the contract, the party leader having consulted a majority of party officers could submit the letter to the speaker’s office.
“Another source, upset by the contract, said it was an attempt to stifle dissension before election day. Party officers are currently meeting, but it is not clear if the contract forms part of the discussion.”
She also noted that one of the clauses imposed a £20,000 fine on members.
Some questions arise, not least whether it is actually enforceable under a concerted legal challenge? Or is it just a ploy to concentrate the minds of potential rebels. Either way, it could be a serious gamble…
Mick Fealty @ 04:51 PM
IS IT A CONTRACT OR A CON TRICK
THE 95% SUPPORT FOR THE SAA WAS A CON TRICK
WHICH THE BT SURVEY MADE THE DUP LOOK STUPID
IF THAT WAS POSSIBLEPosted by on Feb 05, 2007 @ 09:36 PMNot only do the candidates have to sign this resignation letter, but also their replacements, so, Paisley could veto their replacements too.
Posted by on Feb 05, 2007 @ 09:59 PMFor the last time (on this thread), no he can’t. It’s all idle, entirely counter-productive now that it’s been exposed to the light of public scrutiny, bluff (directed at DUP candidates, to compound the insult, if you can insult sheep). Paisley can no more ‘resign’ [sic] somebody else’s eg assembly seat on their behalf than he could get pregnant for them.
Posted by on Feb 05, 2007 @ 10:08 PMThe DUP are the laughing stock of the electorate tonight
Posted by on Feb 06, 2007 @ 01:04 AMApparently there are 17 candidates refusing to sign the letter on the advice of a certain MEP.
A number of those are known to have already called for Paisley to step down in the last few months and are concerned that they could be “resigned” the day after the election.
DUP briefing sessions for candidates are reported to be in disarray as only one faction at a time is turning up.
Posted by on Feb 06, 2007 @ 11:12 AMthe other one… how reliable is your source?
Posted by on Feb 06, 2007 @ 11:47 AMIts been right before and I’m picking up locally that DUP candidates are worried about ratification and what they will have to commit to before ratification. Essentially they are being told that they must support the leadership if they decide to enter government on whatever date the leadership decides without being specific.
Posted by on Feb 06, 2007 @ 12:09 PMThe DUP contingent are very quiet on slugger today…
Posted by on Feb 06, 2007 @ 12:36 PMwho do you mean? Neither FD nor myself are DUP members, while Karl are Watchman UUP? Only Stalford is a DUPer and he’s probably out hoovering up the Gimp’s voters as we speak. I agree with Karl again BTW as to the “contract’s” unenforceability.
Posted by on Feb 06, 2007 @ 01:24 PM“Paisley Must Go and Go Now”
Posted by on Feb 06, 2007 @ 01:28 PM“Paisley Must Go and Go Now”
I second the motion.
Posted by on Feb 06, 2007 @ 01:40 PMIn my opinion if Paisley went and Robinson became less bitter about the UUP then we could see a unionist revival around the DUP ... maybe *cough*
OK how is this for simplicity:
Pro GFA Anti GFA
======= =========
Alliance is UUP lite DUP is UKUP lite
UUP is DUP lite UKUP is ....Pro St AA ergoGFA Anti StAA
======================== =========
DUP is UUP heavy UKUP is DUP heavyPosted by on Feb 06, 2007 @ 02:04 PMSorry for the lack of spaces but hopefully you get my thinking…
Posted by on Feb 06, 2007 @ 02:05 PMHello Darth,
I warn you solemnly that if you describe me as a UUP member again I shall be taking legal advice from Drew or Arlene for defamation. Surely the ECHR says every watchman is entitled to a reputation.
Posted by on Feb 06, 2007 @ 02:46 PMThis thread is getting very boring I am not sure who from the UUP etc are trying to make something out of nothing but this is an non story. The DUP have done this in 1998 and in 2003 in the first and second assembly elections and there was not a word from the press and their lackies in the UUP etc. As I said before it is a priviledge to stand for an election as a Party member remember you are only a small cog in the election wheel and loyality to a Party is essentional and it is nothing to do with the DUP being afraid of disent this was a requirement in 1998 & 2003 when the DUP was chewing the UUP up and spitting them out
Posted by on Feb 06, 2007 @ 02:52 PMIf its not an issue why have 17 candidates found it impossible to sign the letter on the advice of a well known MEP.
The duplicity of the DUP is finally catching up.
Mr Paisley insisted promises made to them by the Government were written, not verbal.
He said: “We are teaching the British Government a lesson, they will not pull the wool over our eyes.
“When they are found wanting, we give them a knock between the eyes and they will see stars. We are not going to be pushed around.
“We are in this fight to win for Ulster and democracy and to keep the British Government to the promises they made. None of these promises are verbal, they are promises which are written down.
“They know if they don’t keep them, these writings will be taken out and pushed down their throats publicly.”Belfast Newsletter 18th October 2006
Unlike the UUP, the Democratic Unionist Party will place
no reliance on any assurances from Government or other
parties, whether verbal or written. The test for the DUP
will be whether commitments have been met by inclusion
in legislation or promises already delivered upon.DUP Devolution Consultation Paper 27th October 2006
Posted by on Feb 06, 2007 @ 03:00 PMand the plot thickens....
Posted by on Feb 06, 2007 @ 04:03 PMTrue Blue,
I’m not from the UUP and don’t have any particular axe to grind. But you seem to be a bit too much of a party loyalist. The unionist people turned on Trimble and the UUP when the time came, and you should be aware that the same will happen, if necessary, to Papa Doc and the Punt, should they go down the same road. Have you not learned Trimble’s lesson that control-freakery doesn’t work?
Posted by on Feb 06, 2007 @ 07:39 PMThe Watchman
Insults do you nor your reasoning any good, so I am not going to repeat myself as I feel you are not listening, I may be a Party Member and that is my business. What you class as control may be different to what the DUP regard it as. If you are refering to the Leader and the Deputy Leader they have names like everyone else, and yes every one and I mean everyone in Northern Ireland should have learned Trimble’s lesson that is why both the gentlemen to whom I assume you are refering are making sure that everything is in place before anything happens at Stormont. Northern Ireland position within the Union is not secure as Trimble would have us think that is why the DUP have taken the hard stance that have with the British Government they are not date led but delivery led and I am prepared as a Unionist and a Loyalist to give them 100% support and thank goodness most of the Unionist family are of the same mind, it is the also rans that are bent on destroying Northern Ireland.Posted by on Feb 06, 2007 @ 08:17 PMTrue Blue,
Why do you not face up to the truth that your party is engaged in the same somersaults for which you once blackened Trimble? Or do I really have to Do A Bob, and read Papa Doc’s statements during the 2005 election back at you? Or if the cold record ain’t enough for you, there is the tiny matter of the DUP pulling its punches against Trimble even when the Executive was functioning. As Dean Godson pointed out, the DUP could have pulled out of the Executive and made Trimble’s position totally untenable. The DUP did not because it was too fond of having its feet under the table. I believe your party will snatch at a deal once it gets the right form of words.
Posted by on Feb 08, 2007 @ 09:44 AMthe only Unionist No party at the next Elections is the UKUP
Posted by on Feb 13, 2007 @ 01:00 AM
