Friday, December 07, 2007
Jim Allister’s new group and d’Hondt
At the end of October there were a flurry of DUP pronouncements about the current mandatory coalition arrangements, most accusing the UUP of being bad eggs for suggesting the idea of an opposition. At the time I asked: does the DUP now expressly support mandatory coalition? Sammy Wilson says they did as far back as 2004, which is perhaps a suggestion that the future “Chuckle Brothers” situation was an implicit manifesto commitment of Jim Allister. I doubt Jim will see it that way.
So bullish is Sammy about the DUP being in a d’Hondt government, he seems to claim credit for the very idea!
This is the same Jim Allister who stood for election in 2004 on a manifesto which reads:
‘There are three potential forms of administration which could be formed:
- a voluntary coalition which can command cross community support,
- a mandatory coalition involving all the major parties, or
- a corporate assembly in which the Assembly as a whole would take executive decisions’
Europe04 manifesto: Leading for Ulster; Page 8
This is blatant hypocrisy and inconsistency at its highest level. Jim even travelled as far away as Washington DC to sell this idea to Senators and Congressmen, posing for pictures on Capitol Hill brandishing the DUP’s ‘Devolution Now’ document which first mooted the concept.(my emphasis)
Also interesting is:
As Allister punches in his time in Brussels, every utterance he makes illustrates further just how little he has to offer Northern Ireland and unionists.
So why did the DUP select him in the first place if he’s such a waste of space? Not as if he breezed in one day without knowing a soul. Jim and Sammy seem to have been fairly well acquainted before 2004 for a start.
Michael Shilliday @ 02:50 PM
He was brought in from the cold to heal a long standing rift when he was not selected for a position many years ago.He is now biting the hand that fed him.He clearly believes that all who voted DUP in the last European election voted for him personally on the basis of his charisma and political instincts.How wrong can one get. I have always found him a surly bad tempered little man with a chip on both shoulders He is the typical lawyer =this is what happened-not a politician who has to work on what can be made happen.
T.RuthPosted by on Dec 07, 2007 @ 03:51 PMThe whole event seems to have been a bit of a shambles.
To organise this the same day as Paisly was going to the White House to meet Bush seems a srange move as most of the morning apers will be devoted to use.
I’m guessing Allister opted for a Friday launch so that it would be covered in Saturday’s Newsletter and hopefully help him attract donations from the large Saturday rural audience.
Posted by on Dec 07, 2007 @ 04:16 PMAn implicit manifesto commitment? I’d say Jim Allister made a fairly explicit one in support of mandatory coalition.
Posted by on Dec 07, 2007 @ 04:19 PMInteresting point made by Godfrey. If you look at the BBC website it’s not even one of the featured articles - totally overshadowed by other stroies today.
Obviously Allister and his staff never thought that the press might see the First Minister meeting the President of the United Steates as a more important item to cover. And they accuse others of egotism?
Even on its launch day this movement has been deemed irrelevant. I guess that sets the tone. Allister will forever be in Paisleys shadow.
Posted by on Dec 07, 2007 @ 04:22 PMclearly believes that all who voted DUP in the last European election voted for him personally on the basis of his charisma and political instincts.
He rather reminds one of another ‘skilled advocate for the pro-Union cause’.
Posted by on Dec 07, 2007 @ 04:24 PMSammy
Absolutely spot on. Although at least Bob had the grace to admit he lost the argument within Unionism.
Posted by on Dec 07, 2007 @ 04:32 PMAnd Shilliday - what a pathetic link you provided to a story from 7 years ago.
if researcing articles from 7 years ago is all UUP staff have to do with their time, then its a good job Unionism wiped them off the electoral map, deemed them yesterdays men and made the DUP the voice of Unionism.
Pathetic - just like the party
Posted by on Dec 07, 2007 @ 04:33 PMSammy,
Did you hear him on H&M;talking about how he could go back to a more lucrative career elsewhere?
Sounds very like that other “skilled advocate”!
Posted by on Dec 07, 2007 @ 04:33 PMThe Whisperer - The DUP certainly don’t want people to remember the past. Until now I thought it was just because of their executive carve-up with SF, but I see now its even over any story remotely conected with their past. I’m glad Shilliday put up the link, as the story still makes me laugh even today.
Posted by on Dec 07, 2007 @ 04:54 PM“Did you hear him on H&M;talking about how he could go back to a more lucrative career elsewhere?”
Yes I thought that was fairly churlish. Given that most people think politicians get paid too much do we really want another sneering barrister telling us all what bucket-loads of dosh he’s worth?
Posted by on Dec 07, 2007 @ 04:56 PMAllister is a dinosaur and his future is about as rosey as their’s was too.
Posted by on Dec 07, 2007 @ 05:01 PMFermanagh Unionist
As a DUP supporter i have no problem talking about the past.
I have no problem going over the broken pledges of the UUP, the decline in UUP vote, the sways of people who left the UUP to join the UUP, the decline in any real talent in the UUP. Or maybe you want to talk about UUp introducing the idea of 50/50 recruitment into the police service which they had destroyed. Or maybe even we could talk about agreeing to let terrorists out of jail.
Take your pick pal.
Would you like me to continue?
From the performance in the Assembly of UUP members so far, it really doesn’t look good as they look to the future either. When Basil McCrea, Roy Beggs jnr and Tom Elliott are the best you’ve got, you really are screwed.
Posted by on Dec 07, 2007 @ 05:10 PMBy the way, Michael, what does it say about the quality and standard of the UUP that Wilson was able to bounce back from his public humiliation and take East ANtrim off your party?
Posted by on Dec 07, 2007 @ 05:12 PMAllister has alot to answer over the coming months. I agree with all that has been said on here so far, those who voted for Bob at the last election took there place as the 1% minority, the rest of the ‘groundswell’ of opinion against the DUP has not been from people who claim to have been ‘DUPed’ but from so-called unionists who did not even vote at the last election. I have yet to come across anybody who actually voted DUP and then felt betrayed, all those who spoke out against already were on their way out ie cllrs in Ballymena.
There is also the policies that Allister advocated while in the DUP. I hear he proposed all sorts of models, including at a meeting in Cariick, where he proposed the prospect of a coalition with SF! I doubt he was as big a hardliner when in the DUP as he makes out now and it will be very interesting to hear his previous views.
I think now that Jim has announced this new movement it will be gloves off from the DUP from now on and i don’t know if Jim will be able to stick the pressure of it all.
Clonakilty
Well said!
Posted by on Dec 07, 2007 @ 05:39 PMAllister advocated a voluntary coalition with Sinn Fein? Can anyone confirm? If true it shows just how off the wall he really is!
Posted by on Dec 07, 2007 @ 05:47 PMHow much does the DUP pay you to put your supposed names to this tosh?
Posted by on Dec 07, 2007 @ 07:28 PMAnyone know if Stoneyford Loyalist Mark Harbison is part of Allister’s group?
Posted by on Dec 07, 2007 @ 07:33 PMNot sure if Mark is, but here’s the death knell for the group:
I understand I am to be invited to a meeting with Jim. Hopefully it will suit my diary.
Friday, December 7, 2007 at 01:29PM | David Vance
Posted by on Dec 08, 2007 @ 12:58 AMI have to be honest i am not detecting a great deal of interest for Jim and his new movement people have moved on just look at Sinn Fein in the last week losing a councillor and MLA for supporting the police and being stuck supporting a British state hardly a reason to oppose the new agreement.
Posted by on Dec 08, 2007 @ 09:45 AMUnfortunate acronym>
SUV: Sports Utility Vehicle
TUV: Totally Useless Vehicle
Posted by on Dec 08, 2007 @ 11:13 AMoh dear aren’t we all falling over oursleves to get the jibes in? Perhaps just a teensy weensy bit concerned about a modest first step to meet the demand for some principled Unionist voice opposed to the Chuckle brothers? It is sad to see the depths people like t.ruth will go to to silence their own guilty consciences, voiced so articulately by Allister.
Y’see it’s not a political party- it’s just a movement, which you can join while remaining in the DUP or UUP, if you really have the urge- or just belong to it, like I intend to. A bit like the forgotten Donaldson/Foster vehicles friends of the Union and Union First- or indeed Vanguard ( without the motorcycle outriders). And the number of DUP people who will privately tell you they would like a fulcrum for their reservations never ceases to surprise me. They can’t put all the members on the payroll
And while Jim Allister is no Tony Blair, he isn’t going to be pushed around by the DUP or Noel Thompson type interviewers. He’s as tough as nails, and that’s why he was headhunted by Robinson - bet he’s glad he did that. He’s the only person who faced up to the great Crocodile
twice- prepared to throw away a career laden with promise on each occasion.He may never lead Unionism, but as his analysis of the cancerous political establishment is proven correct, who can say whether he will attract more support. John Howard wasn’t exactly Mr Soundbite , yet he connected with what a large number of Australians were thinking and revived his party’s fortunes. I agree that it will be a huge task, especially given the nauseating fawning which passes for political journalism here, but at least he has a distinct message unlike the “soft cop, even softer cop” UUP
If you want a politician whose sole talent is to simper or squawk a prepared statement you’ve got Arlene and the new generation of sub-Stalinist DUP MLAs. BTW talk to those at Carrickfergus and you’ll know someone on this thread is being a wee bit disingenuous.And just think of the possibilities for entertainment- you know there could be no better television punchup ( with apologies to Ricky Hatton- to whom good luck goes)
than a debate between Jim and Robinson- sarcasm overload!!!Posted by on Dec 08, 2007 @ 01:07 PMThe opponents of the new movement (I can finally stop calling it the prodiban) have identified a number of problems here. As ever there is much sniping along with a reasoned analysis from bigger picture. I happily accept his criticism of TUV (finally I have got to type it) as he is actually willing to analyse things. “Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.”
It is undoubtedly true that Allister is no fire brand orator. That is fine by me. Does he have the charisma to make a viable movement? Possibly; I do not know not knowing the man. Let us remember the politician who cut the DUP’s vote most in the last twenty five years was Jim Molyneaux.
There is no doubt at all that the initial disastrous agreement negotiated (even negotiated seem to be too flattering) by Trimble et al. was utterly flawed. Even the UUP seem to accept some of that now. Furthermore there is no doubt that the changes negotiated by the DUP at St. Andrew’s were an improvement from a unionist analysis. The question is was the improvement adequate for unionists? Some think it was; that is fine. Personally I think the changes were inadequate.
There certainly are some people who will never countenance power sharing with SF. Some may be bigots who do not want “A fenian about the place”. I submit that I am not one of those.
I have huge problems having power sharing with SF members whom everyone (even they accept) were members of the IRA and most people think were heavily involved in personally arranging the murder of other people; and who are unrepentant. I find accepting power sharing with such people extremely difficult. However, I accept that one cannot tell the nationalist electorate whom they should vote for. As such if we want power sharing we may have to accept it with members of SF who may well have murdered people.
To accept power sharing in such circumstances I personally would insist that SF show proper support for the police in practical measures. I do not demand they are uncritical but I do insist that they stop their constant attempts to attack and belittle the police. The IRA must go away and are demonstrated to have gone away. The army council cannot be extant with SF in power. People cannot be murdered by the IRA whilst SF are in government. Unionists should not hide behind weasel words like “corporate responsibility”. Reading other threads one can clearly see that many nationalists and republicans are heartily sick of the murderous antics of the IRA and SFs support for them. I find it incredible that the DUP seem less concerned by and see less political significance in Mr. Quinn’s murder than many South Armagh republicans.
The next issue is the disastrous nature of government: there is quite clearly no proper cabinet government, there is no proper collective responsibility, the control that the executive members have over the legislature is excessive. The ability of the executive to ignore a specific motion of the legislature (on agricultural wages) sets an extremely bad precedent.
The d’Hondt formula is extremely flawed. It provides for no effective opposition and essentially permanent governance for most of the current executive parties. The fact that the DUP have recently been talking up the review is interesting. The fact that they will be unable to make any move without SFs agreement shows this review strategy to be specious. I am sure the DUP know this but are currently trying to ensure no defections to TUV.
Even leaving aside the totally flawed method of governance; the behaviour of the parties in government has been little short of a scandal. Rows and threats of legal action in the so called cabinet. The complete failure to make any constructive decision (though in fairness the UUP are just as bad as DUP and SF in this regard). The ongoing whiff of corruption and nepotism.
So indeed few can argue that there is not something for TUV to complain about. Can it produce a coherent alternative? I am cautiously optimistic. Can it attract enough votes to produce a viable alternative? I am less optimistic. If successful could it produce benefits for all the people of Northern Ireland unionist and otherwise? I believe so. Is this a project that is worth attempting? Yes. As such do I think I should try to get involved? Yes. Could I be wrong and the whole thing be either a disaster, or a crowd of flat earth, nutter bigots? Maybe; in which case I would leave. The fact that something might fail is not, however, justification for not attempting it.
Posted by on Dec 08, 2007 @ 02:19 PMAnd while Jim Allister is no Tony Blair, he isn’t going to be pushed around by the DUP or Noel Thompson type interviewers. He’s as tough as nails, and that’s why he was headhunted by Robinson - bet he’s glad he did that. He’s the only person who faced up to the great Crocodile
twice- prepared to throw away a career laden with promise on each occasion.Darth, talk about spin. How much can be said for someone’s political cunning when that someone gets fooled by the same guy twice ?
This is fUKUP all over again.
Posted by on Dec 08, 2007 @ 02:25 PMMaybe Jim Allister lacks political cunning. His leaving the DUP twice is not necessarily evidence for this, however, as on each occasion it seems to have been about policy disagreements. However, maybe he is not politically cunning. Whilst cunning is quite a useful political attribute; I would suggest principle and maybe even statesmanship is what we want at the moment. Does Allister have these? I have no idea, He has walked away from political power twice which could be seen as laudable and not an egotistical lust for power at any price. Maybe he is just a poor politician. We shall wait and see.
Posted by on Dec 08, 2007 @ 02:34 PMTG
I am sure I am not alone in thinking that your own good talents would be wasted with this group of no-hopers. As someone who comes across here as basically decent, honest and representing all that is best in Ulster Protestantism, you would be ill advised to be associated with Mr Allister who represents nothing remotely connected with these qualities.
As someone with principle, consider: had he an ounce of that, he would not cling to a MEP position to which he has forfeited all moral right due to his departure from the DUP.
Posted by on Dec 08, 2007 @ 02:43 PM
