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
Theres’s little enough reason to laugh on a grey day but Red Sammy and Sillyboy accusing others of breaking pledges is well worth a chuckle. Folks, would you read the document again? It sets out the types of administration that “could” be formed? It was after all a position paper.
Red Sammy seems to believe that including a mandatory coalition option excuses the current repulsive “Chuckles with the Chuckie” double act. It doesn’t even give him a fig-leaf, so to speak. On the other hand there are plenty of explicit DUP pledges that the party would not do what it has gone on to do. These were the people who spent years throwing dirt at Trimble and once they got into the driving seat did exactly the same. Even now they defend their position in terms identical to the Turtle all those years ago.
I agree that the movement has an uphill task to put it mildly. But even if it just means a voice for Darth and me alone, it will be worth it. And hopefully it might one day challenge the cartel, machine politics of the DUP.
Posted by on Dec 08, 2007 @ 02:43 PMWhile I can understand the simmering resentment at the DUP, whether this is founded on genuine annoyance at their hypocrisy or jealousy, it strikes me that the barometer of success for any anti-agreement “movement” would be the destruction (or diminution) of the present, democratic arrangements. Arrangements which reflect the electorally expressed wishes, freely given, of ALL the people in NI.
Following that destruction, then what?
Exercise your right to voice unease and objection, by all means. But recognise what the consequences would be of “success”.
Posted by on Dec 08, 2007 @ 02:56 PMAllister’s problem is that while most unionists, (even DUP bloggers) can see that the DUP have torn up the ‘policy book’ and went back on pledges galore they are broadly in favour of the present arrangements, as for the bits they dislike, they are holding their noses, while the are happy with Paisley 2007, they still remember his antics in ‘67’ but have out it to the back of their minds, for now!
Posted by on Dec 08, 2007 @ 03:07 PMTurgon,
I seem to recall Allister having a certain set of standards regarding entry into government for Sinn Fein. Those standards weren’t met at the time, but they have been met since then .. but no, ol Jim has moved the goalposts. I think his use of the Quinn killing to further his political ends in this respect is sick.
Posted by on Dec 08, 2007 @ 03:15 PMCS
On Radio Ulster yesterday morning he mentioned the conditions for SF in govt. I think they involved the IRA being dismantled. Other more attentive listeners may recall more exact wording. In any case, the gap between where we are and where he would want them to be wasn’t really miles across...which leads one to think…
Posted by on Dec 08, 2007 @ 03:28 PMDid Allister at any point advocate a DUP-Sinn Fein voluntary coalition? If so it exposes his utter hyposcrisy and will blow this small group wide open at the first test. Mandatory coalition with SDLP and UUP - out of the question says Allister but a single voluntary coalition with Sinn Fein is OK? Just how much of a hypocrite is he?
Posted by on Dec 08, 2007 @ 04:50 PM“they still remember his antics in ‘67’ but have out it to the back of their minds, for now!”
The UUP have been casting up these “antics” for the last 35 years and it didn’t stop the DUP from becoming the biggest party. Why would it work now? UUP = Utterly Useless Party.
Posted by on Dec 08, 2007 @ 04:52 PMJo,
It’s the usual play on words. How can anyone prove the IRA are dismantled ? As long as a person exists who wishes to use arms to secure an end to British rule, then the IRA exist. There needs to be a clearer definition than that.
Posted by on Dec 08, 2007 @ 05:29 PMCS
As was ever the problem with demonstrating the IRA declared - permanently - an end to violence.By definition, that means that at the end of time, the ceasefire be demonstrated.
Most people accept that, with the absence of a concerted IRA campaign, the Provies have gone. I along many others will accept their bona fuieds. Can they, on their part, accapt my acceptance? Or will they continue to believe that David Vance and Jim Allister are their foes?
Posted by on Dec 08, 2007 @ 05:40 PM“Most people accept that, with the absence of a concerted IRA campaign, the Provies have gone. I along many others will accept their bona fuieds.”
Jo,
Who murdered Paul Quinn? Al Quada?
Do you accept Conor Murphy’s bona fides when he says that the IRA had nothing to do with it?
Who’s responsible for all the organised crime?Do you care about the answers?
Or like many supporters of the present dispensation do you prefer not to think about them?
Posted by on Dec 08, 2007 @ 07:12 PMI can’t wait to they become a political party. The Traditional Unionist Party - TUP.
For some reason the thought of Allister and Tweed TUPping together amuses me.
Posted by on Dec 08, 2007 @ 07:45 PMOr like many supporters of the present dispensation do you prefer not to think about them?
As if unionists don’t have friends getting up to things that they don’t like to think about. If Allister had principles, how could he join a DUP which did not satisfactorily explain the appearance of Billy Wright on a podium with Willie McCrea ? If you’re going to bitch about other people avoiding the tough questions, then you need to answer that one.
You don’t give a damn about Paul Quinn. If Quinn hadn’t been murdered your view would be the same.
Posted by on Dec 08, 2007 @ 08:59 PMWith all due respect Comrade, fuck off telling people what exactly it is they do or do not give a damn about. Sincerity isn’t the preserve of self-righteous Alliance pricks alone, and some of us, some of us who are ‘traditional’ Unionists reject *all* terrorism, Billy Wright very much included. And, seemingly more or less alone, we do care that Provos are still murdering people, whether or not Provo leaders are in devolved government. But as I say, fuck off, if you’re not big enough to accept that other people do honesty.
Posted by on Dec 08, 2007 @ 10:15 PMJo,
You raise difficult questions as you always tend to. I would suggest the major difference between and your view and that of many of us supporting a TUV position is that I am unwilling to accept the word of the republican movement. You (I suspect with significant caution) are as you so want a definite end to violence. As such you are willing (with I am sure a very heavy heart) to accept ignoring some highly unpleasant things. I just cannot accept that suspension of morality for this little reward for all the people of NI (the extremely poor government we have). I also feel that a house so clearly built upon sand cannot stand. In no way do I suggest my position is morally superior to yours it is just a different (and I hope equally honest) assessment of the available evidence.There are many reasons why unionists might hold a rejectionist position viz a vis the agreement. Could I suggest four different positions not necessarily mutually exclusive:
Not wanting a “fenian about the place”. This is a position which would be silly and vaguely amusing were it not offensive to a large proportion of our fellow citizens. It also is the beginning of the road to justification for violence. Some with this view may wish to join TUV. If many of them do; then we are indeed doomed and quite rightly so.
Not accepting power sharing with SF under any circumstances. I feel that one can hold this position without holding the position above. At some level I would like to say no I would never accept power sharing with SF. It is a purist’s position. It leads on inevitably to continued direct rule along with probably significant Dublin involvement. Whilst I am not dying about Dublin involvement and would argue for it to be kept to an absolute minimum I do think it would be better than the current amoral farce.
However, I do think that a proper local government is a better idea than continued direct rule (just about). As such power sharing is preferable. Whilst I am saddened that the nationalist population vote SF in large numbers being saddened by it will not make it go away. Hence, if one believes in devolved government one must de facto believe in power sharing with SF. I have previously suggested what I would personally feel was needed to persuade me that unionists should share power with SF. In brief I would require: proper co-operation with the police, an end to IRA criminality, the disbanding of the IRA and the army council.
Then there is the issue of the foolish system of producing the government (d’Hondt) along with the disastrous implementation of it which has occurred. This in my view does not need to be refined but torn down and a new system created. I am not a constitutional expert and have no set prescription for this but I do feel that reviews and reform are inadequate.
These positions are not all mutually exclusive. My position is to reject position one, after some soul searching reject position two and to advocate three and four.
I do not know what Jim Allister and TUV will advocate. I hope something fairly similar. There is always the danger that one thinks that people also opposed to the current arrangements will have similar views on the way forward. However, I do feel that my views are not represented by the current two unionist parties. As such I feel that TUV may be my best bet. What follows is not me having the arrogance to believe that my views have any great weight nor relevance. However, if one wishes to influence a party’s direction a good way is to be a member of it. As such there is little point in me sitting on the sidelines complaining that no one represents my views. Instead I feel I should join an organisation like TUV. As I have said before if they turn out to be flat earth, catholic hating bigots I can and rest assured will leave and return to the position I have been in since I left the UUP. I doubt anyone would notice let alone miss my views, I do not have the self importance to think that my leaving the UUP had any significance. As such if I leave TUV it will make little difference. To be fair I just let my membership lapse, I felt that writing a formal letter of resignation would have implied that I though myself more important than I had any right to. I am very fond of Asquith’s comment and I, like the rest of us will have to “Wait and see” what happens.
Posted by on Dec 08, 2007 @ 10:58 PMComrade Stalin,
Ahem has answered a little more directly than is my wont but his directness has considerable merit especially so in this case. I was never a member of the DUP. I had the application form on my hall table for several months a few years ago. I never filled it in. I am very glad I did not. Clearly because I reject their position on the agreement. McCrea’s position regarding Billy Wright I also found and still find extremely offensive. To be honest when I first heard it I did not believe it could have happened; that was until I saw the television pictures. I will comment for no one else but I do regard the murders of various South Armagh and other Roman Catholics by the IRA as of extreme importance as I do those of Protestants, Roman Catholics or anyone else committed by the alphabet soup. I would ask if you have seen any sign ever in any of my comments on this web site which could be construed as support for any action of the alphabet soup?Posted by on Dec 08, 2007 @ 11:01 PMWith all due respect Comrade, fuck off telling people what exactly it is they do or do not give a damn about.
Touched a nerve there.
Fact remains, the Quinn murder had certain people rubbing their hands with glee.
Sincerity isn’t the preserve of self-righteous Alliance pricks alone, and some of us, some of us who are ‘traditional’ Unionists reject *all* terrorism, Billy Wright very much included.
The abusive language you’re using doesn’t explain why so many DUP members didn’t seem to think that the McCrea/Wright incident was worth kicking up much of a stink about. I wonder if it troubled Allister at all.
And, seemingly more or less alone, we do care that Provos are still murdering people, whether or not Provo leaders are in devolved government. But as I say, fuck off, if you’re not big enough to accept that other people do honesty.
There’s words, and there’s actions. Jim Allister is making ongoing activity by IRA members an election issue. He isn’t making ongoing activity by loyalists an election issue. Is it really true that the unionist electorate are more concerned about who is in government than they are concerned about who is murdering, drug dealing and terrorizing their own neighbourhoods and why they aren’t being stopped ?
When the UDA were shooting police officers in Carrickfergus, where was Jim Allister ? Where were you, for that matter ?
Posted by on Dec 08, 2007 @ 11:16 PMTurgon,
I wasn’t directing my comments at you. Like you, I consider all murders and other paramilitary activity to be equivalent. Our politicians don’t, and it annoys me when people try to pretend that politicians apply the same yardstick and that some murders are not more equal than others. The Quinn murder is one such case. The family have specifically said that they are not interested in damaging Sinn Fein or stopping the powersharing executive; they just want the people who murdered Paul to be locked up. The McCartney murder was a similar case. Unionism takes a much greater interest in activity by republicans than it does in activity by loyalists.
Clearly because I reject their position on the agreement. McCrea’s position regarding Billy Wright I also found and still find extremely offensive.
You did, but the electorate of South Antrim didn’t, and returned him as Westminster MP. I don’t have a problem with that, except when people try to pretend that DUP MPs get elected on a platform of opposition to terrorists, as Allister is trying to claim. They don’t, they get elected on a platform of opposition to terrorists which happen to be fenians, which isn’t the same thing.
I would ask if you have seen any sign ever in any of my comments on this web site which could be construed as support for any action of the alphabet soup?
You have made your position very clear. Jim Allister, on the other hand, has questions to answer about why he chose to join the DUP in the first place, considering it’s history of association with loyalist paramilitarism personified in the TV footage of the company William McCrea chose to keep years ago.
You talk about “proper co-operation with the police”, but unionism does not do this. As I’ve said often before, when the PSNI raided the Alexander Bar to catch the UDA in the act, this important piece of police work was criticized by the DUP MP, Nigel Dodds, who wrote a letter to the Chief Constable to complain about it. Who exactly whas he representing when he made those comments ? This is the behaviour I would expect from Sinn Fein.
Posted by on Dec 08, 2007 @ 11:29 PMTurgon,
Reading through a lot of your opinions I’m left with the conclusion that there are very few of you about.
Posted by on Dec 08, 2007 @ 11:31 PMComrade Stalin,
One thing I would say; not in defence of McCrea or anyone else but as an observation, is that it is relatively easy to maintain a fairly morally upright position on politics when one is commenting on but not actually involved in politics. Once one gets involved compromises tend to follow as night follows day.
This is the position taken by some Christians that essentially as a dirty business it is one they should not get involved in. It is the position of many in the Brethern. I understand their position but since democracy does indeed seem to be the least worst option to be unwilling to participate especially if one is interested in politics could itself be seen as morally wrong.
I suspect that completely high minded individuals can be corrupted almost without noticing. If you remember the speech in the film “Bob Roberts” about how a frog thrown into boiling water suffers awfully and tries to escape. A frog put into water which is then boiled is just as dead but never tries to escape. Now, I am not into torturing frogs but the explanation rings true. I guess if one is involved in politics one must be very aware of the danger of being morally corrupted by it and how much of the inevitable moral corruption one is willing to accept; if indeed one can still tell. I guess you could end up being completely corrupted and not even being able to tell. Does that mean a decent person should avoid politics? Well maybe but then only less decent people will go into it. A catch 22 one might suggest.
As an example just suppose hypothetically (forgive any self importance and arrogance here) I stood for TUV and a nice old dear came up to me as I was canvassing outside my polling station. Now suppose she says. “Ah I will vote for you; you are a nice young man (okay she needs glasses as well) because you will make sure there are no fenians about the place.” What should I then do? Say no madam you are a bigot I do not want your vote. Maybe try to explain that I actually do want “fenians” about the place hence wasting vast amounts of canvassing time and putting her off voting for me? Just an example but I guess getting involved in politics means making moral compromises. However, possibly being interested in politics and not getting involved lest it sully one’s own supposed purity could be just as morally wrong.
Of course being a pretty strict Calvinist and genuinely believing in Total Depravity; I could say that I am so corrupted anyway that it does not matter and I will rely on Unconditional Election, Irresistible Grace and Perseverance of the Saints. That is of course another moral cop out and as such is immoral.
I think I will just go to bed.
Posted by on Dec 09, 2007 @ 12:12 AMTG
I have to agree with Joe’s comment immediatewly above mine. My position, as you perceive with admirable insight, is that I am prepared to accept bad men (and women) evolve. The speed at which they can do this (Mandela?)lends me to a Darwinian position with which you may not agree, but I digress.
The absence of satisfactory contrition or repentance from SF for what they and their fellow travellers did is not a small matter for me, or, I suspect for you and many like you. My (much-thumbed) copy of “Lost Lives” amongst other activities in my offline life, is, I think, testimony to my - often tearful - remembrance of what we have been through. But, and it is a BIG but, I will do what I see as needing to be done, to prevent my wee girl (8) from seeing what I saw. Like you, I am prepared to accept some things which my parents could and would not. I am prepared to accept Martin as a joint First Office holder with another man that, like him, I never voted for. I do not and will never support murder for political ends. But I do expect my view and the view of many hundreds of thousands of people here to be RESPECTED and for an end to “punishment” meted out to 20-something men, whatever their background. I expect that the 108 people I and others elected to represent - hundreds of thousands of people - to exercise and encourage standards of behaviour concomitant with a twenty-first century society.
Posted by on Dec 09, 2007 @ 12:12 AM“When the UDA were shooting police officers in Carrickfergus, where was Jim Allister ? Where were you, for that matter ?”
I think, Joe, that Turgon and indeed, I, would be with you on this one. Unlike you, I suspect that he, like me, has a CBE. “Can’t be Everywhere”. :)
Posted by on Dec 09, 2007 @ 12:19 AM“I do not know what Jim Allister and TUV will advocate...as such I feel that TUV may be my best bet.”
I think that the first phrase represents what all of us feel. Leaping to the 2nd phrase is what they are hoping for. Joining a movement which is being considerd by advocates of mass murder (see other post) is not something I myself would begin to consider.
Posted by on Dec 09, 2007 @ 12:44 AMJo,
I’m surprised to see you suggest Mandela was a bad person. Taking up arms against the regime was a completely moral choice in South Africa. Perhaps you ought to have said De Klerk.
Posted by on Dec 09, 2007 @ 01:16 AMG:
I was looking at Mendela from the perspective of a right-wing Unionist who might be opposed to “terrorists in government”.From a personal POV, I think he is a paradigm for Martin.
I would cite certain Unionists who, in their days at Queens sported a “Hang Mandela” badge, but now espouse somewhat different views - but only when appearing on “Hearts and MInds”. :)
Posted by on Dec 09, 2007 @ 01:55 AM“I expect that the 108 people I and others elected to represent - hundreds of thousands of people - to exercise and encourage standards of behaviour concomitant with a twenty-first century society.”
Jo, if we vote for fascists and/or mafiaists then we shouldn’t be surprised that they tolerate thuggery - and worse. The scum of society have a cheek to demand respect (for their mandate) - but that would be one of their lesser failings. London and Dublin will ‘happily’ embrace these thugs in the hope that they will contain their barbaric and other debased activities to here; it’s an expression of nimbyism.
Posted by on Dec 09, 2007 @ 12:06 PM
