Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Junior took his eye off the ball…
Interesting quote from Jim Allister tonight on Newsline:
Allister: The focus should have been on the constitutional issues; getting the best deal for Unionism; cutting OFMDFM; getting rid of the IRA Army Council; getting rid of mandatory coalition. And what do we find? One of the key negotiators took his eye off the ball and was off pursuing other interests with the Prime Minister.
Thompson: He claims that this all took place on the margins of the St Andrews’ Talks, that he took the opportunity to raise a number of understanding constituency cases. At no time, did the DUP use any of these matters as leverage in the negotiations.
Allister: You only have so much leverage in these negotiations (the St Andrews talks). Who thought it appropriate to waste some of that leverage on constituency and quasi commercial matters? It really doesn’t add up. Here you are at the crunch point in negotiations and what’s Ian Paisley Junior talking about: the Causeway: Ballee lands: some other golf development; when he should have been talking about making sure the IRA Army Council was gone, and gone forever.
Junior was bullish, as well he might. This is certainly embarrassing particularly since some of his senior party colleagues involved in the negotiations at St Andrews have claimed they were unsighted on this. Certainly his actions make life extremely complicated for Ministers like Arlene Foster who have had important decisions to make in this area.
Internally many will also be ‘doing the math’, and calculating the precise value of these measures, some of them apparently ringfenced from further interference from the Executive, as a proportion of the the value of the things that were on the party’s Executive Council’s own shopping list.
But for the public, it is the externalities that hold the greatest interest. Not least the precise nature of the ‘quasi commercial’ interest Allister mentions (four items on Juniors short-list involve developers). And the pleading for ending a judicial review.
At the very least, the man is burning political capital he can ill afford to waste.
Slugger O'Toole Admin @ 10:38 PM
Paisley Junior is arrogant and too sure of himself and is embarrasment to his colleagues.
But Allister is bitter and twisted and by his own assesments would have agreed to SF in Goverment by now.
Posted by on Jan 15, 2008 @ 11:18 PMPaisleys a self serving politician but in all fairness none of the items brought up by Allister were on the table or would ever be on the table so its all just so much hot air
Posted by on Jan 15, 2008 @ 11:22 PMWonder where Mr Allister got his information from? Could it have been from another North Antrim MLA who was a big Jim supporter and maybe has ambitions for a Westminster seat once Papa Doc finally goes?
Posted by on Jan 15, 2008 @ 11:27 PMI don’t think Junior took his eye off the ball for a moment.
He just happened to be playing a different game.Posted by on Jan 15, 2008 @ 11:29 PMI think members of the DUP are clearly embarrassed by IJP’s continued distance from the truth. this is a song that pissed off DUP’ers could possibly be singing to IJP in the coming days.
Things were alright for a while, we could smile for a while.
We see you on T.V every other night, usually talking shite
You need to stop and say, no more.
Oh, your putting the party through hell, But can’t you tell
That we’ll not be lying over you, lying over you,Even your Da may have to say “so long” – You’ll be left standing all alone
because we’re not lying, lying. lying. lying.It’s hard to understand
There’s Government departments in our hands, So we’re not lying.If I was you, I’d tell the truth
But it’s true, so true.
You need to do it even more, Than you did before
But, mo chara, what can we do?
For you don’t bother the party.
We’ll not be, lying over you, lying over you.Posted by on Jan 15, 2008 @ 11:35 PMAnyone else think IPJ would be perfect for Fianna Fail?
Posted by on Jan 15, 2008 @ 11:39 PMWhile wee Jim Allister will be singing his own protest song trying to gain a bit of support for his new movement or party or whtever it is.
IT’S MY new PARTY
Nobody knows where traditional unionism has gone
Paisley left the same time
Why was he holding Gerry and Marty’s hands
When he’s supposed to be holding mineI’ll start a new party, and I’ll cry if I want to
Cry if I want to, cry if I want to
You would cry too if it happened to youPlayin’ mind games, keeps me up all night
I’ve left the DUP a long while
Die hards around the wee province are joining with me
I’ve searching for a reason to smileI’ll start a new party, and I’ll cry if I want to
Cry if I want to, cry if I want to
You would cry too if it happened to youIan and Marty just walked through Stormont’s door
Like a drag queen with her king
Oh what, sure it’s no big surprise
They’re kissing each others ringsI’ll start a new party, and I’ll cry if I want to
Cry if I want to, cry if I want to
You would cry too if it happened to youPosted by on Jan 15, 2008 @ 11:41 PMIt’ll be interesting to see if Arlene Foster is stillkeen on taking DaithĂ Mc Kay to court in relation to her minded decision in relation to the Tourist Centre.
Sure maybe IJP will help her in her quest if he can demand that judicial reveiws are dropped, then what can’t he do.
Onward to an independent judicial and justice system, yAAAAWWWAANNNNN!!!
Posted by on Jan 15, 2008 @ 11:59 PMIt’s an absolute joke to the people of Northern Ireland that Paisley was nipping in like that on council-like matters.
Talk about cutting across constitutional matters for the sake of parish pump business. Complete idiot, it reduces any worthiness of the ‘deal’ right down to miniscule council business. Little more than securing the cronyism that we all knew was in him.
In that anyone in such dealings would have time and indeed audacity to mention virtually extraneous issues to the process must lead us to conclude that this really was a top down process with much of the course already plotted a long time ago.
It was ‘no big deal’ the StAA. It reminds of the time when certain people said about such agreements that they were known to be in tough negotiation only for them to be sitting around watching the news/PR people describe to the world something that they weren’t doing. I.e. negotiating.
Posted by on Jan 16, 2008 @ 12:33 AMfirst or deputy first minister paisley junior or slab both great money men. I say we let them fight it out in a barn of their own choise to see who wins.
Posted by on Jan 16, 2008 @ 08:58 AMHearing what he was lobbying on there seems to be one which is fairly sectional interest and he’d have been better off taking the lobbying elsewhere. Mind you - whether you agree or disagree with either his lobbying venue or the stance he takes, the Causeway and the dualling of the A26 are matters of wider public interest.
Lets face it - Junior is a little embarrassing, but that isn’t a crime. Jim Allister was at the St Andrews talks and he wasn’t invited to the top table with the ‘big boys’ of his former Party - he’s incredibly bitter about that and its one of the reasons he left the DUP - he felt sidelined and wasn’t given the important role he clearly felt his ‘talent’ deserved. Now he’s gone from the DUP he’s on a wrecking mission against them.
If the NIO and everyone else also have been patently clear that none of the issues raised by Paisley Junior were in any shape or form taken as part of the negotiations then it also negates the issue about taking his eye off the ball. Are we seriously saying that a person can only do one thing at a time??? Is that the capacity we expect of our elected representatives?
Danny Kennedy can scuttle off and look for peerages for his colleagues but looking for a dual carriageway is now a hanging offence.....
Interesting times indeed.
Posted by on Jan 16, 2008 @ 10:37 AMI am trying to take a step back and think what it would be like to stand in the shoes of a politician.
Especially if your caught up in accusations of wheeling and dealing and scull duggery involving favours being done by you, on behalf of property developers.
I think you would do your best to calm yourself and maybe quietly, very quietly sing this wee song to yourself,
Money in a brown envelope world.
I scheme all night, I scheme all day, to pay the bills I have to pay
Ain’t it sad
And still there never seems to be, any dignity left in me
That’s too bad
In my dreams I have a plan
A few brown envelopes and I’m a wealthy manI wouldn’t have to work at all, I’d fool around in Stormont’s main hall…
Money, money, money
Must be funny
In a brown envelope world
Money, money, money
I talk shite, it’s hot and runny
In the fly man’s world
Aha-ahaaaAll the people I could screw
If I had a little money
It’s a big brown envelope world
A man like me is hard to find, but you must have a greedy frame of mind
Ain’t it sad
And if you happen to be like me, you’ll act like the three wise monkeys
That’s too badHear no, see no ,speak no, I’ll have to go
The less you say, see or hear , the less anyone knows
My credibility has lost a fortune I’ll get the blame, my political career will never be the same…
Money, money, money
Must be funny
In a brown envelope world
Money, money, money
I talk shite, it’s hot and runny
In the brown envelope world
Aha-ahaaaIt’s better than life on the broo
If I had a little money
It’s a big brown envelope world
Money, money, money
Must be funny
In a brown envelope world
Money, money, money
Always sunny
In a brown envelope world
Aha-ahaaa
All the moves I could do
If I had a little money
It’s a big brown envelope world
It’s a big brown envelope worldPosted by on Jan 16, 2008 @ 10:43 AMTreating the peace process like a gravy train was there from day one. After the first talks at Stormont in Dec 94, with the man who now counts pubic hairs in films, Gerry Adams stood on the steps of Connolly House and said that if the British were serious they would now reverse a decision to deny funding to the Mean Scoil, on the grounds that it didn’t have enough pupils.
Guess what the Brits did; they forked out and established a precedent that probably prolonged the whole process, as parties learnt that they could bring shopping lists for TG4 reception in the North and an Ulster Scots academy (ÂŁ13 million) and whatever you’re having yourself.Dig deeper; there’ll have been more that Ian Og playing this game.
Posted by on Jan 16, 2008 @ 11:05 AMJunior is getting away with this not simply because the DUP will not deal with him but because the other parties are failing to deal with him. There is a provision in the Stormont Standing Orders for MLAs to table a petition of concern. Could that be used to censure Junior? Alternatively could a motion be tabled to overturn the original Trimble/Mallon determination under which Junior and Gerry Kelly have been appointed junior ministers?
Posted by on Jan 16, 2008 @ 11:09 AMBallymena, can you name the six businessmen who are in the deal alluded to by IPjr in the Monica Purdy interview and repeated on BBC Newsline last night?
If the deal is a ÂŁ50 million one who is putting up the money? The former owners? The six businessmen? Seymour Sweeney and Seaport (NI) Limited?
Posted by on Jan 16, 2008 @ 11:09 AMI must admit to slightly disagreeing with Jim Allister about Paisley junior taking his eye off the ball here. This episode along with his assorted other problems make me feel that he has no idea what “the ball” is, cannot separate the things he wants for his constituents (and his personal Westminster ambitions), his party and the whole of Northern Ireland.
He seems simply without the skills necessary to be a successful politician. I remember that Willie Ross once told me that his assessment of Paisley junior was that he had all Paisley senior’s faults and none of his strengths. Whatever other people’s view of Ross (though I was actually always a fan), that assessment, damning as it is seems pretty accurate.
Posted by on Jan 16, 2008 @ 11:24 AMHow ironic it would be if our beloved First Minister’s scripture reading this morning was Luke Chapter 15,verses 18 and 19.....
Posted by on Jan 16, 2008 @ 11:32 AMNevin,
Paisley made it clear that the Ballee stuff was purely representing constituents - its not the prettiest stuff in the world, but all the digging done by Purdy and the Bel Tel haven’t shown any wrongdoing. He may be guilty of being stupid, he may be guilty of being embarrassing on that one but it would appear he isn’t guilty of any actual wrongdoing.Why is it ok to lobby on behalf of a constituent who hasn’t got a pot to p*ss in but somehow a criminal offence to work on behalf of constituents who happen to own a business? Are we all consumed by some verson of class envy that we are to despise all owners of business, particularly if they happen to at any time buy or sell land in the course of that busiess? I suppose we’d prefer that politicans ignored businesses and actually encouraged them to leave their constituencies - taking jobs and money with them. That would be the ‘pure’ thing to do (it seems pure is the word of the day after Jim Allister’s rant about his ‘pure’ mandate...)
Some of the issues he raised were undoubtedly parochial - but then some of the most successful politicians have got that parochial touch (and no I’m not necessarily likening Ian Jnr to any of them). There were also some issues included which are undoubtedly in the wider public interest. The A26 affects the vast majority of people living in at least 2 Parliamentary Constituencies and a huge number of people besides that.
Jim Allister’s arguments crumbled for me this morning when he went on a “people’s solution for the people’s causeway” stuff. I don’t believe for one minute that in Allister’s heart of hearts he’s some left-winger who really believes in public ownership and the horrors of the private sector. Its simply because it suits his fairly bitter and narrow political wrecking agenda that he’s now suddenly all for public ownership and decrying any private sector involvement in a tourist attraction.
Also this notion - as Turgon rightly points out - about ‘taking your eye off the ball’ is just nonsense. Frankly I want a politician who can concentrate on a number of issues at the one time. If you’re only able to keep your eye on one ball then you’re actually a myopic politician. Maybe Jim Allister only can focus on the IRA army council at the minute - that might explain why his profile on actual day to day European issues has dropped like a stone since his exit from the DUP - but surely its possible for a politician in Northern Ireland to deal with the constitutional and the local without getting too confused....
Posted by on Jan 16, 2008 @ 11:43 AMIt would be especially ironic given Junior’s obvious incapacity for humility.
Posted by on Jan 16, 2008 @ 11:44 AMballymena
“Jim Allister’s arguments crumbled for me this morning when he went on a “people’s solution for the people’s causeway” stuff. I don’t believe for one minute that in Allister’s heart of hearts he’s some left-winger who really believes in public ownership and the horrors of the private sector. Its simply because it suits his fairly bitter and narrow political wrecking agenda that he’s now suddenly all for public ownership and decrying any private sector involvement in a tourist attraction.”
Absolutely. Spot. On.
Posted by on Jan 16, 2008 @ 11:49 AMWhich branch of the DUP does Junior belong to? It’s not Bannside is it?
Posted by on Jan 16, 2008 @ 11:52 AMWhat is most interesting is that if, as Jnr states, he was merely taking advantage of the situation to raise issues with local Ministers why did those Ministers feel compelled to raise the issues with the Prime Minister.
Having raised the Giants Causeway with the relevant Minister pre-devolution are we still to believe that he did not raise the issue with either of the two relevant Ministers post devolution who miraculously came to the decision to deliver exactly what Jnr wanted.
Is it right that a politician should seek to stop a judicial review?
What is the resort spa project and why was it not progressed through normal planning channels?
Posted by on Jan 16, 2008 @ 11:55 AMAnyone any idea what was on SF’s list.
Irish Language Act?
Posted by on Jan 16, 2008 @ 12:00 PMAlthough not agreeing with Jimbo’s point of view I have been impressed in the past with his skill in portraying himself as the reasonable man who has been abandoned by unprincipled colleagues.
He would serve himself better by concentrating on something substantive like the Quinn killing.
Posted by on Jan 16, 2008 @ 12:02 PMsteve48
No doubt about it - an Irish Language Act was on the Shinners agenda, that’s why it was added at the very end of negotiations without any other party hearing of it.That’s also why its been blocked by the DUP.
Or maybe that’s taking your eye off the ball to some people....
Posted by on Jan 16, 2008 @ 12:03 PM
