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 @ 09:38 PM
Irish Language Act. Would that be in the same negotiating category as the Spa Resort with 200 homes?
Posted by on Jan 16, 2008 @ 11:10 AM“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.”
Ballymena,
Here’s a quote from IPjr:
“There are six businessmen involved in all of this case” (repeated several times)”
Are there and, if so, who are they? If there are not then surely the quote is ‘inaccurate’.
Was IPjr representing a developer or the former owners?
“At one point, after the department had suggested a £75m figure, he wrote to Ms Ritchie accusing it of presenting “extortionate” valuations and “taking his constituents for a ride” .. BBC
The constituents/former owners were supposedly getting 10% of the agreed figure so how was the DSD taking ‘them for a ride’?
Posted by on Jan 16, 2008 @ 11:11 AMWhich of the other DUP negotiators brought with them their own personal shopping list to help their own personal friends/lobster fishing companions?
Is this how each of the DUP negotiating team conducted themselves?
If this is such great representation of the people, why are senior DUP members ‘angry’ about this? Possibly because instead of trying to deliver a suitable financial deal - once like many issues a pre-requisite for government - or a decent default mechanism that doesn’t also condemn those who abide by the rules or many of the other major problems that are at the backbone of St Andrews, IPJ would rather have his own issues dealt with instead. There was surely much more at stake at St Andrews than the ending of a judicial review at Ballee.
Posted by on Jan 16, 2008 @ 11:15 AMbannsider
If Paisley Jr argued for the price of the Ballee land to come down from £75m to £50m, then the only constituent he was representing was Sweeney, as the original landowners would have been shafted.
The other question is why Paisley Jr used the SAD talks to raise these issues and not Westminster or the NIO. Clearly there were implied reasons. You scratch my back etc. No wonder the DUP is fuming, if the NIO had practically bought Paisley Jr’s support for a deal in which his party had committed the ultimate U-turn.
Posted by on Jan 16, 2008 @ 11:19 AMGood point Moe. Did Paisley Senior know what Junior was up to? Did he approve? Did he support? Did Robinson know? Did the other DUP MLA for North Antrim know?
Posted by on Jan 16, 2008 @ 11:19 AMTo mix a few metaphors - instead of being thrown out with the bathwater babydoc will use all this dancing on the head of a pin to show that Jimbo is outside the tent trying to piss in but is
doing so against the prevailing wind of the common sense of the good people of North Antrim oh whose behalf babydoc never stops worlking.Posted by on Jan 16, 2008 @ 11:33 AMBG, the original offer to the DSD was supposedly £9m so the former owners would allegedly have got 10% of this figure. Were they being ‘taken for a ride’?
A reduction from £75m to £50m - would probably pay for a visitor centre that could damage the Giant’s Causeway’s world heritage status. I understand Margaret Hodge, DCMS minister and UK WHS protector, is to report to UNESCO this month on the Causeway debacle.
Posted by on Jan 16, 2008 @ 11:35 AM“Did Paisley Senior know what Junior was up to? Did he approve?”
You might ask similar questions of the planning application near Ballintoy.
How come an apparently inaccurate planning application passed by Paisley snr, the Planning Service and the Planning Appeals Commission without correction? Perhaps a bathroom suite in a piggery is the fashion in parts of North Antrim ;)
Posted by on Jan 16, 2008 @ 11:46 AMMy previous post was meant as a response to ‘ballymena’, not ‘bannsider’.
Nevin
I think Paisley Jr is prepared to take a lot of people for a ride.
Posted by on Jan 16, 2008 @ 11:47 AMWill the sock puppet on this thread please desist and stick to one identity.
Posted by on Jan 16, 2008 @ 12:24 PM”Bushmills Golf Resort. The Regional Development Strategy that was endorsed
unanimously by the Assembly before suspension outlined a tourism resort on the
Northern Antrim Coast. In order to comply with that vision an application,
supported by the local council and local business community for a signature golf
resort has been applied for on the outskirts of Bushmills village. We have no
doubt that if a local Assembly were functioning permission to complete this
project would attract the support of the Assembly. However, to date the planning
application is facing delay and a c c o d i to our conversations with the developer
and the Planning Service will ultimately be refused. Such a refusing will cause
economic hardship in the locality. Moyle is an economic black spot and yet its
one chance to benefit form the potential of tourism is now being blighted We
appeal to your ministerial team to support this application” .. Letter from Paisley jnr and Storey to Secretary of State, dated 20 June 2005 [pdf file]Presumably this is the spa referred to in the Hanson letter.
Posted by on Jan 16, 2008 @ 12:39 PMPresumably this is the spa referred to in the Hanson letter.
It’s dangerous to make any presumtions clarity and truth is whats needed, but dont hold your breath waiting.
Posted by on Jan 16, 2008 @ 12:43 PMHow ironic that this thread was so appropriately juxtaposed to one titled “Zimbawe’s Agony”!
Posted by on Jan 16, 2008 @ 01:51 PMBallymena and Bannsider (assuming you are 2 persons),
You don’t get it. North Antrim constituency concerns were NOT appropriate matters to be raised in the St Andrews negotiations. As for Junior’s claims that all this was on the “sidelines” of the talks, if it really was as unimportant as claimed, then why would it have required the PM’s attention.
Maybe Junior is an unusually incompetent individual who owes his position to blatant nepotism. It’s just that there is an almighty stink that seems to surround him perpetually. He is certainly the DUPers’ Weakest Link. I wonder what else is out there.
By the way, could people refer to him as IPJ not IJP as poor Cllr Parsley does still have a good name.
Oh and bravo Nevin.
Posted by on Jan 16, 2008 @ 02:16 PMWhich property developer loves hearing óg sing this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrs8CgpH980
Posted by on Jan 16, 2008 @ 02:48 PMJoe Canuck - very very good.
Why is no one talking about resignation in this matter?
Posted by on Jan 16, 2008 @ 02:56 PMWhy is no one talking about resignation in this matter?
Pith, You have asked a very interesting and searching question here.
Why is no one asking for IPJ’s resignation. If there a big rotten apple in a ministerial position, that shouldn’nt stop the apple cart from being rocked and the rotten apple discarded, should it?
Posted by on Jan 16, 2008 @ 03:55 PMIf no one else will, I’m happy to call for IPJ’s resignation. And perhaps he can take his oul’ da with him.
Posted by on Jan 16, 2008 @ 05:08 PMCut the bull,
The question of course is how many rotten apples there are in the barrel but this one is very obvious. Am I wrong to think that in similar circumstances elsewhere there would have been demands for Junior’s resignation over this and previous revelations?
Posted by on Jan 16, 2008 @ 05:48 PMI think everyone knows Mr Arrogance Jnr will never quit as long as his Da is there to save him - I bet those angry senior DUP members can’t wait for the new era of DUP leadership: something tells me Junior won’t be in such a position to impose such embarrassment to the Party again.
Posted by on Jan 16, 2008 @ 06:03 PMPaisley Jnr on a ‘solo run’ says DUP
“A senior source today said: “Obviously there are a number of very senior people in the party who are not happy about what has happened and will have questions to raise. He was obviously on a solo run.”
Another source said: “This will leave a bad taste in the mouths of people who were at St Andrews and who had no idea that this was going on.”
And a third source added: “There is increasing unease in the Assembly group about these ongoing revelations.”
And there’re links to an Allister follow-up statement and the BBC broadcast here.
Posted by on Jan 16, 2008 @ 07:34 PMPith
There are very few places in the world that have a similar political set up, the mandatory coalition.
I think the only way he will go is if the DUP push him or the electorate vote wisely next time this clown stands.
Though Ido agree if this had have been a normal sort of parliament IJP would have been out the door a few months ago with his Da waving him good bye and wishing him the best of luck.
Posted by on Jan 16, 2008 @ 08:35 PMI have to say that this man’s arrogance is astounding.The only person/people who will benefit from junior’s intervention at Balee is Seymour and whoever is left of the 6 developers.If he was interested in his constituents,the more money that the land made-the more they would have made.only 2 things smell of fish and 1 of them is fish.
Posted by on Jan 17, 2008 @ 12:24 AMCut the bull,
Mandatory coalition does make the exercise of individual ministerial responsibility awkward to say the least. However I think it would be worthwhile for the other parties to investigate whether it is possible to overturn the original Trimble/Mallon determination under which Junior holds their posts. As the Assembly has to grant the determination then surely it can rescind it too.
Posted by on Jan 17, 2008 @ 09:27 AMDoes any one know if Seymour has a split personality, maybe all six of him could be benefiting from IPJ’s lobbying.
Posted by on Jan 17, 2008 @ 11:06 AM
