Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Who stands where?
This statement from the DUP struck me as being very odd. Power sharing was a failure before 2003, but is now a rousing success under the DUP, and it is “sour grapes” for the UUP to even think about forming an opposition. At the end of the statement, Trevor Clarke says that the current power sharing arrangement is “delivering for the community in Northern Ireland”.
Does this indicate that the DUP now expressly support mandatory coalition? (UPDATE - I missed that Peter Weir reckons that the UUP considering opposition “throws into doubt their commitment to making devolution work for the benefit of the people of Northern Ireland")
Pete has already noted that the DUP and Sinn Fein jumped effortlessly to the same hymn sheet in the early part of this week over the question of an official opposition. The debate at this stage seems to be gathering pace, and the response of the Chuckle Coalition to the debate.......well it’s interesting. What has been equally interesting, is the development of a distinct impression of two competing coalitions within the Executive, a development that, if it continues, will raise interesting questions in the days ahead, but has real potential to develop into a positive solution to the d’Hondt problem.
Michael Shilliday @ 04:41 PM
There is no positive solution to the d’Hondt problem.
Posted by on Oct 31, 2007 @ 05:13 PMPerhaps you misunderstand me. The problem is that it is used.
Posted by on Oct 31, 2007 @ 05:18 PMMichael, why do you think there was silence from the junior partners in the Executive when the DUP duo apparently broke Section 2.4(i) of the Ministerial Code?
Posted by on Oct 31, 2007 @ 05:25 PMSpeaking of DUP ministers, David Gordon in todays Belfast Telegraph had a great story about the ongoing Causeway saga.
Relating to the good old Land Registry, apparently they received a clumsily filled in application to change the ownership of the home that Paisley Jnr claims he bought from Mrs Sweeney to Mr Paisley last week. What a twit!
Posted by on Oct 31, 2007 @ 05:34 PMAnother DUP nobody mouthing off again
Posted by on Oct 31, 2007 @ 05:41 PMTell you what Michael. If its so dreadful to have a mandatory coalition, let the UUP pull out of the executive and form an opposition. Instead of chirping from inside. Your position is utterly hypocritical and indefensible.
Good luck persuading Reg and Michael.
Posted by on Oct 31, 2007 @ 05:53 PMAmused
I think you will find that the Land Registry issue is one that affects more home buyers than just Paisley Jnr.
I also seriously doubt that Jnr had anything to do with filing any application to the LR. That would be his solicitors.
Pretty weak post all round.
Posted by on Oct 31, 2007 @ 05:56 PMBla, take a read over this
http://www.newsletter.co.uk/opinion/The-need-for-an-Opposition.3424216.jpPosted by on Oct 31, 2007 @ 05:58 PMBonorLaw
how dare anyone ever mention the DUP’s corruption
Posted by on Oct 31, 2007 @ 05:59 PMAmused, the Paisleys won’t be amused when they read the yarn about Paisley snr failed to spot the bathroom suite in the piggery.
Posted by on Oct 31, 2007 @ 06:02 PMSo what? When will the UUP be leaving the executive? You are trying to ride 2 horses at the same time. Also why cheer Ritchie to the rafters when eights months previous you were angling to jump into bed with the UVF? Totally cynical opportunistic grasping approach.
Posted by on Oct 31, 2007 @ 06:02 PMOh and by the way, 600 at the UUP conference. That is a base falsehood.
Posted by on Oct 31, 2007 @ 06:04 PMSir Herbert
corrution in public life needs to be highlighted and denounced regardless of who is responsible.
Now kindly highlight the corruption you complain about and we will denounce it accordingly. Who is corrupt and what corrupt act have they committed?
Posted by on Oct 31, 2007 @ 06:10 PMBla,
Far be it from me to defend the UUP, but at least they didn’t run away from holding a conference this autumn, modest turnout or not.
Posted by on Oct 31, 2007 @ 06:17 PMBla,
A simple matter of clarification re your last post.
I didn’t say there were 600 people at the conference. I said that about 600 in total had been involved at the EGM on Friday and conference on Saturday. Given that some sceptics were saying that the party would be lucky to get 100 at either meeting, it wasn’t a bad turnout at all.
Best wishes,
Alex.
Posted by on Oct 31, 2007 @ 06:21 PMItem #10, Bonar. Give us your considered opinion on a politician lobbying on behalf of an apparently long time friend for two replacement dwellings on a site that had one dwelling - and with rates bills for two dwellings.
Posted by on Oct 31, 2007 @ 06:23 PMAlex
Your wording was designed to create an impression of numbers which didn’t in fact exist. If there were more than 200 in the hall I would be very surprised. Anyway, when are the UUP going to leave the eecutive? Stop riding two horses.
Posted by on Oct 31, 2007 @ 06:32 PMMS
If the UUP were going down this road the natural time was pre-election but the UUP chose the complete opposite path by being the most enthusiastic for devolution.
Post-election second thoughts by some (in fact some raised it before the votes had even finished being counted). Bouncing about from one end of the debate to the other in short spaces of time is not sensible.
If a party does choose to go into opposition one thing they must realise is that it has to be a coherent opposition rather than scatter gun. This still seems to be largely absent in the UUP. We’ll see if the rule changes do anything to improve coherency in future but still not there yet.
“Does this indicate that the DUP now expressly support mandatory coalition?”In a word, No. The DUP position on mandatory coalition and opposition was outlined.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/politics/article3061274.ece
“We succeeded in making significant improvements through the negotiations leading to devolution but there is still more to do.
“While I understand that it may be necessary to build confidence in the process before more radical changes can be delivered I hope that change will not be too long delayed.
“A four party mandatory coalition with no effective opposition is not in the best interests of decision making in Northern Ireland.”
As for the present rows it isn’t about new structures with a formal opposition rather whether there can be an internal opposition (or ‘competing coalitions’) in the Executive acting against collective responsibility.
As for Peter Weir’s comments he is simply reminding you of the commitment in the 2007 UUP manifesto that:
“We are the only Party prepared
to pledge to you, the voters, that we will take our seats in government and govern for
the good of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom.”Posted by on Oct 31, 2007 @ 06:33 PM“whether there can be an internal opposition (or ‘competing coalitions’) in the Executive acting against collective responsibility.”
fd, can you confirm that the DUP ministers didn’t take their deliberations on the Giant’s Causeway Visitor Centre to the Executive?
Posted by on Oct 31, 2007 @ 06:45 PMNevin
stupid, needlessly evasive and arrogant but not corrupt or criminal. If anyone has any evidence to the contrary I will be pleased to revise my opinion.
Posted by on Oct 31, 2007 @ 06:45 PMBonar, we’re referring to an application for two replacement dwellings where there was one, an application that the politician lobbied for.
Posted by on Oct 31, 2007 @ 06:50 PMTo be fair Fair-deal a he said she said debate on manifesto’s isn’t likely to favour the DUP.
The difficulty for UUP is that a voluntary coalition does exist in the executive and the assembly between DUP-SF. In a unionist v nationalist split the UUP would be happy to play its part but things have moved on. Issues such as the DUP and SF ministers holding pre-executive meetings to agree the outcomes in the absence of the UUP and SDLP ministers is only one example.
In the Assembly it would also appear that not only do ministers from DUP and SF get the standard notification of ministerial questions they also for both parties get sight of the supplementary in order to prepare for it. While a nice friendly way to get on its hardly a battle a day.
Posted by on Oct 31, 2007 @ 06:53 PMNevin
I know what you are referring to. Put up your allegation or shut up.
Posted by on Oct 31, 2007 @ 06:53 PMMichael,
The DUP are clearly ruffled over the thought of an Executive full of both them and SF only.
Leaving D’Hondt concerns to the side, or given today’s date Da’Haunt, the very thought of such an occurrence would damage the credibility of the DUP and it might even come back to haunt them at the next election.
Damage them simply because the Party has built itself upon an anti-SF ticket and how many times recently have we heard Peter Robinson moving to negate any dubious Executive decisions by saying ‘the UUP were there too what did they do’.
In a more moderate, perhaps temperate, Executive such a stance of moving into opposition so soon would not draw the same newsworthiness, but because the DUP has built its house on shipping off blame to others, constructing their raison d’etre around being anti-SF, this simple two-party Executive would harm the DUP. Even if it things went rather smoothly its detractors could easily win an argument.
Also neither DUP-SF have any experience in governing at this level.
Moving into opposition is the easy thing, it’s being constructive and effective when there. That’s where most people’s doubts rest and that’s because you need functioning alliances, doubt the UUP would be good at this give-and-take style of coalition opposition.
Still too many a rabble-rouser too close to where they shouldn’t be.
Posted by on Oct 31, 2007 @ 06:54 PMBonar, would you have supported such an application? Do you smell corruption? I’m assuming you’re not stupid, evasive or arrogant.
Posted by on Oct 31, 2007 @ 07:01 PM
