Paisley puts the boot into Robbo and DUP....again.

gerajella

Ian Paisley seems to show little respect for the leader of his party again, in his NL column today. And apparently he derides in equally blunt terms the hardliners in the DUP, which will surely not go down too well with Campbell, Dawdds and the rest. The question arises, is Paisley trying to finish his party off in order to immortalise even more his own political legacy? You have to wonder, because John Hume was ready to see his own party sunk in order to assure that his place in history would be secure.

Bottle_of_Smoke

No I think if anything he's trying to make it easier for Robinson to have a friendly public relationship with McGuinness. He founded the DUP, wouldn't improve his legacy if it sunk.

What do you mean by the John Hume reference?

Bottle_of_Smoke

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8538351.stm

bbc wrote:

Ian Paisley believes the lack of warmth in Peter Robinson and Martin McGuinness's relationship may be hampering progress in the Executive.

The ex-DUP leader formed an unlikely friendship with Mr McGuinness, his former political enemy in Sinn Fein.

He told the News Letter the Executive was not in a position to "make so much progress as we made because we had that relationship, that coming and going".

Mr Paisley said he and Mr McGuinness were never "battling one another".

The two men got along so well they were dubbed the Chuckle Brothers.

"We got on exceedingly well and when we had a difficulty, we didn't sit and chew it over," he told the paper.

"We had an adjournment and both of us talked first on our own together to see was there any way forward and then brought in our helpers and more or less carried everybody with us."

Mr Robinson succeeded Mr Paisley as DUP leader and first minister in 2008, and his relationship with his Sinn Fein counterpart has been more frosty.

It was joked that the Chuckle Brothers had been replaced by the Brothers Grimm.

The Hillsborough Agreement to devolve policing and justice powers to Stormont was reached earlier this month following weeks of protracted negotiations.

Mr Robinson had described a "clever device" to safeguard against non-delivery of the deal.

In his News Letter column two weeks ago, Mr Paisley warned such talk could undermine the chance of the Hillsborough deal succeeding.

"All this talk of clever tricks and cunning plans is to undermine the chance of its success," he said.

"If a transaction has been done, then it should not be the business of either side to act with mischievous intent, nor to attempt to paint themselves as the ingenious brain that knows more than everyone else."

gerajella

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

No I think if anything he's trying to make it easier for Robinson to have a friendly public relationship with McGuinness. He founded the DUP, wouldn't improve his legacy if it sunk.

What do you mean by the John Hume reference?

Paisley was obsessed with his legacy since he signed up for St. Andrew's [not literally, though], and wanted to remain FM for the whole four year term, knowing that his political legacy health would not look too good based on his career up till then. John Hume was asked by colleagues in the SDLP at the time of the Hume/Adams talks, if he was trying to destroy the party. His response was to ask in return, which is the more important, the peace in NI or the fate of a political party. His favoured canndidate to replace him,[Durkan] was unopposed for the leadership, and only the Deputy leadership was up for the taking. I believe Hume called for Durkan in the belief the party would have no substantial figure in posterity to challenge his legacy. Thatcher's choice of Major was for the same motives. Done out of vanity.

Bottle_of_Smoke

gerajella wrote: »

Paisley was obsessed with his legacy since he signed up for St. Andrew's [not literally, though], and wanted to remain FM for the whole four year term, knowing that his political legacy health would not look too good based on his career up till then. John Hume was asked by colleagues in the SDLP at the time of the Hume/Adams talks, if he was trying to destroy the party. His response was to ask in return, which is the more important, the peace in NI or the fate of a political party. His favoured canndidate to replace him,[Durkan] was unopposed for the leadership, and only the Deputy leadership was up for the taking. I believe Hume called for Durkan in the belief the party would have no substantial figure in posterity to challenge his legacy. Thatcher's choice of Major was for the same motives. Done out of vanity.

You could be right its hard to know alright. On balance though I don't think that's quite what paisley's up to here.

With Hume he did risk destroying the party with the adam's talks but I genuinely think he was putting peace before legacy. He risked having his legacy obliterated with that move at the time in fairness

Regards the Durkan choice, I don't know much about it. Were there better figures for leadership at that point?

BluePlanet

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

With Hume he did risk destroying the party with the adam's talks but I genuinely think he was putting peace before legacy. He risked having his legacy obliterated with that move at the time in fairness

Can you elaborate?
The SDLP and SF were working together on local councils for years.
There was nothing particulary "risky" about the Humes/Adams dialogue if that's what you are referring.

Bottle_of_Smoke

BluePlanet wrote: »

Can you elaborate?
The SDLP and SF were working together on local councils for years.
There was nothing particulary "risky" about the Humes/Adams dialogue if that's what you are referring.

Just in that SDLP were always the democratic nationalists and had support from nationalists who hugely opposed the PIRA, which SF were the political wing of.

BluePlanet

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Just in that SDLP were always the democratic nationalists and had support from nationalists who hugely opposed the PIRA, which SF were the political wing of.

Both nationalist parties are democratic.
The SDLP would never agree to SF's exclusion from the democratic processes.
That would have been their ruin.
The Humes/Adams dialogue was about finding a consensus among Nationalists, a "pan-Nationalist Front" if you will.

Bottle_of_Smoke

BluePlanet wrote: »

Both nationalist parties are democratic.
The SDLP would never agree to SF's exclusion from the democratic processes.
That would have been their ruin.
The Humes/Adams dialogue was about finding a consensus among Nationalists, a "pan-Nationalist Front" if you will.

you know what I meant, exclusively democratic, or "not the wing of a militant paramilitary organisation"

He risked losing support from people who utterly opposed sinn fein. he made the right decision though

BluePlanet

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

He risked losing support from people who utterly opposed sinn fein. he made the right decision though

Hardly, who else were they going to vote for?
Know of any other Nationalist parties standing for election in NI?

The only thing he risked by bringing SF into the mainstream, the SDLP would cede voters to them, which is exactly what's been happening these past 10 years.