No Government can be long secure without a formidable Opposition

So said Benjamin Disraeli, 1st Earl of Beaconsfield.

And Tom Elliott MLA, Leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, has become Disraelian regarding this particular thought on oppositional politics.

Tom has outlined his concerns that the current political system at Stormont does not bode well for Northern Ireland's future. Whilst proud of the UUP’s role in delivering a more peaceful Northern Ireland he recognises that the institutions are far from perfect.

He explains that the institution's weaknesses “have been accentuated by the tribalism of Sinn Fein and the DUP, as they carve up power and ensure a silo mentality at the heart of Government. This situation was manageable in a time of plenty; however, as we head into a difficult period that will be defined by fiscal constraint, we require responsive Government.”

He goes on to say that "It is a long standing position of the Ulster Unionist Party that Northern Ireland needs a more normalised form of Government with a voluntary 'cross-community' coalition and an official opposition that is better able to hold the Executive to account. As we head towards the Assembly election, with issues surrounding the selection of First Minister and the danger of a tribal campaign, the Ulster Unionist Party is determined about the need for such reform. It is clear from the workings of the current Executive that it is no functioning like a proper democratic government. With five different parties, who have different agendas and policies, this type of government is not productive for the long term future of Northern Ireland. In the long run change by legislation is what is needed, in the short-term the principled following of democratic parliamentary principles by political parties may be what is required to improve governance in Northern Ireland."

Tom’s mention of heading “towards the Assembly election, with issues surrounding the selection of First Minister and the danger of a tribal campaign, the Ulster Unionist Party is determined about the need for such reform.” I would say this particular piece reflects the worry that the DUP run another 2007 type election which saw the UUP reduced from 27 elected in 2003 to only 18 elected in 2007. This is widely recognised as an upshot of the St Andrews Agreement and the changes made in it meant electioneering was driven on narrow lines of a Vote for the UUP is a wasted vote. As can be seen it worked, up to a point. The UUP is still strong enough to keep going and the DUP were not able to deliver that knock out blow. The boogeyman for Unionism this time is a Sinn Fein First Minister, which the DUP will capitalise upon (and I would expect them to do nothing less in order to increase their vote even more).

For nationalism the galvanising issue is less negative, as ever. Here Sinn Fein can really squeeze the SDLP by going to the polls saying they have a real chance to outshine intransigent Unionism by becoming the symbolic First Minister. Something to work for rather than against.

Alliance has always styled itself as the unofficial opposition, but that is now difficult as it is also a member of the NI Executive. That now means that out of 108 MLAs, 103 are ‘in government’.

So where would oppositional politics fit in? How would it fit in? How could it even get to that point?

It helps when the now Secretary of State, Owen Patterson, as the Shadow Secretary of State, 

promised to review the way in which the post of First Minister is awarded.  He did say that “There is no timetable on this and there is no hurry, but it has always been my party’s intention to negotiate the review mechanisms with all parties in Northern Ireland. This could be a long time coming but it would be done in close contact with all the existing parties and I think if it happens it would lead to a better Northern Ireland." He also clarified that “We would like to move towards voluntary coalition.”

So the UUP can say it still has some ideological links to the Conservative party, is this a sign of things to come?

In an opinion piece Jim Allister, TUV Leader, said, “Yet, at the core of mandatory coalition at Stormont is the denial of that basic right, compounded by the prohibition on having an opposition. Because it so defies the basic tenets of democracy, mandatory coalition can never be the basis for good and durable government. Its removal is a prerequisite. Likewise, at the top of government, workable authority is indispensable. The office of joint first ministers is an unworkable farce so it too must go. TUV is certainly opposed to terrorists in government but we are not opposed to shared government. The proper route to shared government, with every party in Northern Ireland being a minority party is voluntary coalition. By the practice of normal politics and negotiation after every election a government and opposition would evolve.”

Turgon over on Slugger O’Toole talks about the prospects of Voluntary coalition and has thoughts on voluntary coalition. There re also similar debates over on Open Unionism.  

The DUP have also set out their stall that they want voluntary coalition and have taken a very interesting step by consulting on it too.  Can't have a better way to crowd source ideas and make sure you have you electorate going in your direction. Read the questions on the page, I have and think they are very much of the moment.  One of the questions is "Would you prefer to see a voluntary coalition model of Government appointed?". 

So is it a goer? 

Well I believe the SDLP would be very, very cautious about such an issue and Sinn Fein will not go for it at all. This means that unless the voluntary coalition government of the UK forces it through, then voluntary coalition will remain an aspiration. That would also leave any party going into opposition going in as an unoffical opposition.

Is it a realistic option for the UUP? Perhaps putting it into the May election manifesto as a real option?  This may get round the issue that plagued the Party in 2007 over the question of  'to go into opposition or not' whilst working towards a credible electoral strength for 2015.  Opposition is a double edged sword and needs to be thought about carefully, especially in a democratic system that does not recognise an official opposition but does recognise institutional sectarian head counts.  It may also allow the UUP to be unconnected to the issue of who the First Minister will be.  If the DUP can not credibly reduce the UUP numbers even more it may leave them in a vulnerable position and possibly isolate their electorate with more strongly held views.  Could this strengthen the hand of the TUV any more? At the minute it does not look likely, but if they were to even get one or two seats that could cause problems in the longer term.

I love the way Unionism is so straight forward.

Assembly “internet speed” debate (on Twitter)

Just seen the BBC picking up on John O’Dowd’s tweets (Sinn Fein, Upper Bann) regarding the state of the NI Assembly internet connection.

John tweeted: "Between 12.30 & 2pm it is impossible to work through the medium of the Internet in the Assembly. I am told staff etc are on social networks." He did add that “I have no objection to anyone using their lunch break on social networks but surely the Assembly It system should be able to cope!”

He was then reassured everyone by tweeting "I am now reliably informed plans are afoot to deal with the Internet lull @ the Assembly that our friend social networking is not to blame."

In response to @whistlinpaddy who reminded him of his own precarious position vis a vis social networking John admitted "I am guilty as accused, a social network junky. It is the standard of the IT system letting us down not the users.”

A real wee piece of interactivity and conversation in the public domain that needs to be commended, especially in how both handled the conversation. 

I only hope he was not tweeting in the Chamber as Willie Hay, Assembly Speaker may have something to say about that.  On Tuesday he interupted the debating by warning members,

Before I call Dr Stephen Farry, I ask all Members to check that their mobile phones are switched off. A mobile phone, or phones, is causing a major problem to the amplifying system in the Chamber. If Members cannot switch their phones off, can they please put them on silent? As I said, a mobile phone is having a serious effect on the amplifying system.

So what does this tell us?

1. John knows how to use the phenomena of social media. Kudos!
2. John uses a Blackberry. It would be interesting to see the breakdown of devices used by MLAs (blackberry vs iPhone vs other)
3. John responds to other’s tweets. It is so easy to use web 2.0 in a 1.0 way and it really adds to the idea of politicians only being a tweet away. 

Conversational politics is vastly underused by our politicians, though more and more are learning how to use Twitter, Facebook and blogs to interact with their own constituents and the world at large.

I think though the best recent tweet from John was this beauty,

Genius, funny and disturbing all at the same time.

Ex-Sinn Fein councillor 'up a ladder' about quitting the party

Just saw on BBC news online that Moyle Councillor Padraig McShane has resigned from Sinn Fein but is keeping a bit shtum over exactly why.

Slugger reports 'tenetatively' that it may have been something to do with a fight in a Bar in Larne - though at this moment exactly what the truth of the matter is remains uncertain.  I am sure it will be out soon enough.

However, in the meantime he has been reported as being 'up a ladder'.  The BBC reports that

He was unavailable for comment on Friday, leaving only a message on his mobile phone to say that he was "up a ladder".

Perhaps trying to hide from anyone trying to ask awkward questions.

UTV Leader's Debate

Well, that is one whole hour I will not get back again.

I, stupidly, decided to watch the UTV Leader's debate with the leaders of the four biggest parties standing in the General Election.

My own feelings can be described with a few words. Just be warned, its not a serious insight to a blow by blow debate, just my idle musings.

Jim Dougal Chairman

Was he? Seriously, why not Mike Nesbitt? Oh, that's right he is standing. What about Fearghal McKinney? Oh he is standing too. What about May McFettridge? She would at least have livened up the debate.  One very good observer said he was the best simpsons lookalike of night was Jim Dougal aka Hans Moleman! (though without the thick specs).

Margaret Ritchie SDLP Leader

What would she have done if someone pinched her notes, or as one wag pointed out to me, she was reading texts sent to her from Conall McDevitt. Was not too bad, but her inexperience at this level (can i say that??) showed through. Room yet for her to grow into her role.But seriously, the shade of red of her outfit hurt my eyes.

Gerry Adams Sinn Fein Leader

Usual smugness from someone 'never in the IRA' or apparently never even asked! He had great craic having a go at Margaret because he can't get a clear run at Fermanagh and South Tyrone. Alex Maskey standing down in South Belfast was on the same level as DUP not standing in North Down - a pointless exercise. Confidence wise, he was the coolest - but then he maybe thought he was in Castlereagh.

Peter Robinson DUP Leader

He looked very tired and a bit miffed off because he knew the inevitable 'financial questions' were going to raise their heads.  Very tetchy and apparently he has a halo he likes to polish every so often. Maybe he got one free with every £350 pen purchased.  While Peter looked quite irritable throughout, he defended himself fairly well. 

Sir Reg Empey UUP Leader

Who advised him to wear that beige/brown suit! He had a fair wind (Yes, of course i would say that) and did not make any mistakes, but perhaps did not set the night on fire. He did painfully poke Peter in the ribs about land deals and expensive pens, but did not really land that killer blow.

The post debate analysis is a load of back slapping at how great the whole thing was. The mini leaders debate was actually the most animated and would have liked to have seen more.

One little question for the UTV.  Where on earth did you get these 'young first time voters' from? Their questions were more geriatric than the panel. The questions asked were sub-standard and either shows how little they actually care about our future, or they were fed the questions by UTV, or the level of education in politics subjects has taken a serious nose dive.

Overall, I am just glad my licence fee does not go to UTV.

What do you think?


UPDATE
Have a look at Keith in Belfast's blog and his quick interviews with the leaders after the debate. 


An frae al yins tha laike tha haimley tongue Doocter Billy McWilliams his a wile gud Ulster Scots run doon oo last nicht's bletherin' session betwixt Norlin Airlan layders ain the langviewer ait hes wabseet 1690 an all thon

Prep me up.....

Education is becoming much more important to me now, as i have two girls growing up far too quickly for my liking i might add.  The eldest will soon be ready to enter that world of pain... I mean education, as she reaches the heady heights of 4 this year.  (I think the lack of sleep for the past three years has blanked out most of her growing up period).

The first stage of her inevitable education will be Primary School.  I remember my primary school, Kinnego Primary school in Co. Armagh, and do think back on the good memories (I know there will have been bad ones too but this is my flash back).  I was able to walk to school, or cycle, or get a lift down in the winter.  My parents were supportive and wanted me to do my best. I did the 11+, and just about passed.  I did not go to a prep school - my parents could not afford it.

So why should I wish to defend the funding system for Prep Schools when the Northern Ireland Education Minister said that this part of the UK will no longer fund Preparatory schools? On a principle of excellence and opportunity to attain that excellence.

I am a tax payer and my taxes are subsidising children going to a school that many would think they cannot afford.  Is it not just for the privileged classes?  I am by no means one of the privileged class.  Our family constantly look at our budget every month to ensure we can pay all the bills.  One of those major outgoings is the mortgage, the other is nursery places for our two girls.

Now, lets say I find a Prep school I would like my girls to go to and they charge £3,000 per year. 

Oh, that's got to hurt.  Yes it will, but I spend £1,200 a month for nursery places.  Not because I want to but because I have too. Any state sub for me? Er no. Apart from childcare vouchers which is part of a salary sacrifice scheme there is nothing. Yes, we get child credit but lets be serious, with both our 'on paper' salaries' its not much. 

So compare £6000 a year for two girls with what we are already paying, £14,400 a year.  A good education and cheaper at the price. Hmmm, getting more attractive.  So how does this impact on the removal of funding from Prep schools as it would still be cheaper than nursery?  The problem is that this issue is little more than an ideologically Marxist objective from an Education Minister who sends her own children to a British grammar school, while trying to reduce the quality educational output from Northern Ireland Schools.  

That's right, she has used her choice to send her children, who live in County Louth, to a grammar school in Northern Ireland.  Absolutely fine, Comrade Ruane, even though you may have bent the rules a bit to do so.  

Financially, removal of funding for Prep schools of about £800 per child, will increase the Education budget pressure to around £2000 per child.  Hmmm, do I get a rebate for the nursery places for my kids then? Thought not.  This means that there will be less money in the overall educational pot for the things that are funded now (about £5 million less), because the children going to Prep Schools will become part of the fully funded system.  As Bob Balls points out in his post 

If Ruane gets her way and destroys preps, more pupils will go to primaries. Which involves moving lots of children from the £808 funding bracket to the £2,911 bracket. If just a quarter of the prep population switches to primaries then the taxpayer would have to fork out an additional c.£5 million. This at a time when expenditure must be cut by £370 million and the onus is on cuts.

Like Catriona Ruane, I want the best for my kids.  I want them to have equality of opportunity, not an opportunity to be equal with everyone else.  They are not equal to everyone else, they will be more intelligent than some, and less so than others.  That is life.  I will encourage them and provide them with as much support as I can.  But that is my choice.  

Yes there are underachievers in our society, and we have to address that.  But by dragging down excellence to the lowest common denominator will simply not work.  If parents do not care about the educational attainment of their children, why cripple those parents who actually do care.  The real issue is how do we work to encourage children and adults in our society to achieve?  If we are all equal, creativity will be stifled, leadership will not be nurtured, entrepreneurial endeavour will falter, there will be no 'best'.  

Just as an example, my parents encouraged and supported me and my brother to work at our education.  We both went to Kinnego Primary School, we both went to the Royal School Armagh.  I went to University, my younger brother went to Upper Bann College for Further and Higher Education.  I have a degree, my brother has an HND.  I work in an office, my brother works in an engineering firm.  My brother earns more than me, and I could not weld for toffee.  I love reading books and have enjoyed my academic journey, while my brother enjoys making things.  The issue is not who did better, but what each persons' life skills are and how to encourage them to use them the the best of their abilities.  But you can not make them.  They have to take those opportunities for themselves.

With regard to the debate on Preparatory schools, I believe they are another opportunity for people and help to add to the diversity of an education mix that parents can choose from.  Those from middle economic backgrounds are essentially going have that choice removed through the removal of funding.  It will become a truly elitist education choice available to only the richest.  Maybe Catriona wants to move towards that system? I am not sure, but I do know it will reduce opportunity in the longer term.

In fairness though, it is not all black and white.  There was a debate on the removal of Preparatory school funding in the Assembly this week where the usual grand standing and political baiting were on full display.  However, the Sinn Fein amendment to the substantive motion, was put forward quite ably by John O'Dowd, who highlighted a report produced by the DUP controlled Department of Finance and Personnel that states as a recommendation, 

7.3 BCS has concluded that funding provision that can only be accessed by children whose parents can pay the requisite fee is not consistent with the principle of equity in the distribution of resources. We have therefore recommended that DE consider the withdrawal of such funding. 

7.4 The withdrawal of DE funding to preparatory departments is likely to have marginal impact on the education budget. We have concluded that the equity issue far outweighs the economic issue in relation to the overall decision to be made.

Catriona also referred to this, much to the annoyance of the DUP, and particularly Jonathan Bell MLA (Strangford) who was ordered from the Chamber for accusing the Minister for misleading the house.  Unfortunately the grand standing and abstinence from both sides of the debate has left much of the populace open mouthed.  It has also left little wriggle room for people to compromise and still save face.  (I see the full irony of my post in this context, especially how I started off)

I want an education system that will give my girls the opportunities they need to do as well as they can.

So........................., I have a cunning plan.  

If the Education Minister is determined to plough ahead then why not fully fund Preparatory school places, and allow them to keep their ethos and guarantee their existence for a period of time (say 10 years).  Currently this would affect 2,426 children, and as the Business Consultancy Service says  

equity issue far outweighs the economic issue in relation to the overall decision to be made

This would save the Prep school places, widen equality of opportunity, expand parental choice, not discriminate against anyone and might reverse Catriona's unpopularity.

Job done!

UTV now to provide all NI parties with celebrities

Fearghal McKinney
standing for SDLP

Now its getting very interesting in politics. 

First we had Mike Nesbitt standing for the UUP/Conservatives in Strangford constituency, and now we have Fearghal McKinney looking to stand for the SDLP in Fermanagh and South Tyrone.

UTV has gagged Lynda Bryans (Mike's Wife who still works in UTV) because regulations on coverage of elections meant Lynda could not present the programme until after the election.  OK, understand the need to be politically neutral and be seen to be politically neutral.  But is it a difficulty for UTV that its ex-presenters are becoming more political?

In a bid to remain completely neutral, UTV could extend its neutrality by providing the other parties with a list of Ex-UTV presenters, so that all political parties can have an equal shot of having a UTV personality on their election tickets.  And will the BBC also step in help by providing a list to every party of their own ex-BBC personalities?

I had suggested May McFettridge could be the SDLP celeb, but she may now be picked up by some other party.  Any takers?

Suggestions on who could be on the UTV and BBC lists for parties to pick from in the comment box please.

A General or a Specific election??

What about 'none of the above'?

I am putting my money on 6th May 2010 for the wonderful General Election.

I know there are lots rumours doing the rounds.  Indeed today Gordon is supposed to be announcing that the General Election will be taking place on 25th March.  All I would say is, if you are as sad as I am, have a wee gander over to General Election Timetables.

There you will see an illustrative timetable of potential election dates and when the 'Proclamation of Dissolution' has to happen.  The 'Proclamation of Dissolution' is basically when the Prime Minster goes to the Queen and asks her to dissolve her Parliament, and she  agrees.

You will see from the timetable that today (Monday 1 March 2010) is the day for the 'Proclamation of Dissolution' for the 25th Match to be the election day, when you and I get to once again drudge down to the local polling stations to vote for people we are not quite sure off.

The rumours for 25th March are now fading big time.  And as you can see below, we will have a few more rumour filled weekends to go through.  Right up to the timings for a June 3 election.

So why do I still stick to 6th May?

1. Its been the longest persisting rumour.
2. A number of Labour Grandees have let it slip now and again.
3. It is the date of the Local Elections in England
4. Its a nice time of the year to have it.
5. Its not the holiday season, so more people will be at home.
6. And, from the Northern Ireland perspective, the date for the 'Proclamation of Dissolution' is 12 April.

Hold on, I have heard that date before, I hear you say (for the pedants, I do not mean this literally! Unless people who read this actually do track me down and do actually speak to me.)

Yes, you have heard this before.  In the Hillsborough Agreement. On page 4.  First Section.

It is the date that Policing and Justice powers will be devolved from Westminster to Northern Ireland.

So what? Its not going to win anyone an election to Westminster.  Well, no it isn't.  But the powers can not be devolved by a dissolved Westminster.  It still has to be in session for the legislation for devolving the powers to be enacted.

A dissolved Westminster does not have any MPs, nor does it debate, nor does it pass legislation.

Ergo, (using latin makes me feel so superior) the Prime Minister will not be announcing dissolution before the 12th April 2010, as he agreed to the timings for devolution at the Hillsborough negotiations.

Now all I need is for Gordon Brown to read this and then call  a snap election, just to spite me.

The deal......about a deal

Well, we now have an agreement in Northern Ireland on policing and justice. Or do we?

What seems to have happened is that negotiators spent 100+ hours to create a 21 page document that is really only a deal about a deal.

You can find the document on the Chambré Public Affairs website and have a wee read of it yourself.

What you will find is an agreement that the DUP and Sinn Fein don't want the Assembly to fall over, while the UUP and the SDLP are a bit miffed at being excluded from the full negotiations.  And the Alliance Party are, well, pottering about somewhere really hoping for the ministry, but trying not to look like they really, really want it.

The deal? Well its a deal about a deal.  An agreement is where to two big parties are both the winners.  But are they?  While the big bit relates to the devolution of policing and justice, there are also to be three committees 

1. A committee on Improving Executive Function and Delivery
2. A committee to look at Outstanding Executive Business
3. A committee to look at Outstanding Issues from St Andrew's Agreement.

There is also a new Parades Commission, that isn't a Parades Commission.  If you get my meaning.

So far the 'not the Parades Commission' has been filled by nominees by the First Minister and deputy First Minster.  The members are Michelle Gildernew, John O'Dowd, Gerry Kelly,Nelson McCausland, Stephen Moutray & Jeffrey Donaldson.

Apparently, Sir Reg only found out he was on the 'Improving Executive Function and Delivery' when he read it in the published document. Hmmmmmm.

The whole thing seems to be 'lets agree to disagree for a while and hope no one notices'.  Nothing overly terrible in itself if we are to keep the hope of a better future alive for a while longer.  

I wonder if they have been looking at all how inefficient this all is.  Whilst, as Ministers, they are demanding targeted efficiencies within their own Departments (which means civil servants being made redundant - sorry - I meant expeditious usage of vacancy control methods.  Not that this is putting any more pressure on the poor civil servant), they seem to be happy to potter about creating loads of committees to sit on.  

I wonder if they will have enough civil servants to take the notes??

Anyway.  The deal seems to already have a few problems.  The SDLP and UUP are not happy with the idea of the Alliance Party lifting the DOJ title as it does not fit into the D'Hondt system (It would be the SDLP's turn).  The Alliance Party are stating that they are not announcing a candidate as the conditions are not right yet (when will it ever?)  The SDLP have nominated Alban Maginnnis and the UUP will probably leave it at that.

The parades bit is complicated but involves the real Parades Commission probably being decommissioned, while the 'I can't believe its not....' Parades Commission probably wrangle away.  The real issue is how grassroots Orangemen feel about the whole thing.  Has the leadership of the Loyal Orders actually asked the rank and file?  I feel a difficult few years ahead. 

There is so much more but i feel a bit of my rant over.  What does any one else think about this? Or does anyone really care?

Groundhog Day 2: Policing & Justice in NI

You may or may not realise it but Tuesday, 2nd February 2010 is in fact Groundhog Day.

At least according to the ever accurate and academically sound Wikipedia.

We are in the last run of the talks at Hillsborough which is supposed to give us the finalisation of Devolution to Northern Ireland.  Gregory Campbell (DUP MLA and MP) is suggesting the possibility of a referendum to quantify public confidence in the process.  Gerry Adams thought the idea was 'cool' as it would involve the likes of the Garvaghy Road residents telling the DUP that they can go ahead and devolve P&J. Ooooh, saucer of milk?

I think the real issue underlying Groundhog Day at Hillsborough is electoral cover for DUP & Sinn Fein.  They can not be seen to be giving in to each other too soon.  Though i think the hardest discussions have already happened before Christmas.  A referendum would give them all the cover they need to progress.  However, one thing to keep in mind is the number of people who voted for the Agreement in the referendum in 1998 and slipped back to mow their gardens like horticultural ninjas when it came to actually voting for the parties.

We await with a bit more baited breath to see what happens on Groundhog Day.  

Though it would have been more poignant for the deal to have been 'done' on Holocaust Day, as a significant move for continued peace, than Groundhog Day, which sums up our politics here quite well.

Policing & Justice: Three wheels on my wagon.

A song that could reflect our wonderful policing and justice negotiations!


Lets hope it doesn't go the way the song ends up!

the deadline approaches

Hillsborough Castle

Well today is the day.  Maybe.


Really what is going on?


Looks like at the moment the cavalry is riding in.  But here is the thing - i think the deal is already done and dusted.  What this current situation is is just to do with electioneering.


The problem is not getting the parties to agree - i think they do agree and have said publicly that they all want policing and justice to be devolved.


The issue is saving face and not being seen to back down from each other.  Hopefully the 'official' deal can be done today so we can worry about piddly things like affording our homes, electricity, food, education, employment and generally staying alive.

Deal or no deal??

As the great Noel Edmunds puts it to the contestant after the Banker has given a financial offer,

'Deal or no deal'

Some cut their losses and take it if it is a reasonable offer. Others go right on to the bitter end. This has resulted in contestants going home with no more than 1p.

Is this how things are being played out in Hillsburough Castle?

Is Brian Cowan playing Noel Edmunds? Gordon Brown playing the banker (i expect lots of sniggers at this one)? Will the two big contestants say 'Deal' or 'No deal'?

Why have we come once more to crisis point in Northern Ireland politics? Are we, more particularly the political parties, addicted to the adrenaline rush of last minute crunch talks where once more 'The hand of history is upon our shoulders'?

Speculation is that there is a deal on the tables with a devolution date for policing and justice on the table. Every so often the prosaic politicians throw a few scraps of information to the hungry hacks huddled outside. The closeness of a deal is tangible, yet just out of full sight.

Both the DUP and Sinn Fein have to play the game just right in order to save both face and the institutions. I don't think either of the parties want a snap election. The DUP could be given a bloody nose by a unionist electorate who have decided to either give up on this voting thing, side with the UUP or side with the TUV. Sinn Fein have an opportunity surely? well there is the child abuse allegations that will not go away and the fig leaf of 'First Minister' as another chance to stick it to the unionist parties.

The big issue of any snap Assembly election then will not be the economy, education, health, social housing, or employment. it will again come down to the sad sectarian head count where the electorate is more motivated to vote someone in to keep the other out.

The DUP and Sinn Fein could both use this as a race to finish first leaving the race track strewn with parties tripped up under the aspect of 'you must vote for us to keep out/put in place Sinn Fein First Minister.

It is politics, i admit. It is a politics that constantly rejuvenates itself under age old threats.

No one said it was ever a nice thing and it has its own electoral strength. But it will place Northern Ireland on the world stage as a place that constantly naval gazes and is obsessed with itself.

Perhaps a deal is possible and Northern Ireland will see another new era.

We live in hope. Maybe, just maybe, our parties will play the game right and get the £800 million jackpot.

Sit down, down, down, sit down next to me.....

Lots has been happening on the Unionist front with much made of the 'Pan-Unionist Front', and while sounds slightly better than UCU-NF, it still has a ring of 'Monty Python's Life of Brian' about it.

There is a lot of debate on what this means, and has been linked to the three Conservative nominees stepping down (this has been covered on Bob Balls and very nicely on Ian Parsley's blogpost)

Eamonn Mallie in a slugger post has highlighted a possible Conservative attitude towards the DUP -

"They want blood from the DUP not handshakes".

Yet many others on slugger are reading many different aspects on the future of Unionism.

The whole 'Unionist unity' thing is becoming rather silly. It would necessitate major compromise between the UUP and DUP, and would not now send out a positive message to the growing number of the electorate just giving up on politics altogether. Maybe thisspeculation would have been very welcome 15 to 30 years ago, but the whole political environment has gone global and we seem to be left behind again.

Whatever happens next, I think the unionist electorate will punish Unionist parties in general if there is no 'product' (clichés haven't gone away you know!) for them to see. The 'grass roots' are trying to cope with lack of employment, rising costs and keeping a roof over their head.

Maybe if we were given the option of signing a promise not to break the law and dividing up the £800 Policing and Justice budget between us all (about £470,000 each). If we break the law, that money is taken away and divided up amongst the rest.

What do you think?

After the 2009 and 2010 political scandals, would you vote?

Well, after a big build up on what was to come this weekend in the papers, it was a bit of a damp squib on one front and more disturbing on the other.

While it was a bit lacking on more scandal for the DUP, the heat was cranked up over the Adams family issue of who knew what, when and how it was handled. Susanne Breen, from the Sunday Tribune, interviews two women from two well known republican families on how they were sexually abused by republicans and of how that abuse was covered up by Sinn Féin and the Provisional IRA. Accusations of abuse of any kind, especially of children, will begin to put real pressure on Sinn Féin and how it has handled the allegations, and whether or not they advised victims to go to statutory agencies.

With the debate on policing and justice ongoing, it could be an issue for the public on how they view the capability of any political party to take on the job of Justice Minister. I think the 'community confidence' is much wider than the DUP interpretation. Does anyone have the confidence that our politicians could take on the role now?

There seems to be cover-ups all over the place and how are the public supposed to react to elected representatives when the media shine a light on shady goings on over the past number of years? Being an elected representative is a privileged position of trust where the politician must act in a moral and ethical approach to the duties they have to perform. They should bear in mind thoughtfulness for others, kindness in the community, honesty in their business, courtesy in society and fairness in all things. There is a fully functioning 'Code of Conduct (which i wrote about previously here)

The number of political scandals covering 2009 and 2010 so far does not seem to reflect the Codes of conduct. Nor will they instil trust in the electorate.

Political disengagement by the electorate is becoming a big danger.

So what would make anyone want to vote?

Well one solution is to make voting compulsory, as it is in Australia. Indeed it is a debate coming to the NI Assembly today.

Danny Kinahan (UUP MLA for South Antrim) has tabled

"That this Assembly notes the positive effect that compulsory voting has had on democracy in the Commonwealth of Australia; and calls on Her Majesty’s Government to consider introducing similar rules for elections in the United Kingdom."

This could be a way to staunch the loss in voting habit.

I have supported this for notion for a long time, but with the important proviso that there is an option for 'None of the above' on the voting slip.

There have been long winded debates about people should be able to exercise the option of voting or not. It is illegal not to be on the electoral register, so why not move that debate on and extend the legislation to cover the actual issue of voting as well.

The big danger is that if voting numbers continue to decline, government will become more and more focussed on the issues of those who actually vote. Why would they waste resources on people who do not vote? A politician is not going to worry about a non-voter - why would they?

People need to, no matter what the current political climate, go out and vote. Even deliberately spoil their vote at the ballot box to show their disdain. Otherwise the representatives elected will reflect a more extreme view of an electorate who have strong enough held views to actually go out and vote.

Politics impinges on all our lives and we must engage to make a difference.