ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ

Mark

APPOINTMENT OF VICTIMS’ COMMISSIONER: WHY ARE WE WAITING?

The extended edition of Inside Politics was good stuff. I just want to make a few comments about some of the issues discussed and about the Panel.

1 Victims’ Commissioner

I missed part of the Programme but I don’t think the appointment of a Victims’ Commissioner was discussed in any depth. It is a key appointment, particularly for the FM and DFM personally and their respective Parties. The successful candidate will be expected to ensure that the carnage of the past is buried with the least possible fuss and that the hands-on participation in the mayhem by some current members of the Assembly is airbrushed from the historical canvas. His terms of reference will be to ensure that the mournful wails from the graves of Victims and the anguished cries of Survivors are stifled. Anything else would interrupt the smooth running of the DUP/SF Fascist Coalition.

So where are we in the appointment process? In response to a question in the Assembly on 10 December, 2007, Dr Paisley said: β€œOn 8 October 2007, the deputy First Minister and I announced our intention to extend the appointments process for the Commissioner for Victims and Survivors. That process is almost complete, and we hope to announce the appointment before the end of the year.” *

While not specifying which year, most people would have understood that he meant a Commissioner would be appointed before the end of 2007. Surely FM/DFM have had more than enough time to find a suitable yes-man to fill the position.

Mark, have you any inside information on the failure to make an appointment?

2 Performance of The Speaker (β€˜Mr Bumble’)

To my knowledge, Naomi Long is the first MLA to raise the issue, outside the Assembly, of the Speaker’s ineptitude. The highlight of his incompetence was of course his handling of events on the day Margaret Ritchie announced withdrawal of funding to the CTI. Interestingly, the Speaker’s indiscreet disclosure that Nigel Hamilton was, as Naomi put it, β€œbriefing against” Margaret Ritchie didn’t prevent old Nige getting his Gong. But there again, one Law for them and no Law for us! Mrs Long was quite right to suggest that there would have been a constitutional bloodbath in Parliament had its Speaker conducted himself in a similar manner.

3 Contamination

Simon Hamilton’s arguments in support of the DUP’s decision to enter into coalition with Sinn Fein were breathtaking in their inconsistency. He spoke of his Party waiting until there was no [terrorist] β€œcontamination” while failing to mention, for example, that the DRD Minister recently announced that he had consulted with the IRA following the Murder of Paul Quinn. He also failed to see the irony of coalescing with Sinn Fein while declaiming that they could not be trusted with Policing and Justice.

4 The Panel

Here’s my summary of performance for each of The Panel:

Β· Hamilton, S: Predictable DUP doublespeak wrapped in hypocrisy. He’ll go far.
Β· Long, N: Less hyper performance than usual and as a result her arguments were more persuasive than when she’s at full, unstoppable vocal throttle. She actually drew breath on quite a few occasions. Mark, perhaps your interviewing technique brought out the best in her. Wendy Austin, please note!
Β· McCrea, Basil: Good measured performance offering convincing arguments. Solid spokesman for the UUP but not leadership material.
Β· McDonnell, Alasdair: Made his points well but would benefit from being more aggressive and developing a bit of charisma. Would do better if he were less of the genial GP and more of a knife-wielding Surgeon.
Β· McKay, DaithΓ­: Dear oh dear. Archetypical Sinn Fein robot, wordperfectly reeling off his Party’s well-rehearsed arguments about equality, Irish language etc. He’s the political equivalent of a Mogadon Cosh.

Roll on 7 January, 2008; Christmas TV is not a patch on MLAs at play!

* Source: Assembly Official Report (Hansard), under Public Appointments, 10 December, 2007

Susie
Carryduff
31 December, 2007