Humbugs at the heart of Robinson speech

There are two thundering humbugs at the heart of Peter Robinson's self-styled keynote speech on September 8 and his follow-up article, 'Proposed voting changes would build on success of the Assembly,' in this newspaper on September 15.

He claims to be proud of what he achieved at St. Andrews, 'including ensuring that all important decisions require cross-community support.' Yet then goes on to admit that the present 'deadlock is the almost inevitable outcome of effectively giving two parties a permanent veto and no incentive to change.'

But it was the DUP who walked away from St. Andrews knowing that deadlock was the centerpiece of the arrangements; and the DUP who then brokered a deal with Sinn Fein in May 2007 based on that deadlock!

Mr. Robinson also says that a 'modest change to the arrangements at Stormont could make a big difference to decision-making.' Odd, then, that he didn't think it necessary to discuss this 'modest change' with his Executive partners before announcing it. Even odder, too, that his party has done precious little on the Assembly Executive and Review Committee over the last two years to promote this 'modest change.'

The plain truth of the matter is that the very peculiar deal made between the DUP and Sinn Fein two years ago has crumbled under pressure. There is, quite simply, almost no area of agreement between the two parties: not on education, or victims, or policing and justice, or the shared future strategy, or the mechanics of government or on a whole raft of other issues.

But the biggest problem for Peter Robinson now is that the DUP vote is also crumbling under pressure; the pressure on that front coming from the TUV. The 'unionist confidence' he used to boast of has evaporated and the DUP can no longer claim to be the majority voice of unionism. All of which may explain why Peter's speech on September 8 and his article on September 15 have the scent of panic sprinkled through them.

All Peter Robinson is proposing is a bit of tinkering around the edges. For most of the period between 1998 and 2005 the DUP attacked the UUP on a daily basis and promised that they could produce a 'better' deal and a 'fairer' deal. But they didn't negotiate it at St. Andrews or deliver it in May 2007. So why would anyone think that things would be different next time around? Put bluntly, Peter Robinson isn't actually arguing for a better government; he's just making the case for a form of government that's better for the DUP!

The UUP wants change. But it wants a change wider and deeper than that proposed by the DUP. We want collective responsibility and individual accountability. We want a Programme for Government which reflects the real socio-economic needs of Northern Ireland. And we want the electorate to have a proper choice between an outgoing government and a credible alternative to that government.

Peter says that he always regarded the present arrangements as 'merely a staging post to a more normal form of devolution.' That was the position of the UUP after 1998, when we recognized that the structures and mechanisms would require change after they had been allowed to run for a while. But the changes made by the DUP at St. Andrews (giving us a system of mutual loathing propped up by mutual veto) have, in reality, made it much more difficult to secure the changes we need now.

Peter Robinson and the DUP have got it wrong, very wrong, since 2005; and the fact that he is now looking to the UUP, SDLP, Alliance and media to back him up and bail him out, is the clearest possible signal that he now knows the scale of his miscalculated strategy.