No News Here

The BBC's obsession with the provisional movement continues apace. The latest instalment comes in the form of the headline story on their NI News website that informs us that Martin McGuinness says that dissident 'republicans' have little or no support.

Apart from the fact that he has already said this before, the bottom line is that he is just stating an undeniable fact. Where's the news?

Right, we get that the DUP and Sinn Féin have done a u-turn and have been talking more like normal democrats for the past year or so. But is there not real news that TV licence payers' money can go towards funding the reporting of?

Northern Ireland's Zimbabwe Shame

Patrick Corrigan from Amnesty International has posted a good article over on the Amnesty blog that links in well with both the theme of the UK arms market and the gruesome imitation of an election that just transpired in Zimbabwe on Friday.

Despite all the symbolic acts of condemnation from Britain, the government could only sit on the sidelines while Mugabe's henchmen intimidated the Zimbabwean people and gave a brutally literal display of how to flatten the opposition.  A point less covered by the media, and one which Patrick asks us to consider, is "the very real prospect that Northern Ireland workers may have helped to arm Mugabe's military."  According to Amnesty, "the lack of controls on arms exports and the lack of transparency in government reporting of such exports" means that we could indirectly be providing component parts to military equipment used by Perence Shiri, the man behind the Matabeleland massacres of at least 10,000 people, and now head of the country's air force.

Amnesty's 2007 report "Northern Ireland: Arming the World" named two companies in the North as having been possible contributors to Chinese K-8 attack jets which were then exported to Zimbabwe.   Goodrich Engine Control Systems in Belfast and Martin-Baker Aircraft Company in Co Antrim are the two companies named in the report.  Patrick notes how, although, in a demonstration of the inadequacy of the laws governing arms exports, no laws were broken by Martin-Baker, the company refused to respond to Amnesty's enquiries and the public has been denied a chance to see whether NI companies are complicit in arming Mugabe's regime.

While Invest NI is happy to spend our money subsidising this deathly trade, the view in Zimbabwe is very clear.  Roy Bennett, treasurer general of the Movement for Democratic Change announced that an MDC government would call western companies to account for "aiding and abetting" Mugabe's regime.  Unfortunately, such an MDC government is looking more and more like a distant reality.

And the award for arming the most tyrannical regimes on the planet goes to...

This week Britain came first in something for once but it is not an accolade they should be shouting about. Britain is now the world's biggest exporter of arms, an achievement the unelected ex-CBI government trade minister and leading opponent of the minimum wage, Digby Jones exclaimed was "outstanding."

In fact, the only outstanding things about the British arms trade are the high levels of public money going to companies involved and the dubious destinations of its exports. BAE receives public money in the form of subsidies for research and to pay for the companies' own dedicated staff at UK Trade and Investment despite the fact that the arms giant employs more people in the US than in Britain. Furthermore, the MOD has its own unit, the Defence Export Services Organisation, with a sole purpose to market and sell UK military equipment and services. The cost to the taxpayer of this unit alone in the year 2004-5 was £17 million and campaigners estimate the cost of sustaining this military-industrial complex by subsidising exports is around £900 million annually. This is not surprising given that between April 1997 and January 2003 at least twenty-two individuals from BAE Systems were seconded to the MoD and at least six government ministers from the early 1990s have went on to work for arms-producing companies. If only C. Wright Mills was alive to see it.

While over a million manufacturing jobs have been lost in Britain since 1997 the fact that manufacturing expertise is concentrated in this most odious of industries is somewhat disturbing. Despite what the generous subsidies would suggest, just 0.2% of the national labour force is employed in the arms sector and that, according to an MOD-York report, while 49,000 jobs would be lost from halving military exports, a further 67,400 would be created in other areas within 5 years. The report concluded that “the economic costs of reducing defence exports are relatively small and largely one-off.” This is especially true in cases where, according to the Campaign Against the Arms Trade, "military companies have worked in partnership with trade unions, local authorities and agencies to assist people to find alternative employment." They go on to say that "between 1995 and 2002, jobs dependent on military exports fell from 145,000 to the present level of around 65,000 with no major impact on the economy." Just think where else those jobs and nearly a billion pounds of public money could go. Developing clean energy technology to fight climate change would be a start.

The UK Strategic Export Controls Annual Reports over the last 10 or 11 years make interesting reading. Countries such as Saudi Arabia are among the UK's best customers, not surprising after the public exposure of decision to call off the investigation into BAE's Saudi dealings 2 years ago, and it was a BAE Systems and the VT Group contract with the oil-rich Arab nation that propelled Britain to the top of the export charts this year. According to the Guardian newspaper the government's own reports indicate that it sells arms to "19 of the 20 countries that it identified as 'countries of concern' for abusing human rights." These include Saudi Arabia, Israel, Colombia, China, and Russia. It sickens me to think that my taxes indirectly fund the repression of Tibetans in China and the occupation of Palestinian territories by the state of Israel.

At a time when the rest of the manufacturing industry has been decimated and the UK economy is over-reliant on the financial sector (the negative effects of this are now becoming apparent), it is astounding that taxpayers' money is propping up a deathly industry with more blood on its hands than Lady Macbeth. Let's hope that the next time Digby Jones, Baron Jones of Birmingham, sits at the Cabinet table he is visited by the ghost of Banquo and reconsiders his support for the arms trade. I wouldn't bank on it.

Educating Ourselves

There is an education debate taking place in the Republic which is every bit as lively and, on occasion, every bit as fractious as the one taking place in the North. The current issue of Studies (Summer 2008) addresses the debate in the Republic with a special issue entitled “Educating Ourselves”. The issue focuses on the challenges facing the education system in the 21st century while keeping in mind the system’s successes too: “So, though frequently reported only when there is failure or controversy, Irish primary and secondary education is characterised by commitment and creativity.” Amongst the topics discussed are “Catholic Schools: Schools for Catholics”; “ ‘Protestant’ Schools”; “Integration and the role of Catholic Schools”; “Intercultural Education – the School Response” and “Educating for Values: Philosophy and Religion”.

In his editorial, Fergus O’Donoghue, SJ, writes: “One of the objections to church schools is that they teach disproved doctrines and transmit outdated world views. From this perspective, the best education is rational and scientific, though the notion that science can be totally independent of its culture is truly risible. Putting ourselves at the top of the evolutionary tree is presumptuous and leads to hubris, whereas history, ancient or contemporary, shows that we are all too ready to behave irrationally. We need religion as part of our society. The majority of Irish parents recognise this and want a religious aspect to their children’s education. They are not troubled by diversity in the student body. They are very keen on local education (hence their enthusiasm for national schools). Their commitment to the transmission of religious beliefs is, however, less obvious.”

The full editorial as well as the essays are available on line at www.studiesirishreview.com

On a more personal note, the current issues also carries a review by Joan Hutchinson, rscj, of my book, Milltown – A Belfast Novella (Lagan Press). As the reviews from Studies are not on line, I am, very immodestly, going to reproduce it here.

Joan Hutchinson writes: “But what is it to be at home, Mr Tyler, what is it to be at home? A lingering dissolution,” All that Fall – Samuel Beckett, 1957.

Disintegration of an ordinary home and the memories which remain form the basis of this unusual book. The novella evokes in microcosm the divided city of Belfast. It describes Belfast over thirty years of violence and the changes wrought by the ceasefire. Pól Ó Muirí tells the story of Joseph McDowell, an only child growing up in a happy hardworking family in West Belfast. The ‘nets of nationality, religion and language’ are strong in this sectarian world but the soul of the boy is not entrapped by any of these.

Violence is pervasive, in school where the fist is used liberally, where the pupils are called ‘morons’, on the streets where the struggle between the British Army and the Provos lead to “an implosion of the city”. “Familiar streets and paths he had walked became out of bounds and families he had known disappeared”. Yet the author avoids the self-indulgent pity which plagues so much of the miserable Irish childhood literature.

The central character, Joseph McDowell, becomes a reluctant but competent teacher. He made his peace with teaching, reasoning that “it is not such a bad profession, the holidays are good”. He wished to be a writer but was not prepared for the academic snobbery of the university world nor exclusion by the self-regarding establishment of Northern letters. In the midst of the flux and change of life, the author portrays a home of humour, commonsense and deep affection. Catholicism is presented as a secure and kind presence ministering in a war zone.

Pól Ó Muirí has used the novella convention to great purpose, its spare prose restricted to the conflict situation in West Belfast, which leads to an unexpected turning point, so that the conclusion surprises, while it is at the same time a logical and plausible outcome of the tale. The recurring symbol is Milltown Cemetery and its association with violence and death. History, prejudice, bigotry, alienation, propaganda and betrayal ravage West Belfast and its people during this short narrative.

The impulse of the artist to create one city or country in imagination and in story is a compelling instinct and Pól Ó Muirí has recreated West Belfast in this short and deft novella. It is an elegy for a family, a city, a civilization.

Milltown – a Belfast Novella would be an ideal book for inclusion on the Leaving Certificate Comparative texts course, as it could introduce students to the history of Northern Ireland. Its brevity would suit them, as such precision demands great skill. I am reminded again of Beckett’s words: “Why say more, when less already says so much.”

Joan Hutchinson, rscj, works in Mount Anville Secondary School, Dublin.

‘They can’t occupy my words’

Conall Quinn, writing in the current issue of Magill, (Issue 3, 2008), has a thought-provoking report from the first Palestinian Festival of Literature which was held in Birzeit University, Ramallah, ‘Beyond the Wall’. Quinn writes: “Almost everywhere we go in the West Bank – Jerusalem, Ramallah, Hebron, Bethlehem – there is a sense that Palestinian writers are desperate to create an art that will somehow influence the political situation and bring their plight, artistically, to the attention of the world.”

Many of the quotes from writers at the festival, including Ireland’s Roddy Doyle, offer fascinating glimpses into art and politics in the West Bank. Doyle says: “Words like ‘duty’ and ‘responsibility’ make me nervous. I don’t think the Palestinians should be burdened with either. Going into an artistic endeavour with one of those words on each shoulder would probably produce well-intentioned but very bad art.”

Sudanese writer, Jaml Mahjoub, says: “All true artistic expression is in some way political, in the sense that it seeks to alter our view of the world. Art has often been used as an arm in political struggle. It doesn’t make for great art, but it does provide for consolation; this is particularly important in the case of the Palestinians, for whom silence is eradication.”

Palestinian poet, Mahmoud Darwish, once had 25,000 people turn up to hear him read in Beirut, writes Quinn. Darwish comments: “Ideally, I would like to stop writing poetry about Palestine. I can not keep writing about loss and occupation for ever. I want, both as a poet and a human being, to free myself from Palestine. But I can’t. When my country is liberated, so shall I be.” Darwish also talks about his own poetry and says: “They [the Israelis] can’t occupy my words. My poetry is the one way I have to resist them.”

Quinn cautions that it “would be a mistake … to believe all Palestinians travel the same artistic road … If our understanding of the varied nature of the artistic response to the occupation is deficient, this is further exacerbated by the rarity of Palestinian literature in translation. Even Darwish has only relatively recently been available in English, and in tiny print runs. Israeli writers such as Amos Oz, David Grossman and, more recently Etgar Keret, have no such problems.”

Quinn concludes: “The passion and eloquence with which the university students, mainly young girls, talked of literature and of writing, the way they riffed on Eliot, on Joyce, even Foucault, like they’d already lived half a lifetime in Café Flore and Les Deux Maggots, made for a moving experience. And if the visiting writers were there to inspire the students of the West Bank, in the end what happened was the exact opposite.

“It seems to be, after being in Palestine, that artistic freedom is, literally, worth dying for,” says [Roddy] Doyle. “It is the freedom to address artistically what surrounds one – or ignore it. Listening to those young women talking about Edith Wharton and George Orwell will stay with me for the rest of my life. Such intelligence and enthusiasm, trapped in a place that is being choked to death, it was a heart-breaking privilege to meet them.”

Bush not welcome in Belfast!

I went along to the Bush protest at Belfast City Hall yesterday, which was reasonably attended given that it was Monday lunchtime, armed with a load of placards and a large red banner- a trait I had in common with many in attendance. It was great to see such a variety of people turning out to oppose the decision to invite the War President to pose as a man of peace in Stormont; curious bystanders on their lunchbreak, anarcho-syndicalists, Eamonn McCann basking in his post-Raytheon trial glory, trade unionists, youth groups from the SDLP, SF, Socialist Party and ICTU, the SWP, large rubber statues with men inside, young children and elderly women to name a few.

The highlight was éirígí's brazen stunt which saw the Iraqi flag replace the Union Flag on the City Hall flagpole for the duration of the afternoon. Lynda Walker of the CPI entertained from the truck kindly provided by Unison with an impromptu burst of Tom Paxton's 'What Did You Learn In School?' (What did you learn in school today, dear little boy of mine? I learned that Washington never told a lie...) and the crowd heard speeches from various unions, McCann and, most movingly, an Iraqi trade unionist telling of the destruction the Bush administration has unleashed on his country.

The protest then moved via the 4A bus route to Stormont and the driver of our particular bus was none too pleased to see us board with placards and two giant banners. The Stormont gates were decorated by grim-faced PSNI officers who were soon reinforced by rather threatening Robocop-esque riot police. I have to admit I was rather comforted by their presence given the arrival across the street of a small group of fascistic UDA types attempting, pathetically, to burn some Socialist Party posters with a cigarette lighter.  I hope that they burned their thuggish fingers.

The 4As kept coming and the Stormont gates soon housed a curious mix of anarchists, Trots, éirígí activists, an ironic KKK figure, one boy with an Ogra Shinn Fein placard who nearly had his shoulder dislocated by the passing traffic, the Young Greens and the SDLP Youth. The Socialist Party, in an act of mind-bending logic had bottled water (think of the environment, guys!), Tayto crisps and Twix bars for sale. It seems that the entrepreneurial spirit pervades even the far left. I was tempted to justify my thirst by snatching a bottle of water saying, "So No to Water Charges, fellas" or "distribute me a Twix, comrade" but thought against the idea given their numbers.

Speakers from the Socialist Party, Young Greens and various other groups stuggled to be heard over the traffic through a mini public address system but, luckily, the crowd made plenty of noise with some imaginative chants. The news of Bush's arrival was greeted with more chants and speeches before the protest wound itself up following the arrest of one jaywalking anarchist. It may have been small but it was something.

Overall, the protests successfully achieved their objective. They provided an alternative view to the one propagated by the media and our MLAs that Bush was a great chap, welcome to drop in for tea with Martin and Peter any time and laden down with gifts of inward investment like an altruistic capitalist Santa Claus. It made a point that the people of Ireland did not support Bush's imperialism in Iraq in 2003 and do not support it now, and sent a message to the US President that he is not welcome in Belfast or even at home.

The David Davis Resignation: An Act Of Principle?

Despite being an arch anti-Tory myself, it is difficult not to have some regard for David Davis' decision to apply for Tony Blair's position as Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Chiltern Hundreds, and subsequently then submit himself as a candiate for the ensuing bye-election.

Some say it is an act of ego; others an act of principle. I would suggest that it's probably a bit of both. Let's not forget that this is the man who snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in the Conservative leadership contest. Nonetheless, he has given up one of the most powerful positions in the shadow cabinet and put his well-paid job as an MP on the line over this.

At a time when the British Labour Party has woodchipped just about every ideological plank upon which it rested, politicians (with the unfortunate exception of Iris Robinson) are for the most part pre-programmed drones and our civil liberties are on the line, Davis' move has stood out as something different- an old school act of defiance.

So will it work? Davis is putting this up as a sort of mini-referendum on the issue of 42 days' detention. However, with the Lib Dems already indicating that they will not run and Labour probably heading in the same direction, Davis will be a shoo-in to his own former seat. That will effectively defeat the overt purpose of Davis' move- after all, one can't have a referendum if there's only one option on the voting paper.

In the longer term, though, given that Davis is likely to win the seat again and effectively end up back at square one (albeit sans his shadow cabinet role and with 42 days still heading for the statute books), he may actually be planning a second shot at running for the leadership of the Tory party. The drama surrounding his current actions will certainly raise his profile and reposition him as more 'interesting' than he's been perceived heretofore, a central requirement if he is to challenge the media-friendly David Cameron.

This is an interesting interlude that will no doubt continue to generate interest. However, it may be some time before the full ramifications of David Davis' move take effect.

No Surrender

In 2005, Mary McAleese made some ill-advised comments on unionism and naziism. She apologised. In 2008, she visited a school in Coleraine in her home province of Ulster and was greeted by a small minority of the community providing heckles, foul-language, vocal complaints that she was not welcome, and placards reading 'No To Dublin Money' and 'We Are Not Nazi's' [sic]. Am I the only one who spots the irony in this?

Unwanted: Abominable Iris

Has Iris Robinson Lost The Plot?

I thought I'd heard it all, but Iris Robinson's suggestion that people who engage in the "abomination" of being part of the LGBT community could be 'turned' from their ways by a visit to a psychiatrist will really take some beating.

Despite the fact that her husband is supposed to promote equality in his role as First Minister, Iris Robinson's comments are a slap in the face of those who actually believe that people have the right to be treated equally, not to mention the victims of hate attacks such as 27-year old Stephen Scott who two days previously was assaulted by a gang of youths, suffering head and leg injuries. What kind of message does this send out?

The suggestion that living an 'alternative' lifestyle is an illness which needs fixed by a shrink would be hilarious if was coming from a punch-drunk rambling crackpot. But Iris Robinson is an MP, MLA and perhaps most worryingly, Chair of the Assembly's Health Committee. Here we have one of the most powerful people in the area of health suggesting that people can be 'turned' through medical help. Professor Michael King of the Royal Society of Psychiatrists has hit back by saying that there is fifty years of research rejecting such claims, adding: "Such treatments do not work and can actually cause quite a lot of harm."

Meanwhile, ship-jumper Andrew Muir has reported Robinson's comments to the PSNI for investigation.

It's also been surprising that there haven't been more calls from other parties for Robinson to be sacked from her role as Health chair. Perhaps they're worried they'll upset their conservative supporters, but wrong is wrong and comments like this need to be kicked into touch by all right-thinking members of society. Likewise, DUP voters must recognise that every time they support the party, they are supporting the propagation of views like this.

This is the 21st century. The world has moved on. It's about time Iris Robinson and her flat-earth brigade caught up.

The pong of panic

Sinn Féin have been doing their best for a while to wash away the ‘whiff of sulphur’ – and have not always succeeded. Still, who would have thought that they would decide to splash the pong of panic and the odour of incompetence on themselves in its place? This week’s events in Stormont may not mean much to the ordinary voter and may become, with the passage of time, little more than a footnote marking the beginning of the media silly season.

Sinn Féin may deny it but most observers are of the opinion that the talk of collapsing the Executive and having a new election originated from the party itself. Why they chose such a crude and public way of trying to win some concessions from the DUP’s new leader, Peter Robinson, is puzzling. Having party president, Gerry Adams, run off to Downing Street to ask prime minister Gordon Brown for help was particularly stupid. We can only assume that Brown indulged Adams’ plea for a ‘mini summit’ simply because it suited Brown to play the statesman for a while and get away from the weary toil of rising petrol prices and collapsing house ones.

Of course, there is absolutely no reason that Sinn Féin should not try to win some concessions from the DUP. Nationalists would be delighted to see the DUP house-trained. Unfortunately, it is very obvious that Sinn Féin are not capable of doing it and the last week shows how bad they are at the long, political game.

There are any number of questions about Sinn Féin’s behaviour. Why did they think that this wheeze might make for a good plan? How did they misread the DUP’s poker face so badly? Why did Gerry Adams go to Downing Street (a) at all and (b) without Martin McGuinness? Why did they then compound that mistake by having Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness go over with First Minister Peter Robinson on the first day of their new partnership (today) to meet – if only briefly, it seems – with prime minister Gordon Brown. Isn’t the whole point of republicanism to break the British connection, not underscore it?

Perhaps the biggest question though is why Sinn Féin did not go for an election. After all, the party has never been adverse to pointing out unionist intransigence to nationalists and hollering “Alabama!” Given that Sinn Féin has made so little progress on issues like policing, justice and the Irish language - issues that matter to its officer class whatever about the general public – it seems strange that they did not feel confident enough to go through with the threat of an election; an election that might have caused the DUP some discomfort from Jim Allister’s TUV and in which Sinn Féin would have tried to take a couple more seats from the SDLP. Yet they chose not to. Their preferred option was to prop up the DUP, whisper darkly to reporters, dither and allow their main nationalist rivals, the SDLP, to rabbit punch them all week long – something which Mark Durkan, Alastair McDonnell and Patsy McGlone happily did.

The goings-on at Stormont would suggest that Sinn Féin are still playing draughts while the other parties have moved on to chess.

Paisley's Final Filthy Act

After half a century of bile-spouting, it was going to take more than a few cheesy photos with Martin McGuinness to prove that Ian Paisley had finally seen the light. Actions speak louder than words, and Paisley's refusal to meet Eugene Reavey this week or apologise to him for the sickening accusations he levelled against the south Armagh man shows the departing First Minister's true colours.

Mr Reavey's three brothers were slughtered in Whitecross by the brutal Glenanne Gang in 1976. In the immediate aftermath of these vicious killings, a short distance away ten Protestant workmen were killed in equally cold blood by the IRA. Under Parliamentary Privilege in 1999, Ian Paisley made the ludicrous accusation that Eugene Reavey "set up the Kingsmills massacre", despite the fact that he had barely even got his head around the slaying of his own brothers at the time. The sole survivor of the Kingsmills massacre, Alan Black, has rejected Paisley's allegations which the former DUP leader claimed were based on a "police dossier". Indeed, in January 2007, the PSNI Historical Enquiries Team apologised to the Reavey family for allegations that the three brothers killed in 1976 were IRA members or that Eugene Reavey had been involved in the Kingsmills attack. This was the final nail in the coffin of the claims, yet they still have not been retracted by the former DUP leader.

Ian Paisley and the DUP claim to care about victims and their needs, yet it's clear that Paisley doesn't give a toss about the fact that he added doses of salt to Eugene Reavey's very painful wounds.

Behind the chuckles lies the truth.

Ian Paisley had the perfect opportunity this week to mend his ways and apologise to Eugene Reavey when the south Armagh man visited Stormont with Newry and Armagh MLA Dominic Bradley. But he failed to do so.

If Ian Paisley has any decency whatsoever, he will immediately offer a full apology to Eugene Reavey for the grossly offensive accusations he made. The way he has treated this man is not the way of God, but is more reminiscent of darkness. Let us hope he repents.

Welsh in the European Parliament

The Irish News carries a report today that the British government to allow the use of Welsh on a “limited” basis in the European parliament. The Welsh Assembly wants Welsh to be an official and working language for the EU with the Welsh Assembly paying the bills. Plaid Cymru speaker Jill Evans is mounting a campaign for official recognition. The British government, however, do not support that aim: “These proposals are still under discussion and no arrangements have yet been agreed.”

Having been in Cardiff very recently for the first time, I was very impressed – and not a little surprised – by how comprehensively the city was blanketed with bilingual road and commercial signs. It would have reminded you more of Dublin than many parts of the North. Today’s story highlights one of the difficulties that the DUP face in their attempts to deal with language issues. The UK is not simply an English-speaking region and speakers of indigenous languages Welsh and Scots Gaelic – which predate the formation of the UK – are, bit by bit, redrawing the cultural map of these islands.

The DUP have attempted – not unsuccessfully it must be said – to fetter the fortunes of Irish by linking it to their fictional version of ‘Ulster-Scots’. Any movement towards promoting Irish is countered by them with one to promote Ulster-Scots. That Irish suffers in the comparison is, of course, the whole point.

The DUP’s approach to Irish has been quite legalistic. They did – as was pointed out here before – appoint two members to Foras na Gaeilge, the Irish-language board of the cross-Border language body. They have done little else positive since – though I would not be surprised if they throw the language lobby a bone in the form of some badly needed funding for the Irish-language broadcasting fund in Belfast. Such money would be the least painful option for them of supporting the language and might help defuse some of the posturing that is on-going in Stormont at the moment.

Promoting Irish in the North is a challenge that is set to get even more difficult in the coming years. Many unionists may be hostile or indifferent to the language but, as time goes on, many nationalists will become as equally indifferent. “Nice to have but you don’t need it,” is not an uncommon refrain amongst some Northern nationalists. The challenge for Irish speakers is to provide leadership to non-Irish speakers of whatever denomination and to all the political parties on what the language really needs. There is no sense in Irish speakers aping the language policy of the Irish Free State circa 1923 just as there is no sense in the DUP aping the language policy of Stormont in that same year.

DUP/ Sinn Féin Axis Charade

The latest stunt by the DUP and Sinn Féin threatening to pull down the Assembly is a damning indictment of both parties and an insult to the people of the north, yet will conveniently suit both parties' self-serving agendas.

With the new regime installed at the helm of the DUP, the party will want to move out of Chuckle Zone given the criticism from the TUV and others of Paisley's jovial relationship with Martin McGuinness of Sinn Féin over the past year. Of course, the DUP couldn't just manage this transformation back to the old-school style overnight without good reason- this 'crisis' gives them that good reason. It has created the perfect excuse to create the impression that there has been a chilling of the relationship. They even went so far as to appoint Jeffrey Donaldson as Director of Elections for any possible election that might be forced by an Assembly collapse.

Yet all this is a sham. There will be no collapse of the Assembly. There will be no election. The rising strength of Jim Allister's party and Peter Robinson's three-decade bridesmaid performance mean that the DUP will want to hold onto their position of strength within the Assembly for as long as possible.

It would be insane for them to put at risk everything that they have been working for.

Which leads onto the provos. They are claiming that they may not play ball on Thursday when it comes to the joint nomination of the First and Deputy First Ministers. Their excuse is that fact that there still has been no Irish Language Act, no devolution of policing and justice, and the Maze is looking like a dead duck.

However, it was quite clear from the outset of this Assembly that the DUP would not agree to at least the first two of these items on the Sinn Féin shopping list. The fact that the provos failed to get a fixed timescale built into the Saint Andrews Agreement for any of these issues reflects their gross incompetence at the negotiating table.

Whereas the SDLP could negotiate the Sunningdale Agreement and later the Good Friday Agreement, Sinn Féin's first opportunity to broker a deal as the biggest nationalist party in the north has resulted in abject failure.

If Sinn Féin had done the deal properly, they wouldn't have to put on this tough-lad act and threaten to collapse the whole devolution project based on their own inability to secure results. And they wouldn't have to go running to the British Prime Minister like scolded children looking for him to fight their corner.

This sorry debacle is vivid proof that the DUP and Sinn Féin's biggest priority is themselves. They have yet to bring forward any substantial pieces of legislation whatsoever yet they shamelessly flaunt themselves in front of any cameras within a hundred-mile radius.

It's time for the DUP/ Sinn Féin axis to quit the games and start delivering.