Joint First Ministers
With three days to go until the Assembly is dissolved for the May election, Martin McGuinness has used a UTV interview to float the idea that if Sinn Fein emerges as biggest party he and Peter Robinson could share the title of First Minister.
A statesmanlike gesture or - as Arlene Foster maintains - a pre-election ploy?
It's true that for some time Sinn Fein has been emphasising the equal power and status of the two top jobs at Stormont Castle. However, coming so late in the day, the latest comments don't change the legal reality that this election will be held under Section 16C of the Northern Ireland Act - the post St. Andrews change to the Stormont rules which hands the top job to the biggest party irrespective of which designation it stems from.
Back in January a Stormont commitee considered whether there should be any changes to the relevant law. shows that the three Sinn Fein members voted against any change to Section 16C.
Alliance's written submission, for example, argued that the top two jobs are "co-equal in law and formal status" - this should be "reflected in terms of the nomenclature used" and such a move "would depoliticise what could become a potentially polarising contest over which party has a claim to First Minister and which party is relegated to Deputy First Minister".
By contrast Sinn Fein said the party "supports the retention of the provisions for the appointment of Ministers as set out in Section 16A-16C of the NI Act 1998."
During a recent interview for Inside Politics, Peter Robinson pointed out that if the DUP isn't the biggest party it could refuse to nominate for the Deputy First Minister, thus plunging the parties back into negotiations. Martin McGuinness is holding out an olive branch whilst knowing the current rules could potentially enable Sinn Fein to negotiate from a position of strength. If Sinn Fein had played this card earlier, say at the point when their Committee members had a vote on the matter, then they would have left themselves less open to the accusation that this is a ploy.
Ultimately the nature of the debate will depend on the maths. Sinn Fein could conceivably catch the DUP, but there are reasons why the party might not repeat its poll topping performance in the European and Westminster elections. And what will the voters make of this "election as beauty contest", when most people appear more concerned about the economy and cuts than which office in Stormont Castle the top two men occupy?
I'm 
Comment number 1.
At 21st Mar 2011, DisgustedinDERRY wrote:Mark
Let's say Martin McGuinness is in a position to become FM. He then offers Peter Robinson a shared title. Everyone's a winner. Robinson gains credibility and the DUP gain more votes the next time round.
Next time round arrives and Peter Robinson is in a position to become FM. He then is obliged to offer Martin McGuinness a shared title.
Robinson would be crucified if he did, and crucified if he didn't.
Sinn Fein and Martin McGuinness are in a win, win situation. It's a brilliant move of behalf of McGuinness. He's some boy hi!!!
I don't think McGuinness will be in a position but it will be close. There is no chance that Robinson could ever dream of offering the same equal title to McGuinness. He has not the courage to stand up to the backwoods men in unionism and orangeism. It wiil be an interesting election!!!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 21st Mar 2011, ManOfPie wrote:Mark,
regarding:
"most people appear more concerned about the economy and cuts than which office in Stormont Castle the top two men occupy"
I'm not sure if you're aware which country you're living in. This isn't the U.S. or England. People here are concerned with many things, but polling booths here have a remarkable property of giving "most people" the clarity to see clearly. And that clarity brings everything into perspective in terms of orange and green. We're a generation away from having it any other way, and that's the way it is. I'm not complaining, I'm just realistic. Hopefully, 15-20 years from now, we can root out the likes of Gregory Campbell, people who are thoroughly entrenched in their bitterness and division.
Love, PieMan
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 22nd Mar 2011, michaelhenry wrote:A great move by Martin McGuinness- a check-mate move- all the unionists care about
is that they are seen to have the bigger pecker- share is not a scene in their
bed-room- sorry board-room
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 22nd Mar 2011, Wolfe Tone wrote:Sinn Fein may just become victims of their own success.
Should they become the largest single party, it is looking like the DUP will not nominate a deputy, collapse the assembly and return to rule from Westminster.
The priority for Unionism is not having the biggest party, it's not getting to jet over to London or to meet American presidents. It is to maintain the status quo and prevent Republicanism from gaining the upper hand in NI politics.
A collapse of power sharing would suit them, their electorate and Cameron very well. The Unionists who voted in favour of power sharing, did not vote for Sinn Fein to be the most powerful party in NI. Robinson could easily make the point that his electorate must be consulted before he and his party agree to play side-kick to Sinn Fein.
Taking four or five years to have this discussion within Unionism, search for some common ground, heal the divides and return as a single unified Unionist party, would only go to serve the Unionist ideal and thwart Sinn Fein.
The Assembly has been a one sided game so far. Concessions from the Unionists and gains for the Republicans. What have they got to lose from a return to governance from London. With Cameron in power, their interests will be protected.
McGuinness et al, have just realised this and are making a somewhat desperate attempt to coax the DUP to continue letting them 'put manners' on Unionism.
The only thing that may stop the Unionists from making this move, is their affection for multiple large salaries and trough like expenses claims.
Come May we will all be able to play, 'Spot the Lundy'.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 22nd Mar 2011, harryatport wrote:Well at least it punctures the old rhetoric of the DUP that is trotted out every election which is the fear factor of "Vote for us as we are the only party to stop Sein Fein becoming 1st Minister". This with Tom Elliott statement yesterday must have the DUP urgently rewriting their election literature .
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 22nd Mar 2011, NoFool wrote:This is yet another exercise in pointless symbolism. The offices were always joint and co-equal. What would it matter if there were a SF first minister and DUP deputy first minister?
I don't agree that the DUP will refuse to nominate a SF fm to collapse the assembly. If they do that, the will make the very irrelevant Mr Alister suddenly relevant, and provide unionist voters with a non-assembly option, to which they (DUP) can only leak votes.
It doesn't make sense, but then ...
I personally hate all the symbolics, I just need to figure out who are the "syms" and who are the "bolics" !!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 22nd Mar 2011, Transigir wrote:I give up this whole scenario is just a continuation of the nonsense that we as tax payers are stupid enought o put up with and pay for!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 23rd Mar 2011, Nevin wrote:Mark, folks are obviously concerned about the economy and cuts but it would be a bit of a novelty if they strayed very far from their 'tribal' positions when confronted with a ballot paper. Some occasionally step 'over the border' for tactical reasons in a first past the post election.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)