The spotlight is turning once again on Mr Peter Robinson, potential majority unionist leader-in-waiting. As the peace process stumbles from crisis to crisis some - particularly in Dublin - wonder if he might be the better man to deal with.
In the quiet of his Westminster office, I put it to him that, while this may irritate Mr David Trimble, it will hardly please Dr Paisley either.
Is he at all embarrassed by this attention?
A - I usually find that when the Democratic Unionist party is reaching a critical stage and it's vital we maximise our support, our traditional opponents attempt to suggest there's some division there and that Ian and I are following different agendas. It isn't the case. I don't think Ian and I have ever had a cross word over all these years. We sit in meetings on an almost daily basis. We are following the same agenda, we are agreed on the way forward, there is no difficulty at all within the party.
Q - But people see Dr Paisley isn't getting any younger. There is an obvious question mark over Mr Trimble's position, and an increasing focus in Dublin, London and Washington on your personal position as a possible future leader of unionism. Is that how you see the situation shaping up.
A - It's not how I see the position because it's not something I've looked at. My focus is on what's happening here and now, and how we can get out of the mess that Trimble and the Ulster Unionists have got us into. I don't spend one waking moment looking at those issues. They are of no importance in the overall scheme of things.
Q - Your critics, of course, would say that you're actually David Trimble-in-waiting: that demonising Trimble is a function of what you intend to do, which is tinker around the edges of a renegotiation, blame the deficiencies on the Ulster Unionists, and then accommodate yourself to the essence of the Belfast Agreement.
A - The Belfast Agreement was fundamentally flawed. The core principle was that instead of confronting terrorism you actually elevated terrorists, gentrified their leaders, accommodated their wrongdoing and rewarded their evil. That's the antithesis of the policy that I pursue. And having been an opponent of David Trimble on the Belfast Agreement, it would only be my enemies who would attempt to associate me with it.
Q - Let me suggest why some may be disinclined to believe you. In a recent profile in a Dublin newspaper, your colleague, Jim Wells, predicted you would be the next First Minister of Northern Ireland. That hardly suggests he expects you to pull the entire edifice down.
A - The policy is that we use the election in order to secure a unionist majority in order to force negotiations and get a new agreement. Whether the new agreement provides devolution - it would be my hope that it would - whether the devolution provides a first minister or not I don't know, but presumably it will have someone in that position, and who may be in the leadership the electorate will decide.
Q - So, while your intention is to renegotiate the agreement and if possible secure devolution, you're not pretending that you necessarily can.
A - My intention is to have a new agreement. Some people interpret renegotiating the agreement in the sort of terms you spoke of earlier, which is simply to tinker and trifle with the existing agreement. I think it's fundamentally flawed in a number of areas but centrally it's all around the issue of accountability. Accountability within the Assembly, accountability North/South-wise, the democratic controls. Power is exercised by ministers, not by the Assembly. Those are issues we can go intoI want devolution to be the outcome. But devolution to be an outcome must be built on a basis that is sound and practical. If the only form of devolution being offered is a form that is effectively going to have an IRA veto, then that is not in the interest of the unionist community. Therefore the form of devolution must be one that the unionist community can give its support and allegiance to.
Q - Your opponents say your position is either extremely naive or actually fraudulent. You're going to renegotiate the agreement but you won't negotiate with Sinn Féin. Surely you can't have one without the other?
A - It depends what you mean by this terminology. Did David Trimble negotiate with Sinn Féin?
Q - He sat in the same room as them, took part in the same talks.
A - That's the inaccuracy of it all. Immediately the talks were over, Trimble confirmed publicly that he had never once negotiated with the Sinn Féin, that his negotiations were with the honest broker George Mitchell, and at times with the prime minister. I have no objection to negotiating with the prime minister, the secretary of state or anyone it is agreed should be the honest broker in such a process.
Q - So you're happy to negotiate with people knowing they are negotiating with Sinn Féin?
A - I cannot regulate the procedure or the behaviour of others; I can only regulate my own behaviour. I'm not negotiating with them through any honest broker. I am negotiating with the honest broker. The people who take the decisions are the government. We will attempt to convince them. Who they speak to as a government is a matter for themselves. It is my job to get the best deal for unionists that I can speaking to the government who have the responsibility.
Q - Sinn Féin are convinced you'll eventually talk to them because, like David Trimble before, you know there is no alternative. Indeed, some of them look forward to this because they believe that if Sinn Féin and the DUP emerge as the majority nationalist and unionist parties they are going to be better placed to make a deal and make it stick.
A - If Sinn Féin believe that then they must be looking to a time when they're going to start behaving themselves, give up violence and stand down the IRA. All of those issues will be coming before any Democratic Unionist would ever engage with anybody from Sinn Féin. Our position is clear and we didn't set the criteria. It was set by the so-called two governments, namely that the only parties that could be involved in the democratic process were those committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic means. Now, if Sinn Féin is saying they are going to become democrats, are going to take part in politics on that basis, then that's a new set of circumstances. I don't see it. There's nothing in their present behaviour that suggests that they are going to reach that stage.
Q - You're suggesting you'd be better equipped than Trimble to put better democratic manners on Sinn Féin.
A - No, we're saying we will have nothing to do with them until they reach that stage.
Q - But you'll sit in a government that affords them places?
A - The central feature of any government is that there must be trust between the parties that are in it. I don't trust Sinn Féin.
Q - Sinn Féin might say you're not required to trust them; that the point about the Belfast Agreement is that it constructed an inclusive system of government that reflected the mandate of the parties.
A - That doesn't work.
Q - Well it did work, and you were a member of it.
A - It doesn't work. It has collapsed four times. You see this is the nonsense of that kind of argument; that something works because it stays up for five minutes. That's tantamount to saying you can have a telegraph pole without cementing it in the ground because it will stand up for two seconds before it falls. It works but it doesn't work for long and it doesn't work for long enough. And for any stable political structure to endure there is a requirement that the parties who are a key part of it trust each other. That doesn't exist under the present system, and the present system requires that level of trust in order to endure. That's why it has been punctuated by crisis after crisis, that's why it's collapsed four times.
Q - Do you see circumstances where there could be that degree of trust between you and Sinn Féin.
A - No, I take the opposite view. I say if the system that you have requires trust that is absent then it's not going to work. Therefore you need to have a system that doesn't require that degree of trust.
Q - How would you reconstruct the Executive to overcome that problem?
A - Well, that's one of the issues that I've made clear to the Secretary of State. If he wants to see those cards he'll have to put his money on the table.
Q - Might you be seeking to insert something that wasn't there in 1998, namely collective responsibility in the Executive?
A - No I think you're going in the wrong direction. If the existing problem is that there isn't sufficient trust to operate the system, then you need to change it to a system that doesn't require trust, not a system that requires more trust.
Q - Does that new system provide an inclusive government in Northern Ireland, and a role without precondition for Sinn Féin.
A - You see, I'm indicating that we will fight the election on seven principles and I am not going to reveal the hand of the Democratic Unionist Party to other parties when other parties are refusing to reveal theirs.
Q - But there's no possibility of you having any form of devolved government from which Sinn Féin is excluded.
A - That's a statement you have made; that's your view. I accept that Sinn Féin are likely to be the dominant nationalist party and that the system that we have in Northern Ireland must recognise that that is the case.
Q - So whatever your system is it will be inclusive?
A - No, it will recognise the size of the Sinn Féin vote.
Q - But you're not going to have anything that isn't a power-sharing administration.
A - Why do you say that?
Q - What, you believe it's possible to have a form of majoritarian government?
A - Well, why do you say that? You seem to be so boxed in with the past and systems that have existed............
Q - Well, take me to the new system then.
A - I don't want to take you to it. Because why would I reveal my position before an election and before negotiations when others are not doing so.
Q - So, the DUP has come up with a system for the future government of Northern Ireland that nobody has previously thought of?
A - Very clearly the proposals we have are different from anything that has happened before in Northern Ireland. Yes, of course.
Q - And it provides a role for the DUP in government, a role for the Ulster Unionists, for the SDLP..............
A - The problem is that we're talking different languages.
Q - I thought we were talking about, preferably, a devolved government in Northern Ireland.
A - Yes.
Q - Can there be a structure of devolved government that does not command the consent of Sinn Féin.
A - You see again you're coming back to principles that are built upon existing types of structures, and I am not confined by the box that you are in. I'm looking at proposals which can gain the support of the electorate and at the same time do not require the level of trust that the existing system requires. And I really am not going to give any detail of those proposals, either in essence or in practical detail.
Q - I understand that. You're not talking, are you, about............
A - Well I'm not talking at all.
Q - .....about some system where you dole out packages of power to the different tribal chiefs and make them directly answerable back to the Assembly.
A - You're absolutely right. I am not talking about any proposals at all.
Q - Presumably one criteria for your form of government would be that it be cohesive.
A - I will respond to that question because you specifically asked it. But in responding to that question I will make it clear that I'm not going to respond to any others of that type because I'm not going through a process of elimination and I'm not looking at the kind of proposal you're suggesting.
Q - Do you accept as a matter of principle that there will be no system of devolved government in Northern Ireland that does not command the consent of a majority of both communities.
A - First of all, I don't accept your premise that we've been operating on the basis of consent. Or else David Trimble is an unmitigated liar because change after change has taken place which he has indicated publicly he is opposed to. And if his consent hasn't been given to it then clearly the premise on which your question is asked isn't true.
Q - As a principle for the future.
A - As a principle for the future, I believe you can only govern through consent and any attempt to govern without consent - and I do refer to that as being consent from both sections of our community - and I've argued the case over and over again that past systems have fallen because there was an absence of consent from one section of the community or another. Therefore, it follows that it is necessary to have the support from both sections of our community...........
Q - A majority of both communities.
A - Well, I don't think you have the support of a section of the community unless you have the support of a majority of that community.
Q - But you won't sit down in government with republicans until they do what.
A - We won't sit down with anybody unless we judge that they are committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic means. That's the criteria, not set by us but set by the so-called two governments.
Q - In terms of your criteria, republicans may think: 'We'll never be able to satisfy any of these people because they're constantly raising the bar too high.'
A - Maybe they never will satisfy us because they never will meet the criteria.
Q - But you can devise a system of government that includes Sinn Féin, includes the SDLP, even if they don't satisfy your criteria and win your trust.
A _ I can't choose who the electorate return. We have to deal with whatever the electorate throw up. Therefore you have to have a system that isn't dependent on the outcome of an election, which isn't dependent on the good behaviour of those who are elected. That's the reality.
It must be a system that has sufficient shock absorbers to be able to deal with the kind of bad behaviour that we have seen from the Provisional IRA.