Unionist Outreach in Craigavon

Started by Ulick, June 06, 2012, 11:25:51 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

glens abu

Similar thing happened in Newtownabbey last night when the UU,Alliance and SDLP joined with the DUP to exclude the two SF councillors from any positions on council.

Main Street

Quote from: Ulick on June 07, 2012, 12:21:30 PM
For the record here's what happened:

1. SF proposed a motion to use D'Hondt to allocate the mayor and deputy mayor posts.
2. The outcome of this was 12-12. The current mayor got a second casting vote so voted against to defeat the proposal.
3. The council decided to directly elect the new mayor from the floor of the chamber.
4. The vote was SF 11, DUP 10, UUP 3. The UUP candidate Hatch voted for the DUP.
5. Meeting suspended for 2 hours while the unionists figured out a plan.
6. Unionists decided the vote would eliminate the third placed candidate and another vote was required to elect the mayor.
7. SF refuse to participate, SDLP abstain, Lockhart deemed elected on a vote of 12-0.

Democracy in action - unionist style.

What are the standing orders for the election? Surely there are standing orders?
or is it a case of the standing orders are so flexible that one can make them fit the requirements of an election already in progress?

deiseach

Quote from: Ulick on June 07, 2012, 12:21:30 PM
For the record here's what happened:

1. SF proposed a motion to use D'Hondt to allocate the mayor and deputy mayor posts.
2. The outcome of this was 12-12. The current mayor got a second casting vote so voted against to defeat the proposal.
3. The council decided to directly elect the new mayor from the floor of the chamber.
4. The vote was SF 11, DUP 10, UUP 3. The UUP candidate Hatch voted for the DUP.
5. Meeting suspended for 2 hours while the unionists figured out a plan.
6. Unionists decided the vote would eliminate the third placed candidate and another vote was required to elect the mayor.
7. SF refuse to participate, SDLP abstain, Lockhart deemed elected on a vote of 12-0.

Democracy in action - unionist style.

How would democracy SF-style look?

balladmaker

QuoteHow would democracy SF-style look?

The same as it looks in the south, it would reflect a party on the rise .... just like Sinn Fein.

ziggysego

Quote from: deiseach on June 07, 2012, 03:56:48 PM
Quote from: Ulick on June 07, 2012, 12:21:30 PM
For the record here's what happened:

1. SF proposed a motion to use D'Hondt to allocate the mayor and deputy mayor posts.
2. The outcome of this was 12-12. The current mayor got a second casting vote so voted against to defeat the proposal.
3. The council decided to directly elect the new mayor from the floor of the chamber.
4. The vote was SF 11, DUP 10, UUP 3. The UUP candidate Hatch voted for the DUP.
5. Meeting suspended for 2 hours while the unionists figured out a plan.
6. Unionists decided the vote would eliminate the third placed candidate and another vote was required to elect the mayor.
7. SF refuse to participate, SDLP abstain, Lockhart deemed elected on a vote of 12-0.

Democracy in action - unionist style.

How would democracy SF-style look?

Omagh DC - for example

Sinn Fein - 10
DUP - 3
SDLP - 3
UUP - 3
Ind - 2

Sinn Fein Chair
UUP Vice-Chair
Testing Accessibility

deiseach

Quote from: balladmaker on June 07, 2012, 04:18:32 PM
QuoteHow would democracy SF-style look?

The same as it looks in the south, it would reflect a party on the rise .... just like Sinn Fein.

So when SF are on the rise, that's democracy. Presumably when SF are on the wane, it's not democracy. Thanks for that.

deiseach

Quote from: ziggysego on June 07, 2012, 04:32:20 PM
Omagh DC - for example

Sinn Fein - 10
DUP - 3
SDLP - 3
UUP - 3
Ind - 2

Sinn Fein Chair
UUP Vice-Chair

So SF are in favour of D'Hondt systems. Fine. But there's nothing inherently undemocratic in other ways of doing things. Davy Walsh of The Worker's Party in Waterford has been a city councillor for 33 years and has never had a sniff of becoming Mayor or Deputy Mayor. To me it's disgraceful that the weasels around him won't give the guy a dig-out, but the harsh truth is he never had the votes, and SF don't have them in Craigavon either.

Ulick

The point of the thread is they did have the votes.

deiseach

Quote from: Ulick on June 07, 2012, 05:17:57 PM
The point of the thread is they did have the votes.

No, they didn't. 11 < (10 + 3)

haranguerer


deiseach

Quote from: haranguerer on June 07, 2012, 05:31:26 PM
no party had 10 + 3???

No one party did. Are you seriously advocating FPTP as an electoral system?

Saffrongael

SinnFein must feel let down by their good friends the DUP.
Let no-one say the best hurlers belong to the past. They are with us now, and better yet to come

Minder

Ballymena Council have elected their first nationalist mayor, SDLPs PJ McAvoy.
"When it's too tough for them, it's just right for us"

Main Street

Quote from: deiseach on June 07, 2012, 05:29:44 PM
Quote from: Ulick on June 07, 2012, 05:17:57 PM
The point of the thread is they did have the votes.

No, they didn't. 11 < (10 + 3)
If the standing rules for the election say the lowest of three candidates can be eliminated if no candidate gets over 50% of the votes cast in the election count, then you can say 10+3 is >11 in a run off.


deiseach

Quote from: Main Street on June 07, 2012, 08:05:36 PM
Quote from: deiseach on June 07, 2012, 05:29:44 PM
Quote from: Ulick on June 07, 2012, 05:17:57 PM
The point of the thread is they did have the votes.

No, they didn't. 11 < (10 + 3)
If the standing rules for the election say the lowest of three candidates can be eliminated if no candidate gets over 50% of the votes cast in the election count, then you can say 10+3 is >11 in a run off.

You're right. As you noted earlier, we don't know what the standing rules were. There is something fishy about the way the order of voting came about, a bit like the way the choice of the destination of the 2018 World Cup was bundled in with the vote on the destination of the 2022 World Cup