The SDLP

[Angelo]

I thought Eastwood was doing a decent job, probably the best leader the SDLP have had since Hume but that said, there wouldn't be much competition. Himself Claire Hanna and O'Toole are good media performers and Nicola Mallon is a decent politician. The problem is that below that they are threadbare in political talent and sorely lack the level of grass root workers on the ground that for instance SF are able to call on.

They will have a huge role to play going forward in an unity debate arguably more than SF.

You seriously think Eastwood is doing a good job and is a good leader?

Seriously?

Yes, in the main I think he has done a good job. I know you probably don't agree but I think you might be coming at this with a preconceived prejudice.

He took over a party already in deep decline and has stood up well to elements of Unionism and loyalism in a way that previous leaders of his party failed to do. He was particularly strong in the run up to the last Westminster election and comfortably took the seat back. He is a strong media performer but his problem is always going to be the lack of depth within the party.

I'd love to hear it is that he's done.

All he seems to have in his locker is SF bashing and the actions of the SDLP in the past week are utterly shameful.

I think this might be your main issue with him. If you see the bigger picture though, it is important for nationalism that there is a strong SDLP with a different roadmap to SF. If he thinks SF needs calling out on certain issues then that is what he ought to do. I think that there is a sense that he is more in control of his own party than any other leader bar Naomi Long.

Look at unionism and how weak a leader Steve Aiken has become by almost apeing the DUP policy.

I'm still waiting for you to actually elaborate on what makes him a good leader or in anyway a good politician.

It seems to just be a completely empty statement without any substance - much like Colum and the DUP.

I thought I'd already commented on the fact that I thought he was in control of the party, had taken the Westminster seat back from SF, been strong in the media and had called out Unionist bigotry in a consistent manner.

What exactly do you expect or want him to achieve, his role is fairly limited as an MP for a marginal party, he's not going to free Ireland.

In my opinion there are much weaker party leaders than Eastwood, maybe it's due to the fact that he isn't afraid to take a view that he sometimes rattles a few cages.

In control of the party?

Do you not remember the huge discontent he created with his FF stunt? The one that led to Hanne resigning her whip?

You're the one making the charges that he is a decent leader and has done a good job with the SDLP which when we get down to it, you can't even reference anything to do with it. The past week has shown that Eastwood and the SDLP offer nothing more than noise and their actions last week were shameful. Political point scoring that fanned the flames for the scenes we have seen over the weekend.

This is the same guy who campaigned on a platform of Colum in Westminister  would stop Brexit. The guy is a self-absorbed arsehole who is utterly incompetent and I find it amusing you have adamantly told us he has done a good job yet can't specify to anything positive he has contributed during his time as leader of the Stoops.

What's wrong with campaigning to stop Brexit?

He failed on his promises.

[Angelo]

A self absorbed arsehole and utterly incompetent

Are you speaking about yourself or political bashing?

I'm speaking about Colum Eastwood and the SDLP.

Have you anything to counter the above or are you just going to make another thread all about you and your unfunny smart ass comments?

I'm just pointing out that you continually politically bash while giving off about Eastwood having a go at other political parties!

You don't see that as being stupid?

I would see it as legitimate criticism and as you can't provide anything to the contrary, it's a bizarre position for you to take. Eastwood and the SDLP have a lot to answer for with their stunts in the past week.

[Milltown Row2]

A self absorbed arsehole and utterly incompetent

Are you speaking about yourself or political bashing?

I'm speaking about Colum Eastwood and the SDLP.

Have you anything to counter the above or are you just going to make another thread all about you and your unfunny smart ass comments?

I'm just pointing out that you continually politically bash while giving off about Eastwood having a go at other political parties!

You don't see that as being stupid?

I would see it as legitimate criticism and as you can't provide anything to the contrary, it's a bizarre position for you to take. Eastwood and the SDLP have a lot to answer for with their stunts in the past week.

Eastwood would say his is a legitimate criticism. But you say is bashing, just exactly what you are doing. If you don't see that then you are blind.

I'm not here to provide anything contrary as I'm only pointing out your hypocrisy

[sid waddell]

The bottom line is that SDLP and SF voters need to get serious about optimising their influence to consign DUP to history. SDLP/SF still have a sectarian voting base much like unionism. Ie very few from a Protestant tradition vote for them because they don't feel represented by them. This is because an All island solution has not been sold to "Protestants " as a reasonable alternative. Now for the first time, post Brexit, I think there could be an appetite among some Protestants to contemplate an All Island solution, but it's not being presented .
Ironically the SDLP, for whom I have a lot of respect , most of the time, have become a barrier to progress. If the greener SDLP voters moved to SF  and the softer SDLP voters aligned with Alliance , either SF or Alliance could finally knock DUP off their perch , putting aggressive unionism on the back foot for the first time.
People here on the "N/R" side and in the middle , need to get serious about consigning DUP to history . Much as I respect the SDLP, I can't see them becoming large enough to replace DUP as largest party.

It is not "sectarian" to vote for SF and not for the DUP, because SF represent you, and the DUP don't.

SF contest Westminster elections on a platform that they will refuse to represent anybody

SF provide taxation alright but they don't provide representation

[red hander]

The bottom line is that SDLP and SF voters need to get serious about optimising their influence to consign DUP to history. SDLP/SF still have a sectarian voting base much like unionism. Ie very few from a Protestant tradition vote for them because they don't feel represented by them. This is because an All island solution has not been sold to "Protestants " as a reasonable alternative. Now for the first time, post Brexit, I think there could be an appetite among some Protestants to contemplate an All Island solution, but it's not being presented .
Ironically the SDLP, for whom I have a lot of respect , most of the time, have become a barrier to progress. If the greener SDLP voters moved to SF  and the softer SDLP voters aligned with Alliance , either SF or Alliance could finally knock DUP off their perch , putting aggressive unionism on the back foot for the first time.
People here on the "N/R" side and in the middle , need to get serious about consigning DUP to history . Much as I respect the SDLP, I can't see them becoming large enough to replace DUP as largest party.

It is not "sectarian" to vote for SF and not for the DUP, because SF represent you, and the DUP don't.

SF contest Westminster elections on a platform that they will refuse to represent anybody

SF provide taxation alright but they don't provide representation

Yeah, and it obviously galls you that people vote for them. The SDLP have proved time and time again how influential they are in London. How did the wee Croppie Boy's promise to stop Brexit work out? He's now just marking time till his British masters put an ermine cloak on him, just like Fitt and that balloon Richie.

[seafoid]

The SDLP stood aside for Bobby Sands in 1981. That was the making of SF.

Plus abstention is well past its sell by date.

[GiveItToTheShooters]

The bottom line is that SDLP and SF voters need to get serious about optimising their influence to consign DUP to history. SDLP/SF still have a sectarian voting base much like unionism. Ie very few from a Protestant tradition vote for them because they don't feel represented by them. This is because an All island solution has not been sold to "Protestants " as a reasonable alternative. Now for the first time, post Brexit, I think there could be an appetite among some Protestants to contemplate an All Island solution, but it's not being presented .
Ironically the SDLP, for whom I have a lot of respect , most of the time, have become a barrier to progress. If the greener SDLP voters moved to SF  and the softer SDLP voters aligned with Alliance , either SF or Alliance could finally knock DUP off their perch , putting aggressive unionism on the back foot for the first time.
People here on the "N/R" side and in the middle , need to get serious about consigning DUP to history . Much as I respect the SDLP, I can't see them becoming large enough to replace DUP as largest party.

It is not "sectarian" to vote for SF and not for the DUP, because SF represent you, and the DUP don't.

SF contest Westminster elections on a platform that they will refuse to represent anybody

SF provide taxation alright but they don't provide representation

They represent me alright.
Your point is irrelevant, the issue is that it is not "sectarian" to vote SF, as someone said it was.

[bennydorano]

The SDLP stood aside for Bobby Sands in 1981. That was the making of SF.

Plus abstention is well past its sell by date.

Abstentionism is just playing to the gallery at this stage. SF should take their seats and pollute the HOC continually about a Unity Referendum.

[sid waddell]

The bottom line is that SDLP and SF voters need to get serious about optimising their influence to consign DUP to history. SDLP/SF still have a sectarian voting base much like unionism. Ie very few from a Protestant tradition vote for them because they don't feel represented by them. This is because an All island solution has not been sold to "Protestants " as a reasonable alternative. Now for the first time, post Brexit, I think there could be an appetite among some Protestants to contemplate an All Island solution, but it's not being presented .
Ironically the SDLP, for whom I have a lot of respect , most of the time, have become a barrier to progress. If the greener SDLP voters moved to SF  and the softer SDLP voters aligned with Alliance , either SF or Alliance could finally knock DUP off their perch , putting aggressive unionism on the back foot for the first time.
People here on the "N/R" side and in the middle , need to get serious about consigning DUP to history . Much as I respect the SDLP, I can't see them becoming large enough to replace DUP as largest party.

It is not "sectarian" to vote for SF and not for the DUP, because SF represent you, and the DUP don't.

SF contest Westminster elections on a platform that they will refuse to represent anybody

SF provide taxation alright but they don't provide representation

Yeah, and it obviously galls you that people vote for them. The SDLP have proved time and time again how influential they are in London. How did the wee Croppie Boy's promise to stop Brexit work out? He's now just marking time till his British masters put an ermine cloak on him, just like Fitt and that balloon Richie.

SF provide no representation in Westminster

That's a fact

You didn't like this fact so you decided to rant

Typical SFer

[sid waddell]

The bottom line is that SDLP and SF voters need to get serious about optimising their influence to consign DUP to history. SDLP/SF still have a sectarian voting base much like unionism. Ie very few from a Protestant tradition vote for them because they don't feel represented by them. This is because an All island solution has not been sold to "Protestants " as a reasonable alternative. Now for the first time, post Brexit, I think there could be an appetite among some Protestants to contemplate an All Island solution, but it's not being presented .
Ironically the SDLP, for whom I have a lot of respect , most of the time, have become a barrier to progress. If the greener SDLP voters moved to SF  and the softer SDLP voters aligned with Alliance , either SF or Alliance could finally knock DUP off their perch , putting aggressive unionism on the back foot for the first time.
People here on the "N/R" side and in the middle , need to get serious about consigning DUP to history . Much as I respect the SDLP, I can't see them becoming large enough to replace DUP as largest party.

It is not "sectarian" to vote for SF and not for the DUP, because SF represent you, and the DUP don't.

SF contest Westminster elections on a platform that they will refuse to represent anybody

SF provide taxation alright but they don't provide representation

They represent me alright.
Your point is irrelevant, the issue is that it is not "sectarian" to vote SF, as someone said it was.

Which SF MP sits in Westminster?

I specifically addressed your "point", which was factually wrong

[GiveItToTheShooters]

The bottom line is that SDLP and SF voters need to get serious about optimising their influence to consign DUP to history. SDLP/SF still have a sectarian voting base much like unionism. Ie very few from a Protestant tradition vote for them because they don't feel represented by them. This is because an All island solution has not been sold to "Protestants " as a reasonable alternative. Now for the first time, post Brexit, I think there could be an appetite among some Protestants to contemplate an All Island solution, but it's not being presented .
Ironically the SDLP, for whom I have a lot of respect , most of the time, have become a barrier to progress. If the greener SDLP voters moved to SF  and the softer SDLP voters aligned with Alliance , either SF or Alliance could finally knock DUP off their perch , putting aggressive unionism on the back foot for the first time.
People here on the "N/R" side and in the middle , need to get serious about consigning DUP to history . Much as I respect the SDLP, I can't see them becoming large enough to replace DUP as largest party.

It is not "sectarian" to vote for SF and not for the DUP, because SF represent you, and the DUP don't.

SF contest Westminster elections on a platform that they will refuse to represent anybody

SF provide taxation alright but they don't provide representation

They represent me alright.
Your point is irrelevant, the issue is that it is not "sectarian" to vote SF, as someone said it was.

Which SF MP sits in Westminster?

0, and rightly so.
You didn't address any point, and what I said isn't factually wrong. You started going off on an irrelevant tangent about Westminster for some reason, when a claim was made that voting for SF is apparently "sectarian". I pointed out that this is wrong. Hope that's clear enough.

[sid waddell]

The bottom line is that SDLP and SF voters need to get serious about optimising their influence to consign DUP to history. SDLP/SF still have a sectarian voting base much like unionism. Ie very few from a Protestant tradition vote for them because they don't feel represented by them. This is because an All island solution has not been sold to "Protestants " as a reasonable alternative. Now for the first time, post Brexit, I think there could be an appetite among some Protestants to contemplate an All Island solution, but it's not being presented .
Ironically the SDLP, for whom I have a lot of respect , most of the time, have become a barrier to progress. If the greener SDLP voters moved to SF  and the softer SDLP voters aligned with Alliance , either SF or Alliance could finally knock DUP off their perch , putting aggressive unionism on the back foot for the first time.
People here on the "N/R" side and in the middle , need to get serious about consigning DUP to history . Much as I respect the SDLP, I can't see them becoming large enough to replace DUP as largest party.

It is not "sectarian" to vote for SF and not for the DUP, because SF represent you, and the DUP don't.

SF contest Westminster elections on a platform that they will refuse to represent anybody

SF provide taxation alright but they don't provide representation

They represent me alright.
Your point is irrelevant, the issue is that it is not "sectarian" to vote SF, as someone said it was.

Which SF MP sits in Westminster?

0, and rightly so.

Thanks for answering

So, if you have an SF MP, you have no representation in Westminster

As is SF policy

[Angelo]

A self absorbed arsehole and utterly incompetent

Are you speaking about yourself or political bashing?

I'm speaking about Colum Eastwood and the SDLP.

Have you anything to counter the above or are you just going to make another thread all about you and your unfunny smart ass comments?

I'm just pointing out that you continually politically bash while giving off about Eastwood having a go at other political parties!

You don't see that as being stupid?

I would see it as legitimate criticism and as you can't provide anything to the contrary, it's a bizarre position for you to take. Eastwood and the SDLP have a lot to answer for with their stunts in the past week.

Eastwood would say his is a legitimate criticism. But you say is bashing, just exactly what you are doing. If you don't see that then you are blind.

I'm not here to provide anything contrary as I'm only pointing out your hypocrisy

It clear as day that Eastwood was engaging in petty political mudslinging that has fanned the flames on an already tense situation.

We had a similar incident a number of weeks back with the Sean Graham commemoration. It could have very easily turned nasty but you really have to credit the SF leadership on managing the situation with the local community and PSNI when it could have quickly turned very nasty.

Last week the Eastwood and the SDLP made a holy show of themselves by jumping into bed with unionist headbangers, their faux outrage and hypocrisy. For what end? Some political mud slinging. You look at the end result of what we had over the weekend, rioting and enflamed tensions.

The brass neck of Eastwood to then come out and question unionist leaders when he was party to stoking the tension the past week.

There's been plenty of chances for people to put forward a case for Eastwood, there is none. He's an abysmal politician who hasn't done a single thing of note for his people or community, he would eat himself if he was chocolate. I couldn't think of a greater bedfellow for him than that cretin Micheal Martin.

If someone can come with anything positive Eastwood has done in his political career I am all ears.

[GiveItToTheShooters]

The bottom line is that SDLP and SF voters need to get serious about optimising their influence to consign DUP to history. SDLP/SF still have a sectarian voting base much like unionism. Ie very few from a Protestant tradition vote for them because they don't feel represented by them. This is because an All island solution has not been sold to "Protestants " as a reasonable alternative. Now for the first time, post Brexit, I think there could be an appetite among some Protestants to contemplate an All Island solution, but it's not being presented .
Ironically the SDLP, for whom I have a lot of respect , most of the time, have become a barrier to progress. If the greener SDLP voters moved to SF  and the softer SDLP voters aligned with Alliance , either SF or Alliance could finally knock DUP off their perch , putting aggressive unionism on the back foot for the first time.
People here on the "N/R" side and in the middle , need to get serious about consigning DUP to history . Much as I respect the SDLP, I can't see them becoming large enough to replace DUP as largest party.

It is not "sectarian" to vote for SF and not for the DUP, because SF represent you, and the DUP don't.

SF contest Westminster elections on a platform that they will refuse to represent anybody

SF provide taxation alright but they don't provide representation

They represent me alright.
Your point is irrelevant, the issue is that it is not "sectarian" to vote SF, as someone said it was.

Which SF MP sits in Westminster?

0, and rightly so.

Thanks for answering

So, if you have an SF MP, you have no representation in Westminster

As is SF policy

I'm well aware of what their policy is.
I have no need or interest to be "represented" in Westminster, like thousands of others that vote for them.
Im happy enough being represented by them here in Ireland thanks.

[Milltown Row2]

Unless you haven't noticed SF are in bed with the unionists for a good few years now, policing board and all.