The SDLP

[dublin7]

Plus abstention is well past its sell by date.

Would you like to see FF & FG organise in the north? Would you like to see them sitting in westminster?

You see, you might yearn for Irish people getting their bums of the green benches, but personally I would argue that the very notion of Irish MPs sitting in westminster is what's long past it's sell by date. SF stand in elections promising to abstain and people overwhelmingly back them on that basis.

Westminster does play a role in running NI so why not take your sears there. The assembly was shut down for a few years so who was representing the people in westminster?

When the Tories needed the DUP to form a coalition SF could have used their seats in westminster to put pressure on the government, but by not taking their seats they missed out

[Angelo]

Plus abstention is well past its sell by date.

Would you like to see FF & FG organise in the north? Would you like to see them sitting in westminster?

You see, you might yearn for Irish people getting their bums of the green benches, but personally I would argue that the very notion of Irish MPs sitting in westminster is what's long past it's sell by date. SF stand in elections promising to abstain and people overwhelmingly back them on that basis.

Westminster does play a role in running NI so why not take your sears there. The assembly was shut down for a few years so who was representing the people in westminster?

When the Tories needed the DUP to form a coalition SF could have used their seats in westminster to put pressure on the government, but by not taking their seats they missed out

Another idiotic comment.

The Tories have worked wonders for the DUP alright, sold them down the river as soon as they had got what they wanted from them.

[Snapchap]

Westminster does play a role in running NI so why not take your sears there.

Would you like to see FF & FG organise in the north? Would you like to see them sitting in Westminster?

The assembly was shut down for a few years so who was representing the people in westminster?

When the assembly was shut down, the place was being run by the Civil Service. Direct rule was not in place. How did you not know that much?

When the Tories needed the DUP to form a coalition SF could have used their seats in westminster to put pressure on the government, but by not taking their seats they missed out

And do you think that any MPs wavering on key Brexit votes would have risked the wrath of the Red Tops by allowing themselves be seen to take the same side as SF to swing the result? Cop yourself on. Besides, SF were mandated to abstain. I understand that the very notion of a party keeping an election promise might be a novel concept when you've lived your life under FFG governments, but there you are.

[Eamonnca1]

Plus abstention is well past its sell by date.

Would you like to see FF & FG organise in the north? Would you like to see them sitting in westminster?

You see, you might yearn for Irish people getting their bums of the green benches, but personally I would argue that the very notion of Irish MPs sitting in westminster is what's long past it's sell by date. SF stand in elections promising to abstain and people overwhelmingly back them on that basis.

Take down Parnell's statue then. Re-name O'Connell St back to Sackville St. They took their seats, didn't they?

Different times....

SF's abstentionism policy was inspired by the Hungarian revolution of 1848 and their first abstentionist candidate stood in 1908. Times have changed a bit since then, wouldn't you say?

[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

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.

You said they represent you

Now you're saying they don't

Then you again say they do

Make up your mind

You're like Homer Simpson and a light switch

[Milltown Row2]

You found it difficult to make your mind up Syd.

You could well change your mind

[Snapchap]

Plus abstention is well past its sell by date.

Would you like to see FF & FG organise in the north? Would you like to see them sitting in westminster?

You see, you might yearn for Irish people getting their bums of the green benches, but personally I would argue that the very notion of Irish MPs sitting in westminster is what's long past it's sell by date. SF stand in elections promising to abstain and people overwhelmingly back them on that basis.

Take down Parnell's statue then. Re-name O'Connell St back to Sackville St. They took their seats, didn't they?

Different times....

SF's abstentionism policy was inspired by the Hungarian revolution of 1848 and their first abstentionist candidate stood in 1908. Times have changed a bit since then, wouldn't you say?

When you hear a SF rep explaining that they are abstaining from Westminster because of the Hungarian Revolution of 1848, then, and only then, should you come on here and use that as your argument.

[dublin7]

Westminster does play a role in running NI so why not take your sears there.

Would you like to see FF & FG organise in the north? Would you like to see them sitting in Westminster?

The assembly was shut down for a few years so who was representing the people in westminster?

When the assembly was shut down, the place was being run by the Civil Service. Direct rule was not in place. How did you not know that much?

When the Tories needed the DUP to form a coalition SF could have used their seats in westminster to put pressure on the government, but by not taking their seats they missed out

And do you think that any MPs wavering on key Brexit votes would have risked the wrath of the Red Tops by allowing themselves be seen to take the same side as SF to swing the result? Cop yourself on. Besides, SF were mandated to abstain. I understand that the very notion of a party keeping an election promise might be a novel concept when you've lived your life under FFG governments, but there you are.

Perhaps have a word with your colleagues in north and ask them why they suddenly changed their position on abortion?

Surely they didn't suddenly take up a new position just because they think that's what would be the most popular decision with their voters up there instead of what they said in the south?

Seems SF electioneering can be just as cynical as FF/FG

[Snapchap]

Westminster does play a role in running NI so why not take your sears there.

Would you like to see FF & FG organise in the north? Would you like to see them sitting in Westminster?

The assembly was shut down for a few years so who was representing the people in westminster?

When the assembly was shut down, the place was being run by the Civil Service. Direct rule was not in place. How did you not know that much?

When the Tories needed the DUP to form a coalition SF could have used their seats in westminster to put pressure on the government, but by not taking their seats they missed out

And do you think that any MPs wavering on key Brexit votes would have risked the wrath of the Red Tops by allowing themselves be seen to take the same side as SF to swing the result? Cop yourself on. Besides, SF were mandated to abstain. I understand that the very notion of a party keeping an election promise might be a novel concept when you've lived your life under FFG governments, but there you are.

Perhaps have a word with your colleagues in north and ask them why they suddenly changed their position on abortion?

Surely they didn't suddenly take up a new position just because they think that's what would be the most popular decision with their voters up there instead of what they said in the south?

Seems SF electioneering can be just as cynical as FF/FG

But whatabout...but whatabout...

Would you like to see FF & FG organise in the north? Would you like to see them sitting in Westminster?

[Armagh18]

Westminster does play a role in running NI so why not take your sears there.

Would you like to see FF & FG organise in the north? Would you like to see them sitting in Westminster?

The assembly was shut down for a few years so who was representing the people in westminster?

When the assembly was shut down, the place was being run by the Civil Service. Direct rule was not in place. How did you not know that much?

When the Tories needed the DUP to form a coalition SF could have used their seats in westminster to put pressure on the government, but by not taking their seats they missed out

And do you think that any MPs wavering on key Brexit votes would have risked the wrath of the Red Tops by allowing themselves be seen to take the same side as SF to swing the result? Cop yourself on. Besides, SF were mandated to abstain. I understand that the very notion of a party keeping an election promise might be a novel concept when you've lived your life under FFG governments, but there you are.

Perhaps have a word with your colleagues in north and ask them why they suddenly changed their position on abortion?

Surely they didn't suddenly take up a new position just because they think that's what would be the most popular decision with their voters up there instead of what they said in the south?

Seems SF electioneering can be just as cynical as FF/FG

But whatabout...but whatabout...

Would you like to see FF & FG organise in the north? Would you like to see them sitting in Westminster?

No thanks. Enogu bootlickers in the North thank you.

[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.

You said they represent you

Now you're saying they don't

Then you again say they do

Make up your mind

You're like Homer Simpson and a light switch

My mind is made up.
It's not difficult to understand, maybe for you though.

[6th sam]

Just to clarify what I meant , highlighted above . Of the 5 main parties only Alliance are probably drawn  equally from "both communities " however their policies don't suit many of us. Sf/SDLP/DUP/UUP on the other hand draw almost exclusively from one community ie a "sectarian" base, as the two main communities here are defined as being split along "sectarian" lines. That does not meant that  those of us who vote for those parties above are sectarian. I am anti-sectarian , but Alliance would never have been my voting choice. In much the same way as many "decent unionists" vote DUP as they feel it is currently the best way of maintaining the union, many of the rest of us vote on anti-DUP lines. If the anti-DUP vote gets stronger , and we can present a different alternative to "decent unionists " ( Alliance currently doing this very well), we can consign  DUP to history,  and focus on real political issues, as opposed to being dictated to by "anti-Irish" dinosaurs.
I often thought that orangeism and others labelling this conflict as a principled stand against Catholicism, was a convenient red herring . In reality it has  little to do with religion, it's often anti-Irish racism. The British planted loyal subjects into a position of superiority here, they then gave them their own state, where they reinforced anti-Irish superiority. It was convenient to soften this racism by labelling it a religious conflict.

[Angelo]

Just to clarify what I meant , highlighted above . Of the 5 main parties only Alliance are probably drawn  equally from "both communities " however their policies don't suit many of us. Sf/SDLP/DUP/UUP on the other hand draw almost exclusively from one community ie a "sectarian" base, as the two main communities here are defined as being split along "sectarian" lines. That does not meant that  those of us who vote for those parties above are sectarian. I am anti-sectarian , but Alliance would never have been my voting choice. In much the same way as many "decent unionists" vote DUP as they feel it is currently the best way of maintaining the union, many of the rest of us vote on anti-DUP lines. If the anti-DUP vote gets stronger , and we can present a different alternative to "decent unionists " ( Alliance currently doing this very well), we can consign  DUP to history,  and focus on real political issues, as opposed to being dictated to by "anti-Irish" dinosaurs.
I often thought that orangeism and others labelling this conflict as a principled stand against Catholicism, was a convenient red herring . In reality it has  little to do with religion, it's often anti-Irish racism. The British planted loyal subjects into a position of superiority here, they then gave them their own state, where they reinforced anti-Irish superiority. It was convenient to soften this racism by labelling it a religious conflict.

Alliance represent a liberal middle class representative who don't really have a very strong or set position on the Unionist/Republican issue. They run on issues that are real to affluent types on the Malone Road etc and liberal university type warriors. They do have quite a mixed backing - I'd say 70% Protestant/30% Catholic.

PBP would be the alternative to the Alliance but they draw almost solely from a nationalist background.

For me I think the issue is that people overestimate how much "decent" or "moderate" unionism there actually is. It's a niche grouping and while it could be influential in a border poll I don't think these people need much engagement from the nationalist community. I think the DUP/UUP/TUV will do enough to sell the idea of a United Ireland to moderate unionists than any nationalist political movement could.

The Alliance Party I think have certainly become more moderate in the past 20/30 years but they have the same amount of MLAs they had in 1973, only 2 more than they had after the GFA in 1998. It's hardly that they are going to become a strong voice for unionism and the Alliance represent the only political voice for moderate unionism and I think that you could argue a lot of that small change they have had in their support has potentially been from moderate or very liberal Catholics.

[Milltown Row2]

Just to clarify what I meant , highlighted above . Of the 5 main parties only Alliance are probably drawn  equally from "both communities " however their policies don't suit many of us. Sf/SDLP/DUP/UUP on the other hand draw almost exclusively from one community ie a "sectarian" base, as the two main communities here are defined as being split along "sectarian" lines. That does not meant that  those of us who vote for those parties above are sectarian. I am anti-sectarian , but Alliance would never have been my voting choice. In much the same way as many "decent unionists" vote DUP as they feel it is currently the best way of maintaining the union, many of the rest of us vote on anti-DUP lines. If the anti-DUP vote gets stronger , and we can present a different alternative to "decent unionists " ( Alliance currently doing this very well), we can consign  DUP to history,  and focus on real political issues, as opposed to being dictated to by "anti-Irish" dinosaurs.
I often thought that orangeism and others labelling this conflict as a principled stand against Catholicism, was a convenient red herring . In reality it has  little to do with religion, it's often anti-Irish racism. The British planted loyal subjects into a position of superiority here, they then gave them their own state, where they reinforced anti-Irish superiority. It was convenient to soften this racism by labelling it a religious conflict.

Alliance represent a liberal middle class representative who don't really have a very strong or set position on the Unionist/Republican issue. They run on issues that are real to affluent types on the Malone Road etc and liberal university type warriors. They do have quite a mixed backing - I'd say 70% Protestant/30% Catholic.

PBP would be the alternative to the Alliance but they draw almost solely from a nationalist background.

For me I think the issue is that people overestimate how much "decent" or "moderate" unionism there actually is. It's a niche grouping and while it could be influential in a border poll I don't think these people need much engagement from the nationalist community. I think the DUP/UUP/TUV will do enough to sell the idea of a United Ireland to moderate unionists than any nationalist political movement could.

The Alliance Party I think have certainly become more moderate in the past 20/30 years but they have the same amount of MLAs they had in 1973, only 2 more than they had after the GFA in 1998. It's hardly that they are going to become a strong voice for unionism and the Alliance represent the only political voice for moderate unionism and I think that you could argue a lot of that small change they have had in their support has potentially been from moderate or very liberal Catholics.

In majority unionist areas, Catholics/Nationalists that live in that area will vote Alliance, SF won't have a voice in there as well as SDLP for any nationalist, so the only outlet for a voter will be Alliance.

That vote in those areas will get bigger, any Nationalists living in East Belfast and East Antrim will 'lend' their votes or be converted to voting them, I know plenty prods that will vote Alliance that as you say live in more affluent areas, but not Malone as that was won by the SDLP

[JPGJOHNNYG]

The alliance vote generally for about the last 20 yrs contrary to popular belief has actually been more from the catholic community, as mentioned above a number of areas in the East where SDLP and SF have no hope, the Alliance get the vote. The last couple of yrs though has seen the Alliance vote increase big time and I would say the majority of these new votes are from protestants who are fed up with the UUP and its ridiculous direction.
Difficult to put a figure on the current voting making up but it would be a lot more even than the 70/30 mentioned earlier