The SDLP

Started by ardmhachaabu, April 23, 2010, 09:32:25 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Zapatista

Quote from: Ulick on April 26, 2010, 11:48:01 AM
She admitted as much on the radio yesterday morning that it was about building for the Assembly elections next year i.e. she will hand the Westminster seat to the unionists so she can increase Fearghals chances of getting an Assembly seat.

Is that a U turn on the claims that she wouldn't be part of a sectarian pact? Does she finally accept that nobody bought into that?

A Quinn Martin Production

Quote from: Maguire01 on April 26, 2010, 05:06:23 PM
Quote from: A Quinn Martin Production on April 26, 2010, 05:00:14 PM
Maguire01...from what I can tell their credibility has taken a big blow in F&ST.
Quite possibly - we'll soon find out. Although I'd imagine that the most vocal would be SF supporters, as is the case on here. At the end of the day, it's in the hands of the electorate in FST - they can still choose to return Gildernew, the SDLP hasn't removed that option.

Quite a few traditional SDLP supporters I've met too.  They're furious at Ritchie & McKinney.
Antrim - One Of A Dying Breed of Genuine Dual Counties

Maguire01

Quote from: Zapatista on April 26, 2010, 05:25:41 PM
Quote from: Ulick on April 26, 2010, 11:48:01 AM
She admitted as much on the radio yesterday morning that it was about building for the Assembly elections next year i.e. she will hand the Westminster seat to the unionists so she can increase Fearghals chances of getting an Assembly seat.

Is that a U turn on the claims that she wouldn't be part of a sectarian pact? Does she finally accept that nobody bought into that?
Does it have to be one or the other?

Maguire01

Quote from: A Quinn Martin Production on April 26, 2010, 05:45:11 PM
Quite a few traditional SDLP supporters I've met too.  They're furious at Ritchie & McKinney.
Maybe. I'd assume they'll now vote for Gildernew? If enough people care enough and want Gildernew, she will still be elected, regardless of the lack of a pact. If she isn't elected, then we can assume she doesn't appeal to enough nationalist voters(?)

Zapatista

Quote from: Maguire01 on April 26, 2010, 05:56:03 PM
Quote from: Zapatista on April 26, 2010, 05:25:41 PM
Quote from: Ulick on April 26, 2010, 11:48:01 AM
She admitted as much on the radio yesterday morning that it was about building for the Assembly elections next year i.e. she will hand the Westminster seat to the unionists so she can increase Fearghals chances of getting an Assembly seat.

Is that a U turn on the claims that she wouldn't be part of a sectarian pact? Does she finally accept that nobody bought into that?
Does it have to be one or the other?

The question is, is it both or is it just one? If it's just one which one is it? If it's both it waters down her original position.

Maguire01


Zapatista

Quote from: Maguire01 on April 26, 2010, 09:39:05 PM
I'm not sure why.

Well what ever has you not sure is probably my point.

Orior

I just had Alex Maskey at my doorstep canvasing. Its a pity Alex is not running himself as he is a very intelligent and articulate man.
Cover me in chocolate and feed me to the lesbians

Zapatista

Quote from: Orior on April 26, 2010, 10:04:48 PM
I just had Alex Maskey at my doorstep canvasing. Its a pity Alex is not running himself as he is a very intelligent and articulate man.

What constituency?

Orior

North Beal Feirste
Cover me in chocolate and feed me to the lesbians

Ulick

Have yet to have any of them near my door. The Stoops must have us down as "hostile", though I can't imagine why.

Gaffer

Quote from: Orior on April 26, 2010, 10:04:48 PM
I just had Alex Maskey at my doorstep canvasing. Its a pity Alex is not running himself as he is a very intelligent and articulate man.

Agree, but the men in grey suits told him he wasn' t standing !!
"Well ! Well ! Well !  If it ain't the Smoker !!!"

Zapatista

Quote from: Gaffer on April 26, 2010, 11:15:53 PM
Quote from: Orior on April 26, 2010, 10:04:48 PM
I just had Alex Maskey at my doorstep canvasing. Its a pity Alex is not running himself as he is a very intelligent and articulate man.

Agree, but the men in grey suits told him he wasn' t standing !!

He wasn't standig in north Belfast.

Pangurban

We have been hearing a lot of talk about integrity from S.D.L.P. candidates, which is difficult to square with the fact, that in order to enter Westminister, they are prepared to swear a solemn oath of loyalty , which by their own admission they dont believe in. Not much integrity there. Perhaps some moral theologian might care to comment on this stance

Zapatista

Quote from: Pangurban on April 27, 2010, 01:42:47 AM
We have been hearing a lot of talk about integrity from S.D.L.P. candidates, which is difficult to square with the fact, that in order to enter Westminister, they are prepared to swear a solemn oath of loyalty , which by their own admission they dont believe in. Not much integrity there. Perhaps some moral theologian might care to comment on this stance

Michael Collins did it?