Opposition at Stormont?

[Maguire01]

So, McCallister is offering a clear alternative to Kennedy for the UUP leadership, proposing to take them into (unofficial) opposition. It's an interesting proposition. It would seem like the UUP has little to lose and is unlikely to see a reversal in fortunes if it continues as it is. Having said that, unofficial opposition is a high-risk strategy. There's no provision for funding or speaking rights - would opposition be primarily via the media?

On top of this, if it did (somehow) result in a reversal in the party's fortunes and they overtook the DUP (unlikely as that is), there's nothing to force the DUP to then move into opposition - they could just remain in government.

There doesn't appear to be any appetite for official opposition amongst the big parties, but surely some form of opposition is needed in the longer term, to hold the governing parties to account? The Assembly is of course, a 'special case', and there would have to be safeguards (i.e. any governing coalition would have to be 'cross-community'). However, SF are unlikely to support a voluntary 'cross-community' coalition, as they're more likely to be left out in the cold.

Does anyone have any other ideas of how this could work in the medium-term? Are there any better solutions?

[Tony Baloney]

So, McCallister is offering a clear alternative to Kennedy for the UUP leadership, proposing to take them into (unofficial) opposition. It's an interesting proposition. It would seem like the UUP has little to lose and is unlikely to see a reversal in fortunes if it continues as it is. Having said that, unofficial opposition is a high-risk strategy. There's no provision for funding or speaking rights - would opposition be primarily via the media?

On top of this, if it did (somehow) result in a reversal in the party's fortunes and they overtook the DUP (unlikely as that is), there's nothing to force the DUP to then move into opposition - they could just remain in government.

There doesn't appear to be any appetite for official opposition amongst the big parties, but surely some form of opposition is needed in the longer term, to hold the governing parties to account? The Assembly is of course, a 'special case', and there would have to be safeguards (i.e. any governing coalition would have to be 'cross-community'). However, SF are unlikely to support a voluntary 'cross-community' coalition, as they're more likely to be left out in the cold.

Does anyone have any other ideas of how this could work in the medium-term? Are there any better solutions?

Surely any challenge to a Shinner/DUP carve-up can only be a healthy thing.

[/quote]

[glens abu]

So, McCallister is offering a clear alternative to Kennedy for the UUP leadership, proposing to take them into (unofficial) opposition. It's an interesting proposition. It would seem like the UUP has little to lose and is unlikely to see a reversal in fortunes if it continues as it is. Having said that, unofficial opposition is a high-risk strategy. There's no provision for funding or speaking rights - would opposition be primarily via the media?

On top of this, if it did (somehow) result in a reversal in the party's fortunes and they overtook the DUP (unlikely as that is), there's nothing to force the DUP to then move into opposition - they could just remain in government.

There doesn't appear to be any appetite for official opposition amongst the big parties, but surely some form of opposition is needed in the longer term, to hold the governing parties to account? The Assembly is of course, a 'special case', and there would have to be safeguards (i.e. any governing coalition would have to be 'cross-community'). However, SF are unlikely to support a voluntary 'cross-community' coalition, as they're more likely to be left out in the cold.

Does anyone have any other ideas of how this could work in the medium-term? Are there any better solutions?

Surely any challenge to a Shinner/DUP carve-up can only be a healthy thing.

[/quote]

Why?

[Tony Baloney]

So, McCallister is offering a clear alternative to Kennedy for the UUP leadership, proposing to take them into (unofficial) opposition. It's an interesting proposition. It would seem like the UUP has little to lose and is unlikely to see a reversal in fortunes if it continues as it is. Having said that, unofficial opposition is a high-risk strategy. There's no provision for funding or speaking rights - would opposition be primarily via the media?

On top of this, if it did (somehow) result in a reversal in the party's fortunes and they overtook the DUP (unlikely as that is), there's nothing to force the DUP to then move into opposition - they could just remain in government.

There doesn't appear to be any appetite for official opposition amongst the big parties, but surely some form of opposition is needed in the longer term, to hold the governing parties to account? The Assembly is of course, a 'special case', and there would have to be safeguards (i.e. any governing coalition would have to be 'cross-community'). However, SF are unlikely to support a voluntary 'cross-community' coalition, as they're more likely to be left out in the cold.

Does anyone have any other ideas of how this could work in the medium-term? Are there any better solutions?

Surely any challenge to a Shinner/DUP carve-up can only be a healthy thing.

See "carve-up". My opinion would be the same if it was SDLP/Alliance/UUP in control.

Why?

[Maguire01]

So, McCallister is offering a clear alternative to Kennedy for the UUP leadership, proposing to take them into (unofficial) opposition. It's an interesting proposition. It would seem like the UUP has little to lose and is unlikely to see a reversal in fortunes if it continues as it is. Having said that, unofficial opposition is a high-risk strategy. There's no provision for funding or speaking rights - would opposition be primarily via the media?

On top of this, if it did (somehow) result in a reversal in the party's fortunes and they overtook the DUP (unlikely as that is), there's nothing to force the DUP to then move into opposition - they could just remain in government.

There doesn't appear to be any appetite for official opposition amongst the big parties, but surely some form of opposition is needed in the longer term, to hold the governing parties to account? The Assembly is of course, a 'special case', and there would have to be safeguards (i.e. any governing coalition would have to be 'cross-community'). However, SF are unlikely to support a voluntary 'cross-community' coalition, as they're more likely to be left out in the cold.

Does anyone have any other ideas of how this could work in the medium-term? Are there any better solutions?

Surely any challenge to a Shinner/DUP carve-up can only be a healthy thing.

Why?

Is it not obvious? What is SF's role in the Dail? Do you think the Fine Gael / Labour government should be unopposed?

[ziggysego]

It's healthy to have some form of opposition in Government. Should be the UUP/SDLP/TUV in opposition to DUP/SF/Alliance Government.

[Maguire01]

It's healthy to have some form of opposition in Government. Should be the UUP/SDLP/TUV in opposition to DUP/SF/Alliance Government.

The TUV isn't a party, it's a one-man band, who no one is likely to take into government.

Also, why would Alliance stay in and SDLP go into opposition?

[ziggysego]

It's healthy to have some form of opposition in Government. Should be the UUP/SDLP/TUV in opposition to DUP/SF/Alliance Government.

The TUV isn't a party, it's a one-man band, who no one is likely to take into government.

Also, why would Alliance stay in and SDLP go into opposition?

Haven't the SDLP talked about opposition in the past? Maybe I'm mistaken.

[Maguire01]

It's healthy to have some form of opposition in Government. Should be the UUP/SDLP/TUV in opposition to DUP/SF/Alliance Government.

The TUV isn't a party, it's a one-man band, who no one is likely to take into government.

Also, why would Alliance stay in and SDLP go into opposition?

Haven't the SDLP talked about opposition in the past? Maybe I'm mistaken.

It has been mentioned, but no serious signs that i've seen. My point was more that DUP/SF coalition would have a comfortable majority at the minute (and in a voluntary coalition, you wouldn't normally entertain more parties than necessary to achieve your majority), whereas the UUP/All/SDLP could be an alternative option for government (albeit needing a very significant swing from the DUP/SF).

[Orior]

What do you called someone who is opposed to opposition?

[Puckoon]

An oppoposimus. Or an oppoposter. Or even an oppoplectic.

[ziggysego]

What do you called someone who is opposed to opposition?

[Maguire01]

The main point of this thread was to see how opposition might work. Would people in general support an official opposition?, i.e. funded, speaking rights, chairing and membership of committees removed from those parties remaining in government etc... and importantly, the fact that it could offer an alternative government (i.e. the option to 'vote out' a DUP/SF coalition). In my mind, there'd be no point in the UUP, SDLP or any other party leaving government if the DUP or SF had squatters rights, even if election results allowed the other parties a combined majority at some point in the future.

I can see SF having problems with a voluntary coalition - there'd be potential for the option of a DUP/SDLP voluntary coalition with a majority, or even a DUP/SDLP/All voluntary coalition, both of which would no doubt be more favourable to a large part of the DUP. But is that not just democracy? Is that not the way it works in forming coalitions elsewhere. Even if SF continues to grow in the south for example, it's unlikely to be high up on the list of coalition partners for the other parties for some time.

It's a complex one. But there's no doubt that there's lots of room for improvement in the way the Assembly operates at the minute.

[muppet]

What do you called someone who is opposed to opposition?

Communist?

[glens abu]

So, McCallister is offering a clear alternative to Kennedy for the UUP leadership, proposing to take them into (unofficial) opposition. It's an interesting proposition. It would seem like the UUP has little to lose and is unlikely to see a reversal in fortunes if it continues as it is. Having said that, unofficial opposition is a high-risk strategy. There's no provision for funding or speaking rights - would opposition be primarily via the media?

On top of this, if it did (somehow) result in a reversal in the party's fortunes and they overtook the DUP (unlikely as that is), there's nothing to force the DUP to then move into opposition - they could just remain in government.

There doesn't appear to be any appetite for official opposition amongst the big parties, but surely some form of opposition is needed in the longer term, to hold the governing parties to account? The Assembly is of course, a 'special case', and there would have to be safeguards (i.e. any governing coalition would have to be 'cross-community'). However, SF are unlikely to support a voluntary 'cross-community' coalition, as they're more likely to be left out in the cold.

Does anyone have any other ideas of how this could work in the medium-term? Are there any better solutions?

Surely any challenge to a Shinner/DUP carve-up can only be a healthy thing.

See "carve-up". My opinion would be the same if it was SDLP/Alliance/UUP in control.

Why?

Yeah I agree that an opposition could be a healty thing,but cant see the stoops and UUP being anything only a laughing stock.