fer fecks sake.. MING!!!??

[deiseach]

Having 14 members of Dáil Éireann, the southern parties are also constitutionally obliged to deal with SF too.

No, they are not, any more than having 20 members of Dáil Éireann obliges the other parties to deal with Fianna Fáil.

[Nally Stand]

Having 14 members of Dáil Éireann, the southern parties are also constitutionally obliged to deal with SF too.

No, they are not, any more than having 20 members of Dáil Éireann obliges the other parties to deal with Fianna Fáil.

So they should deny SF's right to be there? SF are democratically entitled to their seats. If other parties don't like that, they are still constitutionally obliged to live with it.

P.s. Can I assume form you selective quoting of my last post, that you agree with everything else I said?

[deiseach]

Having 14 members of Dáil Éireann, the southern parties are also constitutionally obliged to deal with SF too.

No, they are not, any more than having 20 members of Dáil Éireann obliges the other parties to deal with Fianna Fáil.

So they should deny SF's right to be there? SF are democratically entitled to their seats. If other parties don't like that, they are still constitutionally obliged to live with it.

P.s. Can I assume form you selective quoting of my last post, that you agree with everything else I said?

Who is denying their right to be there? The issue is power sharing. You say "Unionism fought tooth and nail and were dragged kicking and screaming into having to share power with SF to a chorus from the free state of how they need to move on from the past". If the acid test of democracy is that everyone gets a share of power then you must think FF should get a share too, right?

[Nally Stand]

Having 14 members of Dáil Éireann, the southern parties are also constitutionally obliged to deal with SF too.

No, they are not, any more than having 20 members of Dáil Éireann obliges the other parties to deal with Fianna Fáil.

So they should deny SF's right to be there? SF are democratically entitled to their seats. If other parties don't like that, they are still constitutionally obliged to live with it.

P.s. Can I assume form you selective quoting of my last post, that you agree with everything else I said?

Who is denying their right to be there? The issue is power sharing. You say "Unionism fought tooth and nail and were dragged kicking and screaming into having to share power with SF to a chorus from the free state of how they need to move on from the past". If the acid test of democracy is that everyone gets a share of power then you must think FF should get a share too, right?

You are doing your best to avoid my entire point here. Unionism was being told from the south that it was time to move on from the past yet the recent election campaign and the cynical use of the names of seemingly the only two victims of the conflict (in the eyes of so many in the free state media) demonstrated that these same people who urged Unionism to move on have no intention (or else no ability) to move on from the past themselves where SF are concerned.

[deiseach]

You are doing your best to avoid my entire point here. Unionism was being told from the south that it was time to move on from the past yet the recent election campaign and the cynical use of the names of seemingly the only two victims of the conflict (in the eyes of so many in the free state media) demonstrated that these same people who urged Unionism to move on have no intention (or else no ability) to move on from the past themselves where SF are concerned.

You are not comparing like with like. In the North, there are officially two electorates, so parties have no need to compete across sectarian lines. Everyone in the south is competing for the same votes so recent history is completely legitimate territory. Again, I ask how you are going to stop it being used. I get your point about politicians banging on about 'the only two victims' but that probably turned off as many people as it worked with.

[Nally Stand]

You are doing your best to avoid my entire point here. Unionism was being told from the south that it was time to move on from the past yet the recent election campaign and the cynical use of the names of seemingly the only two victims of the conflict (in the eyes of so many in the free state media) demonstrated that these same people who urged Unionism to move on have no intention (or else no ability) to move on from the past themselves where SF are concerned.

You are not comparing like with like. In the North, there are officially two electorates, so parties have no need to compete across sectarian lines. Everyone in the south is competing for the same votes so recent history is completely legitimate territory. Again, I ask how you are going to stop it being used. I get your point about politicians banging on about 'the only two victims' but that probably turned off as many people as it worked with.

In the north, while communities and voters are still divided on the constitutional issue, the specific area of recent history is not even remotely as much of an issue at election times compared to in the south of late, and it has every right to be much more of an issue in the north.

The peace process is in full bloom and people are putting the past behind them to an appropriate degree. If we look back over the past few elections, north and south, the only party in the six counties which used the term "SF/IRA" at every opportunity were the Neanderthals of the TUV. In the south, every tom dick and harry was talking about "SF/IRA"/"SF criminals"/"SF terrrorists" and such usual bullshit. I can only say that it is a credit to SF that they didn't bite the bait and indulge themselves in retaliatory negative campaigning.

P.s. I hope that when you say parties in the north don't have to compete along sectarian lines, that you aren't implying that people just generally do vote along "sectarian" lines in the north. People vote along Republican/Nationalist and Unionist lines. While there are sectarians out there, it would be totally wrong to label anyone who votes along lines of Republican or Unionist politics as a sectarian. I am proudly Irish Republican and as such am totally anti-sectarian.

[baoithe]

I dont know if my tuppence worth has been mentioned previously in this thread. I've listened to this guy on the radio on a number of occasions in the last week. It has to be said he is intermittently extremely articulate and has a terrific understanding of what is wrong with local authorities and how they are run. However, on newstalk and rte last week he was very narky and even tempermental when he was pushed by his interviewers. It was rivetting but also strange. What with his temperment and the whole growing cannabis thing he is sure to be an everpresent in the media for the term of this Dail.

However no matter what sort of a headbanger he is, he has to be commended for taking half the salary on offer. I'm not sure he has a viable national policy but I'm sure he will fall in nicely with Joe Higgins' ideology.

[deiseach]

In the north, while communities and voters are still divided on the constitutional issue, the specific area of recent history is not even remotely as much of an issue at election times compared to in the south of late, and it has every right to be much more of an issue in the north.

The peace process is in full bloom and people are putting the past behind them to an appropriate degree. If we look back over the past few elections, north and south, the only party in the six counties which used the term "SF/IRA" at every opportunity were the Neanderthals of the TUV. In the south, every tom dick and harry was talking about "SF/IRA"/"SF criminals"/"SF terrrorists" and such usual bullshit. I can only say that it is a credit to SF that they didn't bite the bait and indulge themselves in retaliatory negative campaigning.

P.s. I hope that when you say parties in the north don't have to compete along sectarian lines, that you aren't implying that people just generally do vote along "sectarian" lines in the north. People vote along Republican/Nationalist and Unionist lines. While there are sectarians out there, it would be totally wrong to label anyone who votes along lines of Republican or Unionist politics as a sectarian. I am proudly Irish Republican and as such am totally anti-sectarian.

Fair point, 'sectarian' is the wrong word. I'd say that voters still divide on the national question and the need for both communities (God, I hate that word) to be involved in the Executive makes for two seperate electorates. The perverse consequence of that divide is that Shinner-bashing allowed the DUP to crush the party of Craig and Brookeborough, and as soon as they had done that it became a useless weapon! It wasn't principle that put it beyond use (ho ho) and you can be sure it'll come back should the DUP fear being outflanked by the likes of the TUV

[seafoid]

Where is the anti Ming stuff coming from? Is it FF ? 

[Nally Stand]

In the north, while communities and voters are still divided on the constitutional issue, the specific area of recent history is not even remotely as much of an issue at election times compared to in the south of late, and it has every right to be much more of an issue in the north.

The peace process is in full bloom and people are putting the past behind them to an appropriate degree. If we look back over the past few elections, north and south, the only party in the six counties which used the term "SF/IRA" at every opportunity were the Neanderthals of the TUV. In the south, every tom dick and harry was talking about "SF/IRA"/"SF criminals"/"SF terrrorists" and such usual bullshit. I can only say that it is a credit to SF that they didn't bite the bait and indulge themselves in retaliatory negative campaigning.

P.s. I hope that when you say parties in the north don't have to compete along sectarian lines, that you aren't implying that people just generally do vote along "sectarian" lines in the north. People vote along Republican/Nationalist and Unionist lines. While there are sectarians out there, it would be totally wrong to label anyone who votes along lines of Republican or Unionist politics as a sectarian. I am proudly Irish Republican and as such am totally anti-sectarian.

Fair point, 'sectarian' is the wrong word. I'd say that voters still divide on the national question and the need for both communities (God, I hate that word) to be involved in the Executive makes for two seperate electorates. The perverse consequence of that divide is that Shinner-bashing allowed the DUP to crush the party of Craig and Brookeborough, and as soon as they had done that it became a useless weapon! It wasn't principle that put it beyond use (ho ho) and you can be sure it'll come back should the DUP fear being outflanked by the likes of the TUV

Why can't we all just get along?!! 

[deiseach]

The people have spoken, the bastards

[ross4life]

Where is the anti Ming stuff coming from? Is it FF ?

Yes they had American style campaign to blacken his name.

[Galwaybhoy]

Where is the anti Ming stuff coming from? Is it FF ?

Yes they had American style campaign to blacken his name.

What did they do?

For the record I'm delighted he was voted in and now I hope he can show his constituency he deserved their votes.

[ross4life]

Where is the anti Ming stuff coming from? Is it FF ?

Yes they had American style campaign to blacken his name.

What did they do?

For the record I'm delighted he was voted in and now I hope he can show his constituency he deserved their votes.

Mostly the hash thing, FF candidates put more effort into trying to degrade Ming than tell us about what they would offer

Ming was quick on the draw.. "sure Brian Cowen smoked hash"

[spuds]

In fairness if I was from Roscommon I would also choose drugs