Westminster General Election 2024

[LC]

Right, Starmer......

Troubles Legacy Bill

Will he go back

on  his word?

If you think anything from an NI perspective is a priority for Starmer you are in for a disappointment.

Suffice to say like the Tories Labour will not give 2 Fs about about this place.

Only visitor I see coming from across the pond will be Farage to see his new bestie Jimbo, no doubt Jim will give him a guided tour of all the lovely loyalist sh@t holes in North Antrim.

[Father Murphy]

The cherry on top of this election had to be the odious George Galloway losing his seat.

He didn't even have the dignity or humility to attend the count and scurried off to lick his huge wounded ego.

[tonto1888]

There's 8 unionist MPs in total so you would have thought this was a unionist front? Alliance only got 1 seat which must be hugely disappointing to them.

9 nationalist 8 unionist and 1 alliance. Is that the correct reading of it?

In fairness think Alliance always going to get it tight in East Belfast and North Down.  Happy for Eastwood in Lagan Valley

Eastwood just another one looking for the higher MP salary

What makes you say that?  Would you rather some of the other candidates in LV got in?

That's two different, unrelated things, I could care less who gets in as none of them have any clout or influence in WM.

Eastwood the same as Swann, Nicholl in South Belfast & Claire Hanna previously - sitting MLAs that just want to get to Westminster for the vastly superior salary & expenses.

thats a bold statement

[Armagh18]

There's 8 unionist MPs in total so you would have thought this was a unionist front? Alliance only got 1 seat which must be hugely disappointing to them.

9 nationalist 8 unionist and 1 alliance. Is that the correct reading of it?

In fairness think Alliance always going to get it tight in East Belfast and North Down.  Happy for Eastwood in Lagan Valley

Eastwood just another one looking for the higher MP salary

What makes you say that?  Would you rather some of the other candidates in LV got in?

That's two different, unrelated things, I could care less who gets in as none of them have any clout or influence in WM.

Eastwood the same as Swann, Nicholl in South Belfast & Claire Hanna previously - sitting MLAs that just want to get to Westminster for the vastly superior salary & expenses.

Sure why wouldn't they?

[Armagh18]

Pete Byrne (SDLP candidate in Newry/South Armagh) who got his arse kicked came out and said you could put a Sinn Fein sticker on a donkey and people would vote for it here.

Gracious in defeat as always and respectful to his opponent. No wonder him and Colum get on so well

[LC]

The cherry on top of this election had to be the odious George Galloway losing his seat.

He didn't even have the dignity or humility to attend the count and scurried off to lick his huge wounded ego.

Seems no length since he won the seat, must have made a great impression on the locals in his short time.

[RedHand88]

No I'm sorry but it is. Reducing every single candidate to an ussun or themmuns based on what community they are from and throwing a strop because other ussuns didn't row in behind you to get rid of themmuns is absolutely 100% trying to reduce the thing to a sectarian headcount.

The constitutional question was not on the ballot paper yesterday!

Neither did the ballot paper make any reference to religion or community. If you think unionists voting for unionist parties isn't based on their unionism, but just on sectarianism, or that people voting for republican/nationalist parties has nothing to do with them holding republican/nationalists views, then, again you're arrogantly talking through your hoop.

I've never voted for a republican candidate because said candidate wasn't a unionist, but because they were republican and as such best represented my legitimate repubican politics. That's not sectarianism. Ditto for those who vote unionist candidates.

Some folk just like to think they are somehow 'above' the constituional debate and take pleasure in slapping a "sectarian" label on absolutely everyone who is excercised by it.

If you really think this you are deluded.

[Snapchap]

No I'm sorry but it is. Reducing every single candidate to an ussun or themmuns based on what community they are from and throwing a strop because other ussuns didn't row in behind you to get rid of themmuns is absolutely 100% trying to reduce the thing to a sectarian headcount.

The constitutional question was not on the ballot paper yesterday!

Neither did the ballot paper make any reference to religion or community. If you think unionists voting for unionist parties isn't based on their unionism, but just on sectarianism, or that people voting for republican/nationalist parties has nothing to do with them holding republican/nationalists views, then, again you're arrogantly talking through your hoop.

I've never voted for a republican candidate because said candidate wasn't a unionist, but because they were republican and as such best represented my legitimate repubican politics. That's not sectarianism. Ditto for those who vote unionist candidates.

Some folk just like to think they are somehow 'above' the constituional debate and take pleasure in slapping a "sectarian" label on absolutely everyone who is excercised by it.

If you really think this you are deluded.

OK. Everyone is a big sectarian bigot except you. I thought I always voted for republican candidates because they represent my republican/constitutional position, but alas, it turns out it's because I just hate prods. Thanks for opening my eyes.

[Snapchap]

Classy stuff Ian and son
https://x.com/niamh_journo/status/1809065850780996040

[Brendan]

No I'm sorry but it is. Reducing every single candidate to an ussun or themmuns based on what community they are from and throwing a strop because other ussuns didn't row in behind you to get rid of themmuns is absolutely 100% trying to reduce the thing to a sectarian headcount.

The constitutional question was not on the ballot paper yesterday!

Neither did the ballot paper make any reference to religion or community. If you think unionists voting for unionist parties isn't based on their unionism, but just on sectarianism, or that people voting for republican/nationalist parties has nothing to do with them holding republican/nationalists views, then, again you're arrogantly talking through your hoop.

I've never voted for a republican candidate because said candidate wasn't a unionist, but because they were republican and as such best represented my legitimate repubican politics. That's not sectarianism. Ditto for those who vote unionist candidates.

Some folk just like to think they are somehow 'above' the constituional debate and take pleasure in slapping a "sectarian" label on absolutely everyone who is excercised by it.

If you really think this you are deluded.

What percentage of people attend mass these days? I highly doubt its anywhere near the 40% who voted for Nationalist parties so where are all these sectarian voters coming from? I'm a Republican with absolutely no faith but been boxed off as "Catholic" simply because of the way this place is, I don't know anyone my age who attends mass other than funerals, weddings etc who go out and vote on constitutional lines because it's a legitimate aspiration,nothing to do with the religion they were brought up in, times have changed and you need to move on

[Father Murphy]

Tim Collins having a condescending pop at the parochial oiks of North Down was also pleasing.

[RedHand88]

No I'm sorry but it is. Reducing every single candidate to an ussun or themmuns based on what community they are from and throwing a strop because other ussuns didn't row in behind you to get rid of themmuns is absolutely 100% trying to reduce the thing to a sectarian headcount.

The constitutional question was not on the ballot paper yesterday!

Neither did the ballot paper make any reference to religion or community. If you think unionists voting for unionist parties isn't based on their unionism, but just on sectarianism, or that people voting for republican/nationalist parties has nothing to do with them holding republican/nationalists views, then, again you're arrogantly talking through your hoop.

I've never voted for a republican candidate because said candidate wasn't a unionist, but because they were republican and as such best represented my legitimate repubican politics. That's not sectarianism. Ditto for those who vote unionist candidates.

Some folk just like to think they are somehow 'above' the constituional debate and take pleasure in slapping a "sectarian" label on absolutely everyone who is excercised by it.

If you really think this you are deluded.

OK. Everyone is a big sectarian bigot except you. I thought I always voted for republican candidates because they represent my republican/constitutional position, but alas, it turns out it's because I just hate prods. Thanks for opening my eyes.

Completely misrepresenting what I said, probably deliberately. You are entitled to vote for whoever you want. But if you expect all other candidates from your side to not run just so one of themmuns don't get in, then yes that is a sectarian pact. Continue to deny it if it want. I dont care, I'm sleep deprived and not engaging anymore.

[RedHand88]

No I'm sorry but it is. Reducing every single candidate to an ussun or themmuns based on what community they are from and throwing a strop because other ussuns didn't row in behind you to get rid of themmuns is absolutely 100% trying to reduce the thing to a sectarian headcount.

The constitutional question was not on the ballot paper yesterday!

Neither did the ballot paper make any reference to religion or community. If you think unionists voting for unionist parties isn't based on their unionism, but just on sectarianism, or that people voting for republican/nationalist parties has nothing to do with them holding republican/nationalists views, then, again you're arrogantly talking through your hoop.

I've never voted for a republican candidate because said candidate wasn't a unionist, but because they were republican and as such best represented my legitimate repubican politics. That's not sectarianism. Ditto for those who vote unionist candidates.

Some folk just like to think they are somehow 'above' the constituional debate and take pleasure in slapping a "sectarian" label on absolutely everyone who is excercised by it.

If you really think this you are deluded.

What percentage of people attend mass these days? I highly doubt its anywhere near the 40% who voted for Nationalist parties so where are all these sectarian voters coming from? I'm a Republican with absolutely no faith but been boxed off as "Catholic" simply because of the way this place is, I don't know anyone my age who attends mass other than funerals, weddings etc who go out and vote on constitutional lines because it's a legitimate aspiration,nothing to do with the religion they were brought up in, times have changed and you need to move on

Religion has nothing to do with it. I have no idea what mass has to do with anything. Sectarianism is not synomonous with religion.

[marty34]

This 'debate' was starred by a few who stated it was about a sectarian headcount.

I merely stated that some parties stood aside (SF) and other didn't (SDLP) in order to/not to give progressive candiates chance to get elected.

I never mentioned religion.  It was brought up by others - a lazy narrative.

The same peope on here who pontificate about the SDLP being very noble in standing in every area and spoof about how that's democracy YET can't answer the questio:

Did the SDLP set aside in NB the last time?

Hyprocites! 

[marty34]

The cherry on top of this election had to be the odious George Galloway losing his seat.

He didn't even have the dignity or humility to attend the count and scurried off to lick his huge wounded ego.

Seems no length since he won the seat, must have made a great impression on the locals in his short time.

Easier to make an impact in a by-election.