I know there were huge differences etc when the military campaign was in progress but surely since that has been abandoned there is no good reason for the two parties not to co operate politically for the sake of maximising the power of the nationalist vote, keeping the West of the Bann green and ensuring three of the four Belfast seats at Westminister are occupied by nationalists.
In fact I would argue that it is an imperative given the likelihood of a hung parliament in the forthcoming Westminster Election, where unionists are likely to hold sway and ring concessions not to the benefit of nationalists.
Who gives a fcuk about returning people to Westminster? It''s nothing but a soft retirement plan for career politicians like Mark Durkan and Eddie McGrady. At least let them fight for their pension plans.
I hear what you are saying, but if its a hung parliament, I would be of the opinion that the less Unionist votes the majority party (whoever that may be) has to rely on to retain power, the better, and that can only be achieved if there are more seats occupied by nationalists.
Remember when the UUP held Major to ransom for years as he relied on their votes and it meant that the peace process never really got underway until Blair became PM with a huge majority of his own
Electoral pacts are wrong in my eyes. Doesn't matter who's doing it.
Quote from: ziggysego on February 12, 2010, 12:56:03 PM
Electoral pacts are wrong in my eyes. Doesn't matter who's doing it.
Why? Surely in a sectarian headcount it is better to have more of us than them?
Quote from: Trevor Hill on February 12, 2010, 01:00:22 PM
Quote from: ziggysego on February 12, 2010, 12:56:03 PM
Electoral pacts are wrong in my eyes. Doesn't matter who's doing it.
Why? Surely in a sectarian headcount it is better to have more of us than them?
I'd for one would like to move away from sectarian politics. Sinn Fein are moving away from that and so are the UUP. DUP are still scared of the TUV and the SDLP are going nowhere.
The only 3 things that keeps the two parties separate is stubborness, pride and policies.
If you can get rid of the first two and agree on the third then Bob's your uncle.
Simples.
I too would like to move away from sectarian politics, but we live in an artificial statelet founded on an immoral and undemocratic sectarian headcount, therefore the only way to get rid of sectarian politics is to make sure that the advocates of the maintenance of this state have as little political influence as possible and I would suggest that this can only be achieved via an electoral pact.
The alternative is to have nationalist constituencies misrepresented by the likes of Arlene Foster, for you can be sure, the so called unionist family can set aside its differences and animosities and rally round to keep taigs out.
In any case don't Sinn Fein (eg Billy Leonard) and the SDLP have protestant membership? So calling for an electoral pact between them is not sectarian
Quote from: ziggysego on February 12, 2010, 01:05:21 PM
Quote from: Trevor Hill on February 12, 2010, 01:00:22 PM
Quote from: ziggysego on February 12, 2010, 12:56:03 PM
Electoral pacts are wrong in my eyes. Doesn't matter who's doing it.
Why? Surely in a sectarian headcount it is better to have more of us than them?
I'd for one would like to move away from sectarian politics. Sinn Fein are moving away from that and so are the UUP. DUP are still scared of the TUV and the SDLP are going nowhere.
What planet do you live on? ::)
Earth ;D
It ain't perfect yet, but moving in the right direction.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 12, 2010, 12:44:05 PM
I know there were huge differences etc when the military campaign was in progress but surely since that has been abandoned there is no good reason for the two parties not to co operate politically for the sake of maximising the power of the nationalist vote, keeping the West of the Bann green and ensuring three of the four Belfast seats at Westminister are occupied by nationalists.
In fact I would argue that it is an imperative given the likelihood of a hung parliament in the forthcoming Westminster Election, where unionists are likely to hold sway and ring concessions not to the benefit of nationalists.
That would commit the good people in the north to Orange and Green politics for another 20 years getting us nowhere. If the Unionists want to do it for cheap nationalistic and electoral success reasons then let them at it but it would be wrong to add to it.
Catch 22 situation. The redundant politcial philsophy of unionism (which in itself is sectarian given that its based on a loyalty to the English Crown for as long as that crown remains protestant) needs to be defeated, politcially of course. I would suggest that allowing a unionist pact to succeed at the expense of a nationalist pact, thus increasing unionist influence way beyond its numerical strength, will in fact perpetuate sectarian politics, as it has done for 8o years.
Anyone who lives here or who nows anything about life here, that expects unionist to divest itself of its sectarian nature is living in cloud cuckoo land
whats that picture you have up Trevor?
Isn't it a picture of Fearon in Dubai? :D
Quote from: T Fearon on February 12, 2010, 02:15:02 PM
I too would like to move away from sectarian politics, but we live in an artificial statelet founded on an immoral and undemocratic sectarian headcount, therefore the only way to get rid of sectarian politics is to make sure that the advocates of the maintenance of this state have as little political influence as possible and I would suggest that this can only be achieved via an electoral pact.
The alternative is to have nationalist constituencies misrepresented by the likes of Arlene Foster, for you can be sure, the so called unionist family can set aside its differences and animosities and rally round to keep taigs out.
In any case don't Sinn Fein (eg Billy Leonard) and the SDLP have protestant membership? So calling for an electoral pact between them is not sectarian
Wow, Billy Leonard is a Prod. I know a Prod SDLP man. How many prods do you reckon vote for either of them?
Quote from: gallsman on February 12, 2010, 05:57:44 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on February 12, 2010, 02:15:02 PM
I too would like to move away from sectarian politics, but we live in an artificial statelet founded on an immoral and undemocratic sectarian headcount, therefore the only way to get rid of sectarian politics is to make sure that the advocates of the maintenance of this state have as little political influence as possible and I would suggest that this can only be achieved via an electoral pact.
The alternative is to have nationalist constituencies misrepresented by the likes of Arlene Foster, for you can be sure, the so called unionist family can set aside its differences and animosities and rally round to keep taigs out.
In any case don't Sinn Fein (eg Billy Leonard) and the SDLP have protestant membership? So calling for an electoral pact between them is not sectarian
Wow, Billy Leonard is a Prod. I know a Prod SDLP man. How many prods do you reckon vote for either of them?
You are a grumpy bastid the day gallsman, you need to relax before you hurt yourself.
Quote from: Ulick on February 12, 2010, 12:48:48 PM
Who gives a fcuk about returning people to Westminster? It''s nothing but a soft retirement plan for career politicians like Mark Durkan and Eddie McGrady. At least let them fight for their pension plans.
The who do SF run in the Westminster elections at all? Why do they spend significant resource on such elections?
If it's just for 'career politicians', why not give the SDLP a free run?
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 12, 2010, 06:40:10 PM
Quote from: Ulick on February 12, 2010, 12:48:48 PM
Who gives a fcuk about returning people to Westminster? It''s nothing but a soft retirement plan for career politicians like Mark Durkan and Eddie McGrady. At least let them fight for their pension plans.
The who do SF run in the Westminster elections at all? Why do they spend significant resource on such elections?
If it's just for 'career politicians', why not give the SDLP a free run?
a free run to do what?? they had a free run for years and were content with the status quo.
Quote from: charlieTully on February 12, 2010, 06:51:29 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 12, 2010, 06:40:10 PM
Quote from: Ulick on February 12, 2010, 12:48:48 PM
Who gives a fcuk about returning people to Westminster? It''s nothing but a soft retirement plan for career politicians like Mark Durkan and Eddie McGrady. At least let them fight for their pension plans.
The who do SF run in the Westminster elections at all? Why do they spend significant resource on such elections?
If it's just for 'career politicians', why not give the SDLP a free run?
a free run to do what?? they had a free run for years and were content with the status quo.
How do you work that one out?
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 12, 2010, 06:55:53 PM
Quote from: charlieTully on February 12, 2010, 06:51:29 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 12, 2010, 06:40:10 PM
Quote from: Ulick on February 12, 2010, 12:48:48 PM
Who gives a fcuk about returning people to Westminster? It''s nothing but a soft retirement plan for career politicians like Mark Durkan and Eddie McGrady. At least let them fight for their pension plans.
The who do SF run in the Westminster elections at all? Why do they spend significant resource on such elections?
If it's just for 'career politicians', why not give the SDLP a free run?
a free run to do what?? they had a free run for years and were content with the status quo.
How do you work that one out?
they are yes men, do what they are bid and take their handout like good wee boys.
Quote from: charlieTully on February 12, 2010, 07:15:48 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 12, 2010, 06:55:53 PM
Quote from: charlieTully on February 12, 2010, 06:51:29 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 12, 2010, 06:40:10 PM
Quote from: Ulick on February 12, 2010, 12:48:48 PM
Who gives a fcuk about returning people to Westminster? It''s nothing but a soft retirement plan for career politicians like Mark Durkan and Eddie McGrady. At least let them fight for their pension plans.
The who do SF run in the Westminster elections at all? Why do they spend significant resource on such elections?
If it's just for 'career politicians', why not give the SDLP a free run?
a free run to do what?? they had a free run for years and were content with the status quo.
How do you work that one out?
they are yes men, do what they are bid and take their handout like good wee boys.
I see you're well equipped for a mature debate.
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 12, 2010, 07:20:14 PM
Quote from: charlieTully on February 12, 2010, 07:15:48 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 12, 2010, 06:55:53 PM
Quote from: charlieTully on February 12, 2010, 06:51:29 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 12, 2010, 06:40:10 PM
Quote from: Ulick on February 12, 2010, 12:48:48 PM
Who gives a fcuk about returning people to Westminster? It''s nothing but a soft retirement plan for career politicians like Mark Durkan and Eddie McGrady. At least let them fight for their pension plans.
The who do SF run in the Westminster elections at all? Why do they spend significant resource on such elections?
If it's just for 'career politicians', why not give the SDLP a free run?
a free run to do what?? they had a free run for years and were content with the status quo.
How do you work that one out?
they are yes men, do what they are bid and take their handout like good wee boys.
I see you're well equipped for a mature debate.
were you actually serious with your free run comment, i took it to be in obvious jest? why would sf give a helping hand to their pollitical opponents, would it not be best for nationalism for the sdlp to disband completly and give sf a free run, is there really a need for the sdlp anymore?
You do realise Charlie the SDLP, regardless of what you think of them, represent a fair section of people. Should they have no political representation?
Quote from: charlieTully on February 12, 2010, 07:36:24 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 12, 2010, 07:20:14 PM
Quote from: charlieTully on February 12, 2010, 07:15:48 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 12, 2010, 06:55:53 PM
Quote from: charlieTully on February 12, 2010, 06:51:29 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 12, 2010, 06:40:10 PM
Quote from: Ulick on February 12, 2010, 12:48:48 PM
Who gives a fcuk about returning people to Westminster? It''s nothing but a soft retirement plan for career politicians like Mark Durkan and Eddie McGrady. At least let them fight for their pension plans.
The who do SF run in the Westminster elections at all? Why do they spend significant resource on such elections?
If it's just for 'career politicians', why not give the SDLP a free run?
a free run to do what?? they had a free run for years and were content with the status quo.
How do you work that one out?
they are yes men, do what they are bid and take their handout like good wee boys.
I see you're well equipped for a mature debate.
were you actually serious with your free run comment, i took it to be in obvious jest? why would sf give a helping hand to their pollitical opponents, would it not be best for nationalism for the sdlp to disband completly and give sf a free run, is there really a need for the sdlp anymore?
There will always be a place for the SDLP as there is a sizeable amount of the population who will never ever vote for murderers or those who colluded with them
Quote from: charlieTully on February 12, 2010, 07:36:24 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 12, 2010, 07:20:14 PM
Quote from: charlieTully on February 12, 2010, 07:15:48 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 12, 2010, 06:55:53 PM
Quote from: charlieTully on February 12, 2010, 06:51:29 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 12, 2010, 06:40:10 PM
Quote from: Ulick on February 12, 2010, 12:48:48 PM
Who gives a fcuk about returning people to Westminster? It''s nothing but a soft retirement plan for career politicians like Mark Durkan and Eddie McGrady. At least let them fight for their pension plans.
The who do SF run in the Westminster elections at all? Why do they spend significant resource on such elections?
If it's just for 'career politicians', why not give the SDLP a free run?
a free run to do what?? they had a free run for years and were content with the status quo.
How do you work that one out?
they are yes men, do what they are bid and take their handout like good wee boys.
I see you're well equipped for a mature debate.
were you actually serious with your free run comment, i took it to be in obvious jest? why would sf give a helping hand to their pollitical opponents, would it not be best for nationalism for the sdlp to disband completly and give sf a free run, is there really a need for the sdlp anymore?
There's more than one shade of green Charlie, as there is of orange. There'll always be a place for SDLP, as there will be for Sinn Fein, UUP, DUP, Alliance and PUP.
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on February 12, 2010, 07:42:22 PM
Quote from: charlieTully on February 12, 2010, 07:36:24 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 12, 2010, 07:20:14 PM
Quote from: charlieTully on February 12, 2010, 07:15:48 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 12, 2010, 06:55:53 PM
Quote from: charlieTully on February 12, 2010, 06:51:29 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 12, 2010, 06:40:10 PM
Quote from: Ulick on February 12, 2010, 12:48:48 PM
Who gives a fcuk about returning people to Westminster? It''s nothing but a soft retirement plan for career politicians like Mark Durkan and Eddie McGrady. At least let them fight for their pension plans.
The who do SF run in the Westminster elections at all? Why do they spend significant resource on such elections?
If it's just for 'career politicians', why not give the SDLP a free run?
a free run to do what?? they had a free run for years and were content with the status quo.
How do you work that one out?
they are yes men, do what they are bid and take their handout like good wee boys.
I see you're well equipped for a mature debate.
were you actually serious with your free run comment, i took it to be in obvious jest? why would sf give a helping hand to their pollitical opponents, would it not be best for nationalism for the sdlp to disband completly and give sf a free run, is there really a need for the sdlp anymore?
There will always be a place for the SDLP as there is a sizeable amount of the population who will never ever vote for murderers or those who colluded with them
thats an amount that is getting less and less with each election. the people have spoken. move on gentlemen, the place for you now is whinging on the sidelines. you have had your chance, you failed. accept it. as for the murderers quip, wise up ffs. Are Irishmen not entitled to take up arms when being burnt out of our houses and interned in our thousands. thats the exact sort of comment that just sums of the sdlp mentality. you are a disgrace to your county ardmhachaabu.
Quote from: charlieTully on February 12, 2010, 08:01:46 PM
thats an amount that is getting less and less with each election. the people have spoken. move on gentlemen, the place for you now is whinging on the sidelines. you have had your chance, you failed. accept it. as for the murderers quip, wise up ffs. Are Irishmen not entitled to take up arms and bomb chip shops/town squares/Omagh when being burnt out of our houses and interned in our thousands. thats the exact sort of comment that just sums of the sdlp mentality. you are a disgrace to your county ardmhachaabu.
Fixed that for you.
Quote from: charlieTully on February 12, 2010, 07:36:24 PM
would it not be best for nationalism for the sdlp to disband completly and give sf a free run, is there really a need for the sdlp anymore?
Yes an unopposed nationalist party is what we need, that would work perfect. Bolshevik.
Tony, you've fairly changed your tune haven't you? You used to be stoop this and stoop that. You're in danger of not being seen as the true republican you know yourself to be!
Stew, I'm just grumpy full stop.
Quote from: charlieTully on February 12, 2010, 08:01:46 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on February 12, 2010, 07:42:22 PM
Quote from: charlieTully on February 12, 2010, 07:36:24 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 12, 2010, 07:20:14 PM
Quote from: charlieTully on February 12, 2010, 07:15:48 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 12, 2010, 06:55:53 PM
Quote from: charlieTully on February 12, 2010, 06:51:29 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 12, 2010, 06:40:10 PM
Quote from: Ulick on February 12, 2010, 12:48:48 PM
Who gives a fcuk about returning people to Westminster? It''s nothing but a soft retirement plan for career politicians like Mark Durkan and Eddie McGrady. At least let them fight for their pension plans.
The who do SF run in the Westminster elections at all? Why do they spend significant resource on such elections?
If it's just for 'career politicians', why not give the SDLP a free run?
a free run to do what?? they had a free run for years and were content with the status quo.
How do you work that one out?
they are yes men, do what they are bid and take their handout like good wee boys.
I see you're well equipped for a mature debate.
were you actually serious with your free run comment, i took it to be in obvious jest? why would sf give a helping hand to their pollitical opponents, would it not be best for nationalism for the sdlp to disband completly and give sf a free run, is there really a need for the sdlp anymore?
There will always be a place for the SDLP as there is a sizeable amount of the population who will never ever vote for murderers or those who colluded with them
thats an amount that is getting less and less with each election. the people have spoken. move on gentlemen, the place for you now is whinging on the sidelines. you have had your chance, you failed. accept it. as for the murderers quip, wise up ffs. Are Irishmen not entitled to take up arms when being burnt out of our houses and interned in our thousands. thats the exact sort of comment that just sums of the sdlp mentality. you are a disgrace to your county ardmhachaabu.
Irishmen are entitled to defend themselves and their families, but they are not entitled to attack people by firebombing their homes in the middle of the night or by placing bombs under cars in the middle of the night
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on February 12, 2010, 08:28:40 PM
Quote from: charlieTully on February 12, 2010, 08:01:46 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on February 12, 2010, 07:42:22 PM
Quote from: charlieTully on February 12, 2010, 07:36:24 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 12, 2010, 07:20:14 PM
Quote from: charlieTully on February 12, 2010, 07:15:48 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 12, 2010, 06:55:53 PM
Quote from: charlieTully on February 12, 2010, 06:51:29 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 12, 2010, 06:40:10 PM
Quote from: Ulick on February 12, 2010, 12:48:48 PM
Who gives a fcuk about returning people to Westminster? It''s nothing but a soft retirement plan for career politicians like Mark Durkan and Eddie McGrady. At least let them fight for their pension plans.
The who do SF run in the Westminster elections at all? Why do they spend significant resource on such elections?
If it's just for 'career politicians', why not give the SDLP a free run?
a free run to do what?? they had a free run for years and were content with the status quo.
How do you work that one out?
they are yes men, do what they are bid and take their handout like good wee boys.
I see you're well equipped for a mature debate.
were you actually serious with your free run comment, i took it to be in obvious jest? why would sf give a helping hand to their pollitical opponents, would it not be best for nationalism for the sdlp to disband completly and give sf a free run, is there really a need for the sdlp anymore?
There will always be a place for the SDLP as there is a sizeable amount of the population who will never ever vote for murderers or those who colluded with them
thats an amount that is getting less and less with each election. the people have spoken. move on gentlemen, the place for you now is whinging on the sidelines. you have had your chance, you failed. accept it. as for the murderers quip, wise up ffs. Are Irishmen not entitled to take up arms when being burnt out of our houses and interned in our thousands. thats the exact sort of comment that just sums of the sdlp mentality. you are a disgrace to your county ardmhachaabu.
Irishmen are entitled to defend themselves and their families, but they are not entitled to attack people by firebombing their homes in the middle of the night or by placing bombs under cars in the middle of the night
Who are you referring to?
Work it out for yourself
And if it wasn't for the armed campaign the british government would not have sat and talked ardmhaca. Your post on the need for the SDLP typifies what I have said before about them. They have no vision and no reason for their existance other than to throw abuse at SF. They are a confused party.
Quote from: Nally Stand on February 12, 2010, 09:07:22 PM
And if it wasn't for the armed campaign the british government would not have sat and talked ardmhaca. Your post on the need for the SDLP typifies what I have said before about them. They have no vision and no reason for their existance other than to throw abuse at SF. They are a confused party.
You are a confused person nally if you think the shinners are right in everything which is what you seem to do, so for you to criticise the SDLP when they have stood upo to SF all through the years
I don't care who wins elections as long as isn't unionists of any hue.
I'm not confused in the slightest. The SDLP can't even decide if they're nationalist or post nationalist ffs. And when SF proposed in 13 councils that these councils press the Dublin Govn to be more proactive in developing All Ireland strategies, only two got full SDLP support, the rest either got a split SDLP vote, SDLP members abstaining, SDLP refusing to attend etc. How is that not confusion??
Quote from: charlieTully on February 12, 2010, 07:36:24 PM
would it not be best for nationalism for the sdlp to disband completly and give sf a free run, is there really a need for the sdlp anymore?
What an idiotic comment.
Regardless of your opinion, the SDLP represent 15/16% of the population here (roughly the same as SF in 1997) and 40% of the Nationalist vote. That's 40% that doesn't want to vote for SF (and a significant proportion of those who wouldn't vote for SF even if the SDLP did disband). It's called democracy. Clearly there is a need.
And if you don't understand the implications of discounting / not respecting the place of minorities, you probably shouldn't be discussing northern politics at all.
Quote from: Nally Stand on February 12, 2010, 09:07:22 PM
They have no vision and no reason for their existance other than to throw abuse at SF. They are a confused party.
A lot of people disagree.
A lot of people disagree? So what? Search the world and i'm sure you'll find people that think the earth's flat. You also suggest the SDLP would want nothing to do with SF. Ever think of it the other way round? Why would SF want to be associated with a dying party, who define themselves as Post Nationalist, and who are as confused about what they are about as my last post demonstrates?
Quote from: Nally Stand on February 13, 2010, 02:02:28 AM
A lot of people disagree? So what? Search the world and i'm sure you'll find people that think the earth's flat. You also suggest the SDLP would want nothing to do with SF. Ever think of it the other way round? Why would SF want to be associated with a dying party, who define themselves as Post Nationalist, and who are as confused about what they are about as my last post demonstrates?
I suggested that a proportion of the SDLP's
voters would never
vote for SF. Although i'd imagine the party would be in a similar position. And I never suggested that SF and/or their voters wouldn't feel the same way. But this thread was started by someone on the SF side of the fence.
Fair enough, just saying it as I see it
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on February 12, 2010, 08:55:47 PM
Work it out for yourself
No, you said that Sinn Fein elected politicians were murderers, and i think it is only fair you tell us who you are referring to. Or did you just mean they all are?
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 12, 2010, 11:50:07 PM
Quote from: charlieTully on February 12, 2010, 07:36:24 PM
would it not be best for nationalism for the sdlp to disband completly and give sf a free run, is there really a need for the sdlp anymore?
What an idiotic comment.
Regardless of your opinion, the SDLP represent 15/16% of the population here (roughly the same as SF in 1997) and 40% of the Nationalist vote. That's 40% that doesn't want to vote for SF (and a significant proportion of those who wouldn't vote for SF even if the SDLP did disband). It's called democracy. Clearly there is a need.
And if you don't understand the implications of discounting / not respecting the place of minorities, you probably shouldn't be discussing northern politics at all.
it was as idioitic as the post i replied to saying sf should stand aside and give the sdlp a free run at westminster elections. read the whole thing you dick before you start your slabbering.
Quote from: charlieTully on February 13, 2010, 12:04:41 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 12, 2010, 11:50:07 PM
Quote from: charlieTully on February 12, 2010, 07:36:24 PM
would it not be best for nationalism for the sdlp to disband completly and give sf a free run, is there really a need for the sdlp anymore?
What an idiotic comment.
Regardless of your opinion, the SDLP represent 15/16% of the population here (roughly the same as SF in 1997) and 40% of the Nationalist vote. That's 40% that doesn't want to vote for SF (and a significant proportion of those who wouldn't vote for SF even if the SDLP did disband). It's called democracy. Clearly there is a need.
And if you don't understand the implications of discounting / not respecting the place of minorities, you probably shouldn't be discussing northern politics at all.
it was as idioitic as the post i replied to saying sf should stand aside and give the sdlp a free run at westminster elections. read the whole thing you dick before you start your slabbering.
Do keep up (and "read the whole thing"). My ref to SF standing aside was inspired by Ulick's post about the Westminster elections:
Quote from: Ulick on February 12, 2010, 12:48:48 PM
Who gives a fcuk about returning people to Westminster? It''s nothing but a soft retirement plan for career politicians like Mark Durkan and Eddie McGrady.
And once you've resorted to name-calling, you've lost the argument.
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 13, 2010, 02:41:58 PM
And once you've resorted to name-calling, you've lost the argument.
Who's name calling? I'm just stating fact as illustrated by Durkan's pathetic retirement last weekend. Only he isn't retiring he's going to continue with his soft Westminster job, continue to pick his pay cheque plus expenses for doing next to fcuk all. All the while knowing fine well if he really want to do something for his constituency the real work is to be done closer to home. Same goes for the invisible McGrady and his plush hotel suites.
lost the argument, i dont think so. my party make the decisions, yours feeds of the scraps from our table.
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 13, 2010, 02:41:58 PM
And once you've resorted to name-calling, you've lost the argument.
It's the Goodwin Law. Once someone is called Hitler in an on-line argument, the argument should stop there.
Quote from: Ulick on February 13, 2010, 02:51:13 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 13, 2010, 02:41:58 PM
And once you've resorted to name-calling, you've lost the argument.
Who's name calling?
I was referring to Charlie.
Judging by the way this thread has degenerated into a Stoops V Shinners slagging match, which probably epitomises the general state of the relationship between both parties, I suppose this puts paid to the prospect of any pact
Quote from: charlieTully on February 13, 2010, 03:39:47 PM
lost the argument, i dont think so. my party make the decisions, yours feeds of the scraps from our table.
I don't have a party. My views might be more closely aligned to some than others, but have no particular loyalty towards any.
Although i'd be interested to hear what "the decisions" are...
And what "the scraps" are...
They're both shit.
All Sinn Fein elected reps at all levels earn the average industrial wage and the rest is donated to the party Trevor
Course they do ;) What about all those Westminster expenses, where do they go? Its strange that a party that used to aspire to a United Ireland can claim expenses for their offices at Westminster. Why do they need an office in the first place when they refuse to take their seats and represent the people who voted for them in the first place. And don't come out with the usual abstentionist bullshit, they have no problem taking their seats in Stormont, which after all is still a British parliament.
All the discussion about electoral pacts does is highlight the inequity of the "first past the post" system. I wouldn't be in favour of them, nor a single Nationalist party as having been in a political party myself it can be hard enough to find a party that your ideology can live with without limiting the options even further. The way the Westminster system operates electoral pacts, or at the very least community tactical voting, will always bubble under the surface.
Firstly they still use Westminster facilities and resources to represent their constituents. People seem happy enough with this as they continue to vote SF in droves. Secondly, since when did an oath of allegiance to the british monarchy become part of taking your seat in the assembly?
Quote from: Nally Stand on February 13, 2010, 11:18:50 PM
All Sinn Fein elected reps at all levels earn the average industrial wage and the rest is donated to the party Trevor
Never believed that one. How can Gerry afford a holiday gaff in Donegal?
Quote from: Nally Stand on February 13, 2010, 11:18:50 PM
All Sinn Fein elected reps at all levels earn the average industrial wage and the rest is donated to the party Trevor
From an outsider's perspective, I don't see the relevance in this. It would be different if they took an industrial wage and handed the rest back. As it is, it doesn't seem like any great deed.
Although out of interest, what constitutes "an industrial wage" these days?
Quote from: Gaffer on February 14, 2010, 09:49:11 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on February 13, 2010, 11:18:50 PM
All Sinn Fein elected reps at all levels earn the average industrial wage and the rest is donated to the party Trevor
Never believed that one. How can Gerry afford a holiday gaff in Donegal?
He also has one in Monaghan and one in Kerry
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on February 14, 2010, 10:05:19 AM
Quote from: Gaffer on February 14, 2010, 09:49:11 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on February 13, 2010, 11:18:50 PM
All Sinn Fein elected reps at all levels earn the average industrial wage and the rest is donated to the party Trevor
Never believed that one. How can Gerry afford a holiday gaff in Donegal?
He also has one in Monaghan and one in Kerry
The industrial sector must be doing better than the news would suggest.
Quote from: Nally Stand on February 13, 2010, 11:18:50 PM
All Sinn Fein elected reps at all levels earn the average industrial wage and the rest is donated to the party Trevor
Ah, the stock SF answer about how holy their MPs are.
Didn't stop them claiming for an apartment and house in London though, even though they don't take their seats, did it?
Gallsman, it's the stock answer because it's the truth strangely enough. They have expenses for accomodation in london because they still make use of facilities and attend meetings in Westminster in their capacity as MPs. As for Adams' holiday home, he's one member. If they were all taking massive pay checks they'd all own holiday homes. Don't forget that Gerry has written books which have prob earned him a tidy fortune. Enough people bought them so fair play to him.
Ps Gallsman, is your indignance solely for SF or would you not think that the SDLP track record is something of interest? Eddie McGrady only stayed in luxury hotels in London and in one year cost the taxpayer £17000 on such luxury hotel rooms, and in one eight night stay, cost the taxpayer £2570 in his expenses on only food, laundry and phone calls. Almost £2000 of this was on food alone. You couldn't do it if you tried.
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 14, 2010, 10:06:56 AM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on February 14, 2010, 10:05:19 AM
Quote from: Gaffer on February 14, 2010, 09:49:11 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on February 13, 2010, 11:18:50 PM
All Sinn Fein elected reps at all levels earn the average industrial wage and the rest is donated to the party Trevor
Never believed that one. How can Gerry afford a holiday gaff in Donegal?
He also has one in Monaghan and one in Kerry
The industrial sector must be doing better than the news would suggest.
Might have something to do with the books he was wrote. I'd be surprised if anyone here dislikes sinn fein more than me but if you're going to bash do it for a real reason. Shite talk for the sake of it is annoying.
Quote from: Nally Stand on February 14, 2010, 10:59:19 AM
Ps Gallsman, is your indignance solely for SF or would you not think that the SDLP track record is something of interest? Eddie McGrady only stayed in luxury hotels in London and in one year cost the taxpayer £17000 on such luxury hotel rooms, and in one eight night stay, cost the taxpayer £2570 in his expenses on only food, laundry and phone calls. Almost £2000 of this was on food alone. You couldn't do it if you tried.
You were talking about SF, so I pointed out that the holier than thou attitude was somewhat misplaced.
Why have they now given up the two properties if they didn't feel somewhat guilty or embarrassed about the whole furore?
Well I've just raised the issue of SDLP expenses so by your logic then, you should also have acknowledged that and responded. On the two flats (not house & apt galls), don't forget that they were two flats which were shared among 5 MPs and also doubled as staffed offices. Makes Eddie's bill sound even more staggering. Also, unlike Eddie et al, SF MPs don't even get paid for their work as MPs because they don't sit in sessions, even though they do all their associated work. They should have kept the flats.
Quote from: Nally Stand on February 14, 2010, 11:41:31 AM
Well I've just raised the issue of SDLP expenses so by your logic then, you should also have acknowledged that and responded. On the two flats, don't forget that they were two flats which were shared among 5 MPs and also doubled as staffed offices. Makes Eddie's bill sound even more staggering. Also, unlike Eddie et al, SF MPs don't even get paid for their work as MPs because they don't sit in sessions, even though they do all their associated work. They should have kept the flats.
Unfortunately, your logic appears to be a load of bollocks. You've been on this thread voicing support for Sinn Fein and criticising the SDLP. I have neither voiced support or criticised either party. I'm simply pointing out that where you openly criticise the SDLP, you reuse to acknowledge that SF has or has had in the same areas.
Logic safe enough for you there?
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 14, 2010, 11:16:14 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 14, 2010, 10:06:56 AM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on February 14, 2010, 10:05:19 AM
Quote from: Gaffer on February 14, 2010, 09:49:11 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on February 13, 2010, 11:18:50 PM
All Sinn Fein elected reps at all levels earn the average industrial wage and the rest is donated to the party Trevor
Never believed that one. How can Gerry afford a holiday gaff in Donegal?
He also has one in Monaghan and one in Kerry
The industrial sector must be doing better than the news would suggest.
Might have something to do with the books he was wrote. I'd be surprised if anyone here dislikes sinn fein more than me but if you're going to bash do it for a real reason. Shite talk for the sake of it is annoying.
Eh?
But anyway, my comment on the industrial wage was tongue in cheek - I realise he has other sources of income; sure he's getting £10k for this religious programme he's doing for Channel 4.
And good for them if they want to live on an industrial wage, but to be honest,
if you're doing a good job as a politician, I have no problem with you earning the full amount. The average person on the industrial wage does standard hours and goes home; a lot of politicians do massive hours, including very unsociable ones, are never really 'off-call' and sacrifice a lot of family time - I don't really think the full salary is disproportionate.
You said you talked about Sinn Fein because that's what I was talking about. So I then I mentioned the SDLP expenses but you continue to criticise SF. Hence unlike you, I have referred to both parties on the subject. This is just another side show created by those desperate to bash SF about stupid tired arguments like Gerry Adams having a holiday home, without talking about this merger idea of the thread. As I already said, the SDLP are fundamentally confused on policy and this makes a merger a non starter.
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 14, 2010, 11:49:06 AM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 14, 2010, 11:16:14 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 14, 2010, 10:06:56 AM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on February 14, 2010, 10:05:19 AM
Quote from: Gaffer on February 14, 2010, 09:49:11 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on February 13, 2010, 11:18:50 PM
All Sinn Fein elected reps at all levels earn the average industrial wage and the rest is donated to the party Trevor
Never believed that one. How can Gerry afford a holiday gaff in Donegal?
He also has one in Monaghan and one in Kerry
The industrial sector must be doing better than the news would suggest.
Might have something to do with the books he was wrote. I'd be surprised if anyone here dislikes sinn fein more than me but if you're going to bash do it for a real reason. Shite talk for the sake of it is annoying.
Eh?
But anyway, my comment on the industrial wage was tongue in cheek - I realise he has other sources of income; sure he's getting £10k for this religious programme he's doing for Channel 4.
And good for them if they want to live on an industrial wage, but to be honest, if you're doing a good job as a politician, I have no problem with you earning the full amount. The average person on the industrial wage does standard hours and goes home; a lot of politicians do massive hours, including very unsociable ones, are never really 'off-call' and sacrifice a lot of family time - I don't really think the full salary is disproportionate.
typo, books he Has wrote.
I agree on that Maguire. They generally do more hours than almost any other profession out there.
Quote from: Nally Stand on February 14, 2010, 11:59:55 AM
You said you talked about Sinn Fein because that's what I was talking about. So I then I mentioned the SDLP expenses but you continue to criticise SF. Hence unlike you, I have referred to both parties on the subject. This is just another side show created by those desperate to bash SF about stupid tired arguments like Gerry Adams having a holiday home, without talking about this merger idea of the thread. As I already said, the SDLP are fundamentally confused on policy and this makes a merger a non starter.
As you're responding to me, I'll point out that I haven't attempted to "bash" SF in any way whatsoever. Everything I've pointed out is factual. I haven't "continued to criticise" SF at all, I've actually been referring to the same issue the whole time as you appear incapable of acknowledging it.
The point here is that you've been trumpeting SF around as the be all and end all of Nationalist politics whilst, in your words, "bashing" the SDLP. I'm simply pointing out that as a SF supporter, you might think twice before getting all high and mighty.
Quote from: Nally Stand on February 14, 2010, 10:59:19 AM
Ps Gallsman, is your indignance solely for SF or would you not think that the SDLP track record is something of interest? Eddie McGrady only stayed in luxury hotels in London and in one year cost the taxpayer £17000 on such luxury hotel rooms, and in one eight night stay, cost the taxpayer £2570 in his expenses on only food, laundry and phone calls. Almost £2000 of this was on food alone. You couldn't do it if you tried.
I have no problem in criticising this. Whatever about my opinion on salaries, such claims are taking the p*ss.
Although for the record, a quick google shows that the £17k of hotel bills covers a
4 year period. Sinn Fein were paying rent of £3,600
per month for one flat and £5400
per month for another flat, so let's read a bit more than just the big headline. Considering Conor Murphy admitted to only staying in his apartment once, i think it would have represented better value for money if he'd stayed in a plush hotel for the night!
Also, in the interests of accuracy, the excessive claim of £2570 was never paid (and 'only' £1562 was for food) - it doesn't take away from the fact that it should never have been submitted in the first place, but it's misleading to state that it "cost the taxpayer" when it didn't.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 14, 2010, 12:01:31 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 14, 2010, 11:49:06 AM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 14, 2010, 11:16:14 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 14, 2010, 10:06:56 AM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on February 14, 2010, 10:05:19 AM
Quote from: Gaffer on February 14, 2010, 09:49:11 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on February 13, 2010, 11:18:50 PM
All Sinn Fein elected reps at all levels earn the average industrial wage and the rest is donated to the party Trevor
Never believed that one. How can Gerry afford a holiday gaff in Donegal?
He also has one in Monaghan and one in Kerry
The industrial sector must be doing better than the news would suggest.
Might have something to do with the books he was wrote. I'd be surprised if anyone here dislikes sinn fein more than me but if you're going to bash do it for a real reason. Shite talk for the sake of it is annoying.
Eh?
But anyway, my comment on the industrial wage was tongue in cheek - I realise he has other sources of income; sure he's getting £10k for this religious programme he's doing for Channel 4.
And good for them if they want to live on an industrial wage, but to be honest, if you're doing a good job as a politician, I have no problem with you earning the full amount. The average person on the industrial wage does standard hours and goes home; a lot of politicians do massive hours, including very unsociable ones, are never really 'off-call' and sacrifice a lot of family time - I don't really think the full salary is disproportionate.
typo, books he Has wrote.
or books he has written.
:P
Ah whatever, I'm suffering from sleep deprivation and I haven't even got washed or dressed yet.
Firstly, you still you fail to discuss SDLP expenses strangely. Secondly, you haven't been totally factual, you took two flats and decided it sounded more shocking as a house and apartment. Or maybe i'm being unfair saying that and you just didn't know the facts? Finally, you haven't given me good reason to think twice re anything I've said. I base my arguments on facts. Not tired groundless accusations like those people saying SF lie about industrial wage as Adams has a holiday home. There are real issues.
Nally- How can you defend everything Sinn Fein does? There is like a sheep mentality with political parties here, that their membership just trundles along with every decision or move they make and defends them against every criticism. It ain't healthy. Either that or you're out it seems.
If i'm misled on that Maguire then fair enough. But don't forget how much wages the SF MPs have been denied despite working full time just because they don't sit in the debating chamber. Even despite this, these properties were still staffed offices with workers being paid a wage. And as for my costing the taxpayer remark, The fact that the expenses were not granted was not for the want of McGrady trying.
Quote from: Nally Stand on February 14, 2010, 12:15:27 PM
Firstly, you still you fail to discuss SDLP expenses strangely. Secondly, you haven't been totally factual, you took two flats and decided it sounded more shocking as a house and apartment. Or maybe i'm being unfair saying that and you just didn't know the facts?
I know you're not responding to me, and maybe you know more about the facts, but SF's accommodation expenses were widely reported as an apartment and a townhouse. See here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5301510/MPs-expenses-Sinn-Fein-claimed-500000-for-second-homes.html
Either way, given that we know how much they were paying in rent, I don't know why anyone would need to exaggerate the precise type of property.
Fox I don't defend everything they do or say however it seems hard to have a discussion on the wider topic of the thread without having to argue back with people who have no better arguments related to the thread than to attack SF over wages etc. I've tried numerous times to keep this discussion on track re discussing a merger but certain people just have an aye to grind with SF and rather than discuss the thread topic, just indulge in SF bashing over obscure details. For example i discussed with ardmhaca..
So is their anything they have done or decison they have taken regarding the talks, expenses, policing, Liam Adams... that you disagreed with :o
...about inconsistencies in the SDLP policy beliefs which I suggested would make a merge untenable. I provided an example of this by way of the SDLP's inconsistent voting on the same council proposal in 13 councils. Ardmhaca's belated reply was to complain about Gerry Adams having a holiday home.
I'm talking about SF and your, in my opinion, blinkered views of that party, not the SDLP. So why would I start commenting on the SDLP? What they did or did not do with regard to expenses is in no way related to what SF did.
This is getting simpler and simpler yet still you go on about SDLP expenses! Ffs like!
Quote from: Nally Stand on February 14, 2010, 12:21:55 PM
If i'm misled on that Maguire then fair enough. But don't forget how much wages the SF MPs have been denied despite working full time just because they don't sit in the debating chamber.
But let's be honest, they're
not working full time as MPs.
All are also MLAs; and three are
Ministers (including the dFM), which should be a full-time job in itself.
I know this isn't unique to SF, but they're not working full-time
as MPs. And surely sitting in the chamber is an important part of working full time as an MP, otherwise the TDs in the Dail wouldn't see the value of sitting there either. I fully understand why SF don't take their seats, but they
don't work full-time as MPs.
I disagree with plenty, and have often felt that until this round of negotiations, they have not stood up to the DUP on certain issues, like loyalist decommissioning. However that doesn't mean I'm not entitled to want to sensibly discuss why I don't feel the SDLP are a suitable partner. I still feel that SF best represent nationalism/republicanism.
Maguire, you know what I mean. SF MPs do the work of MPs but do not get paid. The SDLP have the lowest attendance record of any party in westminster and get paid. And galls, for the last time you said you were talking about SF because I was talking about them. Why does the same not apply for when I talk about the SDLP?
Quote from: Nally Stand on February 14, 2010, 12:41:10 PM
Maguire, you know what I mean. SF MPs do the work of MPs but do not get paid.
But read my post as to the reasons why they don't work full-time as MPs; why they
can't.
They still do the same workload as every other party's MPs yet don't get paid unlike everyone else.
Anyway it's tiresome discussing pedantic points like holiday homes, pay checks etc. Any chance we could get this thread back onto it's topic and away from such petty cheap shots over pay and holiday homes?
Quote from: Nally Stand on February 14, 2010, 12:46:12 PM
They still do the same workload as every other party's MPs yet don't get paid unlike everyone else.
This might be taking it off-track, but whilst they might do a big workload, if the average MP does even a paltry 8 hour day as an MP, how do the SF Ministers manage to do the same - as an MP - on top of running their department. They're already paid as MLAs/Ministers. Double-jobbing isn't an issue for nothing - and again, I know this isn't unique to SF (you also have the DUP, and if you go down to Councillor level, even more parties).
Quote from: Nally Stand on February 14, 2010, 12:48:55 PM
Anyway it's tiresome discussing pedantic points like holiday homes, pay checks etc. Any chance we could get this thread back onto it's topic and away from such petty cheap shots over pay and holiday homes?
Fair enough. There shouldn't be a pact because there's little enough choice as it is.
Quote from: Nally Stand on February 14, 2010, 12:02:36 PM
I agree on that Maguire. They generally do more hours than almost any other profession out there.
You mustn't have a real job then.
Quote from: trileacman on February 14, 2010, 01:05:07 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on February 14, 2010, 12:02:36 PM
I agree on that Maguire. They generally do more hours than almost any other profession out there.
You mustn't have a real job then.
How many hours do you work and what job do you do?
Quote from: Nally Stand on February 14, 2010, 12:41:10 PM
Maguire, you know what I mean. SF MPs do the work of MPs but do not get paid. The SDLP have the lowest attendance record of any party in westminster and get paid. And galls, for the last time you said you were talking about SF because I was talking about them. Why does the same not apply for when I talk about the SDLP?
Because I haven't made any statements about the value of the SDLP or their position within Irish politics.
Quote from: gallsman on February 14, 2010, 01:48:24 PM
Quote from: Nally Stand on February 14, 2010, 12:41:10 PM
Maguire, you know what I mean. SF MPs do the work of MPs but do not get paid. The SDLP have the lowest attendance record of any party in westminster and get paid. And galls, for the last time you said you were talking about SF because I was talking about them. Why does the same not apply for when I talk about the SDLP?
Because I haven't made any statements about the value of the SDLP or their position within Irish politics.
Jurassic Park!
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 14, 2010, 11:16:14 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 14, 2010, 10:06:56 AM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on February 14, 2010, 10:05:19 AM
Quote from: Gaffer on February 14, 2010, 09:49:11 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on February 13, 2010, 11:18:50 PM
All Sinn Fein elected reps at all levels earn the average industrial wage and the rest is donated to the party Trevor
Never believed that one. How can Gerry afford a holiday gaff in Donegal?
He also has one in Monaghan and one in Kerry
The industrial sector must be doing better than the news would suggest.
Might have something to do with the books he was wrote. I'd be surprised if anyone here dislikes sinn fein more than me but if you're going to bash do it for a real reason. Shite talk for the sake of it is annoying.
Nothing to do with any books pints, he has had those 3 homes since before he started to write
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on February 14, 2010, 05:28:02 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on February 14, 2010, 11:16:14 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 14, 2010, 10:06:56 AM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on February 14, 2010, 10:05:19 AM
Quote from: Gaffer on February 14, 2010, 09:49:11 AM
Quote from: Nally Stand on February 13, 2010, 11:18:50 PM
All Sinn Fein elected reps at all levels earn the average industrial wage and the rest is donated to the party Trevor
Never believed that one. How can Gerry afford a holiday gaff in Donegal?
He also has one in Monaghan and one in Kerry
The industrial sector must be doing better than the news would suggest.
Might have something to do with the books he was wrote. I'd be surprised if anyone here dislikes sinn fein more than me but if you're going to bash do it for a real reason. Shite talk for the sake of it is annoying.
Nothing to do with any books pints, he has had those 3 homes since before he started to write
I've never heard of him having the kerry or monaghan homes but the one in Donegal was after the books because I remember all the press on it at the time.
Spotlight or Panorama did a programme on his holiday homes before
Genuine question here - what is the rationale behind the SF reps only taking an industrial wage, and how does all of the extra earnings of some reps fit into that ideology?
Ffs it's impossible to get it back to the discussion here. Ardmhaca, if you are going to throw about accusations, back them up otherwise shut up. And anyway, you STILL haven't replied to my post on SDLP confusion across 13 councils when voting on the same motion as described several pages back.
P.s if you need reminding of the question you avoided, I'll ask again. When SF proposed, in 13 councils, that these councils press the Dublin Govn to be more proactive in developing All Ireland strategies, only two got full SDLP support, the rest either got a split SDLP vote, SDLP members abstaining, SDLP refusing to attend etc. How is that not confusion?
Quote from: Nally Stand on February 14, 2010, 08:17:09 PM
P.s if you need reminding of the question you avoided, I'll ask again. When SF proposed, in 13 councils, that these councils press the Dublin Govn to be more proactive in developing All Ireland strategies, only two got full SDLP support, the rest either got a split SDLP vote, SDLP members abstaining, SDLP refusing to attend etc. How is that not confusion?
I know you're not asking me, but it's not really that unusual to have different views and opinions within a party - look at most other political parties.
I don't know the detail of the example you've given - any links?
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 14, 2010, 06:14:42 PM
Genuine question here - what is the rationale behind the SF reps only taking an industrial wage, and how does all of the extra earnings of some reps fit into that ideology?
Are SF not supposed to be Marxists? So they earn as much as the man on the street.
I don't have a link off hand but will endeavour to provide one. The vote was to press the Dublin Gov to publish a Green Paper for Irish Unity, allow voting rights in the north for presidential elections, and to press for more All Ireland strategies from dublin. The stats for each councils votes are as follows: Limavady & Down- SDLP voted against. Derry- SDLP proposed amendment which failed so they voted against it. Dungannon & Moyle- 2 SDLP members voted in favour and rest abstained. Omagh-SDLP members...
...didn't even attend vote. Strabane & Belfast- SDLP proposed amendment. When it failed, they abstained from vote. Newry- SDLP amendment carried. Fermanagh- Full SDLP support. Armagh- Vote defeated by casting vote of the SDLP council chair. Coleraine- SDLP seconded motion. Magherafelt- SDLP proposed amendment which failed and they voted for orig proposal. Due to SDLP confusion, this motion, based on a fundamental principle of Irish Nationalism, failed in 8 out of 13 councils. Hardly a sign of strong...
...nationalist convictions. And I agree often parties can disagree internally, but it's pathetic that on a vote so intrinsically nationalist and All Ireland based, even their party whips could not encourage their membership to give their full support to it. How can this party be trusted to stand up for Irish Unity when even the idea of increased All Ireland strategies/co-operation is too much for them to handle?
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on February 14, 2010, 05:49:05 PM
Spotlight or Panorama did a programme on his holiday homes before
As you failed to reply a few pages back ill ask again, who are the elected murderers in SF you were referring to?
Ardmhaca avoids tough questions umpire
Quote from: dodgy umpire on February 15, 2010, 04:05:14 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on February 14, 2010, 05:49:05 PM
Spotlight or Panorama did a programme on his holiday homes before
As you failed to reply a few pages back ill ask again, who are the elected murderers in SF you were referring to?
Work it out for yourself since you seem to know so much about them
Welcome back ardmhaca. So how about my question? Does the record of the SDLP across the 13 councils outlined above not demonstrate a fundamental confusion at the heart of SDLP identity and policy?
Quote from: Nally Stand on February 15, 2010, 08:36:22 PM
Welcome back ardmhaca. So how about my question? Does the record of the SDLP across the 13 councils outlined above not demonstrate a fundamental confusion at the heart of SDLP identity and policy?
Not all political parties demonstrate a singular lack of ability to articulate political thoughts other than the party line, Maguire already told you that
SF lackeys are getting thicker by the minute it seems
BTW nally, I will ignore posts if I so choose and no SF lackey like you will make me do otherwise no matter how much you bleat and moan
You mean you refuse to reply when you don't have an answer. I already said parties should allow varying opinions, however, can't you accept that this council motion was something that anyone who calls themselves nationalist would WANT to support? Especially so because it is a motion in line with basic Irish nationalism and in line with the All Ireland strategies of the very Agreement which the SDLP claim to be the biggest supporters of. What specific reason would any SDLP member not support this motion?
I gave you my answer.
Seriously nally, if you can't read what people type, why bother?
I don't know why the SDLP would oppose any motion other than if it was an SF motion which was designed to create a commotion and get some lines in the media and a photo or 2
Then, in that case, I can see why they should have all opposed it.
Quote from: Nally Stand on February 15, 2010, 09:06:37 PM
can't you accept that this council motion was something that anyone who calls themselves nationalist would WANT to support?
There could be numerous reasons why other Nationalists wouldn't want to support this particular motion. I haven't read the detail of it myself, so I can't comment on the specifics of it - it would be interesting to read it and the proposed amendments but forward. At the end of the day SF and the SDLP both have their own UI strategies, so there's no reason why all should agree on one motion put forward by one of the parties.
Ardmhaca your post typifies the SDLP for me. They exist not to advance nationalism, but to attack Sinn Fein & to refer to one of your previous posts, to stand up to SF. When nationalists needed their rights defended, we needed a party to stand up to unionism. SF did this and did not spend their time on petty attacks on the SDLP. This motion was not about commotion, it was to send a strong united message to Dublin in the hope of tangible results. Mass confusion amongst SDLP members resulted in this failing.
Nally Stand,
On another thread you said that the SDLP and the UUP had a voting pact on the Omagh District Council. Did you ever find any of those votes to prove that?
And Maguire that to me is defending the indefensible. If the SDLP wished to be taken seriously, they could have come together and agreed upon an amendment across all councils which could have been backed by SF and carried with party co-operation. This only happened in Newry. The SDLP put bitterness for SF ahead of making advances for nationalism.
QuoteThey exist not to advance nationalism, but to attack Sinn Fein
The two are not mutually exclusive. Some of the carry on of Sinn Fein retards rather than advances the cause of a United Ireland.
Oakleaf, I demonstrated that for ten years they collaborated to keep SF from holding any key positions like they did several months ago in Newry. Is ten years of it not enough?
So ardmhaca, explain how SF attempting to get 13 councils to simultaneously press Dublin for All Ireland strategies could put back the cause of unity? And why the SDLP could not come up with a consistent alternative if they had a problem with this motion?
So ardmhaca, explain how SF attempting to get 13 councils to simultaneously press Dublin for All Ireland strategies could put back the cause of unity? And why the SDLP could not come up with a consistent alternative if they had a problem with this motion?
Quote from: Nally Stand on February 15, 2010, 10:53:04 PM
Oakleaf, I demonstrated that for ten years they collaborated to keep SF from holding any key positions like they did several months ago in Newry. Is ten years of it not enough?
No you didnt and I specifically asked you for any evidence of this, it wouldnt be that hard to get.
Well I did. And here's it again for the third time. For ten years they conspired with the UUP to keep SF elected reps from key positions to which they were entitled. If you want more evidence, I would contend that the motion I have been discussing for the last while here was possibly another example of SDLP unionist co operation. By the way, what is your opinion on the SDLP's record with this particular motion as outlined several pages back?
Quote from: Nally Stand on February 15, 2010, 10:58:12 PM
So ardmhaca, explain how SF attempting to get 13 councils to simultaneously press Dublin for All Ireland strategies could put back the cause of unity? And why the SDLP could not come up with a consistent alternative if they had a problem with this motion?
You, nally, are a SF moron and I won't be spending even one more second replying to you after this, no matter how many times you post stupid questions to me
Got that? Good.
Rite enough Nally, you are on a bit of a Sinn Fein crusade the last couple of days... loosen up man :)
Quote from: Nally Stand on February 15, 2010, 11:06:52 PM
Well I did. And here's it again for the third time. For ten years they conspired with the UUP to keep SF elected reps from key positions to which they were entitled. If you want more evidence, I would contend that the motion I have been discussing for the last while here was possibly another example of SDLP unionist co operation. By the way, what is your opinion on the SDLP's record with this particular motion as outlined several pages back?
Nally Stand,
Just because you say it doesnt make it so. I asked for specific evidence that the SDLP had a voting pact with the UUP on the Omagh District Council not your opinion. My opinion is that I have no party to represent me, every time I see the majority of SDLP representatives on the tv or hear them on the radio I fell nauseous and my feelings on SF wouldnt be any different.
You know what annoys me?... good socialists like Eamonn McCann and Bernadette McAliskey get scorned by the likes of SF and the SDLP like they are mad or something. They would know more about injustice, racism, work inequality, poverty etc than the two put together. SDLP are useless and SF V DUP is an green V orange headcount that has no plan to sort out real live social issues affecting both Catholics and Protestants... Dissidents have f** all to offer either. amen.
And you ardmhaca are an SDLP coward who is afraid to give me an answer. Can't be easy to defend the indefensible I suppose. Oakleaf, you give your opinion fair enough but it is my opinion that I gave. I contend that it is an unofficial pact therefor not written in evidence. Their actions however i feel justify my opinion. And finally Fox, i'm entitled to my view. Does my point about the council vote not carry direct relevance to the topic?
Quote from: Nally Stand on February 15, 2010, 11:27:49 PM
And you ardmhaca are an SDLP coward who is afraid to give me an answer. Can't be easy to defend the indefensible I suppose. Oakleaf, you give your opinion fair enough but it is my opinion that I gave. I contend that it is an unofficial pact therefor not written in evidence. Their actions however i feel justify my opinion. And finally Fox, i'm entitled to my view. Does my point about the council vote not carry direct relevance to the topic?
I know you are. It just seems like you are totally preoccupied with this the last few days. That's your perogative. I just missed your usual chilled out, happy-go-lucky attitude ::)
Quote from: Nally Stand on February 15, 2010, 11:27:49 PM
Oakleaf, you give your opinion fair enough but it is my opinion that I gave. I contend that it is an unofficial pact therefor not written in evidence. Their actions however i feel justify my opinion.
Nally Stand,
You stated it as a fact and not your opinion. If it has been going on for so long then I thought even one wee bit of proof wouldnt have been hard to produce. It doesnt really matter all that much to me either way but I was surprised by it thats all. I asked a very long serving SDLP representative, he landed to the door selling tickets, about it and he said it has never been the case.
It would be political suicide if he admited it. They took enough of a hit for admitting they are post nationalist. I think their ten years I referred to is evidence. Don't worry fox I'm always happy and cheery! I just stay loyal to the party who I feel stayed loyal to me and to my community most. I've only contempt for those that did not but still claim to be nationalist. Tell me a joke Fox :-D
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Agree one hundred percent Trevor. I'd also put forward another one. For those who understand, no explanation is needed; for those who don't understand, no explanation will be good enough. ;-) Maybe in your old age wisdom you could put your anti-republicanism aside for a quick second and explain to me why a party which calls themselves nationalist would oppose a council motion calling for All Ireland co-operation?
Quote from: Nally Stand on February 15, 2010, 11:50:57 PM
It would be political suicide if he admited it. They took enough of a hit for admitting they are post nationalist. I think their ten years I referred to is evidence. Don't worry fox I'm always happy and cheery! I just stay loyal to the party who I feel stayed loyal to me and to my community most. I've only contempt for those that did not but still claim to be nationalist. Tell me a joke Fox :-D
A man goes into a bakery in Ballymena and asks, "Have you sponge cake or merienge?" The baker replies, "No-you're right" :o
Quote from: Nally Stand on February 16, 2010, 04:51:19 AM
me why a party which calls themselves nationalist would oppose a council motion calling for All Ireland co-operation?
That's not necessarily against nationalism. It's probably against republicanism. The SDLP don't claim to be republican.
Going off on a slight tangent, but what will be the impact on the stability of the Union whenever Scotland vote and decide to go Independent. That day could be alot closer than people think given the most recent polls.
So we would then have a union of England, Wales and 'Northern' Ireland, with the Unionists in the north having lost their unionist link with their motherland i.e. Scotland.
Interesting times ahead.
I'd say little effect. It won't change the opinion of unionists and it won't change the opinion of republicans (if it happens). Depending on the success or failure of an independant Scotland willl only add wieght to whichever argument it suits. It's different too as the alternative to the north being in the union isn't an independnt north but a reunified ireland. Other than the the Scots can do what they want and we will do what we want.
What about a United Republic Of Ireland And Scotland?
Zapatista - sorry to be pedantic, but I have to challenge your assertion that the SDLP don't claim to be republican. A separate definition of "republican" has grown up in this country effectively due to acceptance of the hijacking of the term by the provos and its application to themselves and others who support the "physical force" tradition of Irish republicanism. The dictionary definition of "republican" is adherence to the principle that the people are sovereign and that government does not accommodate a monarchy. Every political party in the country adheres to that principle, as far as I know. We need to reclaim the term, if only for precision of language.
Quote from: Hardy on February 16, 2010, 12:30:01 PM
What about a United Republic Of Ireland And Scotland?
Zapatista - sorry to be pedantic, but I have to challenge your assertion that the SDLP don't claim to be republican. A separate definition of "republican" has grown up in this country effectively due to acceptance of the hijacking of the term by the provos and its application to themselves and others who support the "physical force" tradition of Irish republicanism. The dictionary definition of "republican" is adherence to the principle that the people are sovereign and that government does not accommodate a monarchy. Every political party in the country adheres to that principle, as far as I know. We need to reclaim the term, if only for precision of language.
Kind of agree with you there Hardy. Was also a hijacking of the tricolour and Irish language, like they don't belong to us all
Quote from: Hardy on February 16, 2010, 12:30:01 PM
What about a United Republic Of Ireland And Scotland?
Zapatista - sorry to be pedantic, but I have to challenge your assertion that the SDLP don't claim to be republican. A separate definition of "republican" has grown up in this country effectively due to acceptance of the hijacking of the term by the provos and its application to themselves and others who support the "physical force" tradition of Irish republicanism. The dictionary definition of "republican" is adherence to the principle that the people are sovereign and that government does not accommodate a monarchy. Every political party in the country adheres to that principle, as far as I know. We need to reclaim the term, if only for precision of language.
True to an extent. The SDLP don't claim to be republican though. They aren't apologetic about it either which is fair enoguh. They don't see the need to claim to be republican which is fair enough. I'm sure if they were offered a republic they would accept but they are in a place were the aren't and accept that. The SDLP don't have an end game of creating a new republic. They want to work within and improve the systems in place.
I disagree that SF hijacked the term republicanism. They were labled it by Unionist and the British media as to them it's almost a dirty word. It's still a dirty word to many of them and is used as another reason to fear SF. SF embraced it.
Personally I define Repulicans as those who try to spread republicanism. Those who start by making their own country a republic and then go on to promote it across the world. Just like a green tries to make thier own environment more green but also promote it across the world. All parties have a view on a greener environment but there is only on who prioritise it and promote it away from home. This is were many other parties fall as they are happy in their own republic but do nothing to promote republicanism. Not even to their fellow Irish people in the north.
Quote from: Nally Stand on February 16, 2010, 04:51:19 AM
Agree one hundred percent Trevor. I'd also put forward another one. For those who understand, no explanation is needed; for those who don't understand, no explanation will be good enough. ;-) Maybe in your old age wisdom you could put your anti-republicanism aside for a quick second and explain to me why a party which calls themselves nationalist would oppose a council motion calling for All Ireland co-operation?
Stil posting at that time? I hope SF is giving you a good shift allowance!
Quote from: Zapatista on February 16, 2010, 12:52:45 PM
True to an extent. The SDLP don't claim to be republican though. They aren't apologetic about it either which is fair enoguh. They don't see the need to claim to be republican which is fair enough. I'm sure if they were offered a republic they would accept but they are in a place were the aren't and accept that. The SDLP don't have an end game of creating a new republic. They want to work within and improve the systems in place.
Zap, thing about the SDLP is that it's a broad church. As such, there are people who have republican ideologies in the Irish sense, it's just not the single biggest issue the party have. I am not a member of the SDLP, I know some SDLP members though who are Republicans/republicans (whichever you prefer) It's funny that you point to them working the system from within when that's precisely what SF have now accepted as the only true democratic norm. I would contend that some members of the SDLP are as Republican/republican as some members of SF only they never participated in or supported a murderous campaign against fellow Irish citizens.
You assume i'm in Ireland at the minute Maguire :-P On the republican debate that has sprung up once again, Hardy again gives a base definition of it, however it has different strands across the world. Irish Republicanism has developed into it's own political philosophy which encompasses more than what you see in a dictionary definition of "republicanism". Certainly the SDLP are not Irish Republicans based on the evidence. I think they hit the nail on the head when they proclaimed to be post nationalist.
Zap where do you get off this bull that the IRA campaign was a "murder campaign against Irish fellow citizens". In their campaign, over 80% of those killed or injured were willing participants in the conflict. It wasn't some one sided murder campaign. And what kind of republican opposes All Ireland co-operation. I'm still trying to work that out.
Quote from: Nally Stand on February 16, 2010, 07:12:15 PM
Zap where do you get off this bull that the IRA campaign was a "murder campaign against Irish fellow citizens". In their campaign, over 80% of those killed or injured were willing participants in the conflict. It wasn't some one sided murder campaign. And what kind of republican opposes All Ireland co-operation. I'm still trying to work that out.
??? I think you got the wrong guy.
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on February 16, 2010, 07:03:17 PM
Zap, thing about the SDLP is that it's a broad church. As such, there are people who have republican ideologies in the Irish sense, it's just not the single biggest issue the party have. I am not a member of the SDLP, I know some SDLP members though who are Republicans/republicans (whichever you prefer) It's funny that you point to them working the system from within when that's precisely what SF have now accepted as the only true democratic norm.
I know the SDLP are a broad church. I wasn't having a go at them. There are people of all sorts in SF too. Those who oppose violence at all costs, those who support it in certain conditions, those who are nationalist and not republican(and vise versa) and those of left and right wing religous and economic ideals.
I don't find it one bit funny. The GFA brought this about. It is a different system than the one the SDLP took part in. It is also something SF were involved in creating. The comparison you make isn't a real comparison and holds no water when looked at objectively.
Quote from: Zapatista on February 16, 2010, 08:23:07 PM
I know the SDLP are a broad church. I wasn't having a go at them. There are people of all sorts in SF too. Those who oppose violence at all costs, those who support it in certain conditions, those who are nationalist and not republican(and vise versa) and those of left and right wing religous and economic ideals.
I don't find it one bit funny. The GFA brought this about. It is a different system than the one the SDLP took part in. It is also something SF were involved in creating. The comparison you make isn't a real comparison and holds no water when looked at objectively.
WRT your first point, I accept that SF is becoming a bit broader in terms of its support base, that only happened when they told their military people to jettison the armed struggle in favour of them sitting in pubs + clubs day in and day out.
In the article posted in the 'soon to be published voices from the grave' thread. Darkie Hughes tells the joke Q. 'What is the difference between a Sticky (Official IRA) and a Provie (Provisional IRA).
A. Twenty years.
Fact of the matter is, he was right. The current political setup in the north was best described by Seamus Mallon as 'Sunningdale for slow learners' - the same deal was on offer then and was rejected by unionists and republicans
ardmhachaabu I have never claimed to "know so much " about Sinn Fein, nor am i member or a big supporter (some of their policies are absurd). You accused some of our elected politicians of being murderers, i just think it should be made clear who just so as not to tar them all with the same brush etc. You perhaps are refusing to name names as you have nothing to back up your statement? Feel free to retract it at any time. If you don't want to answer that is fair enough, I will leave you to it. :)
dodgy, you know that would break the board rules. If you really want to know, do your own research on the current leadership of SF. Their backgrounds are well documented
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on February 16, 2010, 08:53:31 PM
dodgy, you know that would break the board rules. If you really want to know, do your own research on the current leadership of SF. Their backgrounds are well documented
Fair enough
I've said before on this thread that apart from the fact that sunningdale was not the same as the Good Friday Agreement, the conditions at that time were not realistic for it to work. The British was machine was at full swing then. Until Britain wound this down and took the peace process seriously, it would never have worked. This was the very reason for the Canary Wharf attack. It's been a struggle enough in peace time.
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on February 16, 2010, 08:43:36 PM
]WRT your first point, I accept that SF is becoming a bit broader in terms of its support base, that only happened when they told their military people to jettison the armed struggle in favour of them sitting in pubs + clubs day in and day out.
In the article posted in the 'soon to be published voices from the grave' thread. Darkie Hughes tells the joke Q. 'What is the difference between a Sticky (Official IRA) and a Provie (Provisional IRA).
A. Twenty years.
Fact of the matter is, he was right. The current political setup in the north was best described by Seamus Mallon as 'Sunningdale for slow learners' - the same deal was on offer then and was rejected by unionists and republicans
SF didn't jettison the armed struggle. The IRA called an end to the armed struggle. SF were no more than a support group for the IRA. SF evoled from the end of the struggle. The IRA were in charge of all the proceedings and as they left the stage SF filled the vacume.
With respect to Dark he was wrong. The stickies left the stage when the brits were shooting innocent people who were looking for civil rights. The Provo's left at the GFA. Again your comparison doesn't hold water. Mallon was wrong too. The GFA was a product of all the concerned parties in agreement at a time when peace was a real (as has been proven) possibilty. Sunningdale was concoted in the middle of a war by a fraction of those involved. There was no way Sunningdale waould have worked. If you take the last few weeks and the thin line the GFA was hanging on after 12 years of relative peace how could you consider sunningdale would have worked? Again, the dark's and Mallons points don't hold water when really compared.
Zap, we may differ in our analysis but it's always interesting to read your thoughts
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on February 16, 2010, 09:22:52 PM
Zap, we may differ in our analysis but it's always interesting to read your thoughts
Likewise.
P.s you're right zap, addressed that to the wrong person! Apologies!